The vast majority of people see their work as something that they need to do so they can pay the bills. Many have children to provide for.
As stated in the article, you have everything to lose and nothing to gain by talking about politics.
If you politics and that of the organisation is incompatible it is often better to look for new employment. I don't work in certain industries because in conflicts with my personal politics.
> Would that be appropriate if your co-workers were being removed by ICE agents in front of you? That's a political act.
I would keep my mouth shut. My commentary on this event would not help a co-worker and could land me in hot water. So what benefit is there for commentating on the matter? None.
> Not speaking about politics is a luxury afforded to some because of the political life enacted by so many previous generations.
> That seems like an incredibly selfish way of thinking.
Not at all. Many times you will find yourself wanting to take action but it would be counter productive.
e.g. I had a superior leave a bunch of papers on my desk. I assumed they were for me and starting reading. It had a list of redundancies. Some of these people I knew and was quite friendly with. If I had told them, I could have potentially got myself in a bunch of shit. They would still have been made redundant whether I had warned them or not.
What is the benefit in that situation of warning them? That is your initial instinct right? There is none. I only hurt myself, and they do not benefit. Sometimes your involvement will be counter productive.
Sometimes it is not the right place, the right time, or you might not even be the right person to champion a cause.
BTW, If you have dependants e.g. Most parents prioritise them over their own lives. That is the opposite of being selfish.
> You have everything to lose by _not_ talking about politics.
Nonsense. I have no obligation to engage in political discussion and often engaging in it has a number of negative consequences.
Some families are estranged over divisive political issues. I was estranged from my family (I had substance abuse problems), I have since repaired that relationships. But I won't get that time back.
As previously stated you can talk about it outside of work. Politics is often talked about at length, in bars, clubs, between neighbours and online. Why does it also have to be at the place of work? There is a time and a place for things.
People talk about politics all the time in some form or the other, in fact it wormed it way into almost everything unfortunately. So I think that just isn't true.
You seem to insistent that it should be talked about at the work place, despite the rationale for not discussing it is quite sound. So I don't really think there is point in continuing.
About political talk: "If you stay quiet: No loss, potential small gain (being seen as professional)"
Later on, you get Communism in America and people will not even know what hit them. Massive loss. People that speak up, often don't do it for their own gain.
Well this sems true, i think it incorrectly models why people do the things they do.
Re politics and work
Yes, talking politics at work is mindnumbingly stupid. However i think the gain people get from it is that people who deeply care about politics tie it to morality. Talking about it at work is an expensive signal about your beliefs. To some people there is a lot of value in this.
Interesting but boring approach. I think he weighs the social positives to low and the consequences of disagreement to high.
Lets take politics at work.
If you talk about politics and everyone agrees then you know you are working along side aligned people. Which is good and it can be fun to talk politics and see why people think the way they do.
If people disagree thats fine. If theyget mad thats on them. You can always retreat to only professional interaction and if they want to break that by being petty or mean then the manager can sort that out. If your views are so insane you are getting kicked out of groups then you should probably reconsider why you hold those views or why you work with these people.
As for looking professional, do you want to be a robot or a human? Of course your boss would rather you be a blank robot who just gets on with work but they are hiring a human and humans are allowed to express themselves.
> If you talk about politics and everyone agrees then you know you are working along side aligned people.
You state that as it it's a a truism. There are many times when having a group not be homogeneous allows for a greater breadth of knowledge and consideration to be brought to bear on a topic.
The point of being professional is that it's a way to allow people that may be very different to coexist and function together, sometimes to great effect.
> If you talk about politics and everyone agrees then you know you are working along side aligned people.
Except you don't know this. People depend on their jobs. If they're the only one who holds an alternate view, they may not figure it worth it. Why risk alienating yourself and potentially be seen as less likeable, which might put your means of income at risk?
In an example of that from academia[1], 88% of college students said they had pretended to hold beliefs they didn't have in order to protect themselves socially or academically.
Indeed, it took me many years to learn to incorporate silence as a form of face-to-face feedback, and even to this day I still cannot use it skillfully.
Most people tend to be good at extrapolating in incomplete info games, and depending on the risk aversion culture of whatever situation you're in, this means that most people will react defensively.
You learn this so vividly in Silicon Valley particularly with VCs, where staying mum is almost always the best strategy. VCs act as little reactive microprocessors dealing with too many signals, and the less information you give them the easier it is for them to arrive at a decision or strategy. Instead, there's a bias for founders to do the opposite when raising (or salesmen when closing), which is to overshare information thinking there's just one more bit of data that they can provide which will unlock the magical outcome they want. It's a habit of smart but otherwise inexperienced people fall into a trap of in negotiations.
There's tons of other competing externalities too like emotion and market signalling and stuff (eg repeated n-person incomplete games), but if you removed all of that just boiled it down to strategic decision making, this is what game theory teaches us.
Yes, I agree, pausing to imagine how people will react to your words is generally a good move.
Do people really need to be told this?
(I actually know the answer is yes, I just wish it was "no"...)
The politics example is from a very specific worldview.
Would that be appropriate if your co-workers were being removed by ICE agents in front of you? That's a political act.
Not speaking about politics is a luxury afforded to some because of the political life enacted by so many previous generations.
No it isn't from a specific worldview.
The vast majority of people see their work as something that they need to do so they can pay the bills. Many have children to provide for.
As stated in the article, you have everything to lose and nothing to gain by talking about politics.
If you politics and that of the organisation is incompatible it is often better to look for new employment. I don't work in certain industries because in conflicts with my personal politics.
> Would that be appropriate if your co-workers were being removed by ICE agents in front of you? That's a political act.
I would keep my mouth shut. My commentary on this event would not help a co-worker and could land me in hot water. So what benefit is there for commentating on the matter? None.
> Not speaking about politics is a luxury afforded to some because of the political life enacted by so many previous generations.
You can talk about it. Just don't do it at work.
That seems like an incredibly selfish way of thinking.
You have everything to lose by _not_ talking about politics.
> That seems like an incredibly selfish way of thinking.
Not at all. Many times you will find yourself wanting to take action but it would be counter productive.
e.g. I had a superior leave a bunch of papers on my desk. I assumed they were for me and starting reading. It had a list of redundancies. Some of these people I knew and was quite friendly with. If I had told them, I could have potentially got myself in a bunch of shit. They would still have been made redundant whether I had warned them or not.
What is the benefit in that situation of warning them? That is your initial instinct right? There is none. I only hurt myself, and they do not benefit. Sometimes your involvement will be counter productive.
Sometimes it is not the right place, the right time, or you might not even be the right person to champion a cause.
BTW, If you have dependants e.g. Most parents prioritise them over their own lives. That is the opposite of being selfish.
> You have everything to lose by _not_ talking about politics.
Nonsense. I have no obligation to engage in political discussion and often engaging in it has a number of negative consequences.
Some families are estranged over divisive political issues. I was estranged from my family (I had substance abuse problems), I have since repaired that relationships. But I won't get that time back.
As previously stated you can talk about it outside of work. Politics is often talked about at length, in bars, clubs, between neighbours and online. Why does it also have to be at the place of work? There is a time and a place for things.
I dunno, at the place of work because that's where power is exercised - which is what politics is?
But ok, let's not talk about Miguel who "no longer works here" or Sara who had to move to a different state.
> I dunno, at the place of work because that's where power is exercised - which is what politics is?
That isn't what is commonly understood. Especially in the scope of this discussion.
Arguably because people no longer talk about politics.
People talk about politics all the time in some form or the other, in fact it wormed it way into almost everything unfortunately. So I think that just isn't true.
You seem to insistent that it should be talked about at the work place, despite the rationale for not discussing it is quite sound. So I don't really think there is point in continuing.
About political talk: "If you stay quiet: No loss, potential small gain (being seen as professional)"
Later on, you get Communism in America and people will not even know what hit them. Massive loss. People that speak up, often don't do it for their own gain.
Why would the historically fascist country, one that has spent untold fortunes suppressing communism globally, magically become communist?
Game theory to score and evaluate politics at the office? Absolute silly.
Well this sems true, i think it incorrectly models why people do the things they do.
Re politics and work
Yes, talking politics at work is mindnumbingly stupid. However i think the gain people get from it is that people who deeply care about politics tie it to morality. Talking about it at work is an expensive signal about your beliefs. To some people there is a lot of value in this.
Interesting but boring approach. I think he weighs the social positives to low and the consequences of disagreement to high.
Lets take politics at work.
If you talk about politics and everyone agrees then you know you are working along side aligned people. Which is good and it can be fun to talk politics and see why people think the way they do.
If people disagree thats fine. If theyget mad thats on them. You can always retreat to only professional interaction and if they want to break that by being petty or mean then the manager can sort that out. If your views are so insane you are getting kicked out of groups then you should probably reconsider why you hold those views or why you work with these people.
As for looking professional, do you want to be a robot or a human? Of course your boss would rather you be a blank robot who just gets on with work but they are hiring a human and humans are allowed to express themselves.
> If you talk about politics and everyone agrees then you know you are working along side aligned people.
You state that as it it's a a truism. There are many times when having a group not be homogeneous allows for a greater breadth of knowledge and consideration to be brought to bear on a topic.
The point of being professional is that it's a way to allow people that may be very different to coexist and function together, sometimes to great effect.
There is no work-relevant knowledge I'm missing out on by avoiding Republicans
> If you talk about politics and everyone agrees then you know you are working along side aligned people.
Except you don't know this. People depend on their jobs. If they're the only one who holds an alternate view, they may not figure it worth it. Why risk alienating yourself and potentially be seen as less likeable, which might put your means of income at risk?
In an example of that from academia[1], 88% of college students said they had pretended to hold beliefs they didn't have in order to protect themselves socially or academically.
[1] https://thehill.com/opinion/education/5446702-performative-v...
For the project predicament, the gain only matters if you are incentivised to care - the gain is the company's, not necessarily yours.
Indeed, it took me many years to learn to incorporate silence as a form of face-to-face feedback, and even to this day I still cannot use it skillfully.
Most people tend to be good at extrapolating in incomplete info games, and depending on the risk aversion culture of whatever situation you're in, this means that most people will react defensively.
You learn this so vividly in Silicon Valley particularly with VCs, where staying mum is almost always the best strategy. VCs act as little reactive microprocessors dealing with too many signals, and the less information you give them the easier it is for them to arrive at a decision or strategy. Instead, there's a bias for founders to do the opposite when raising (or salesmen when closing), which is to overshare information thinking there's just one more bit of data that they can provide which will unlock the magical outcome they want. It's a habit of smart but otherwise inexperienced people fall into a trap of in negotiations.
There's tons of other competing externalities too like emotion and market signalling and stuff (eg repeated n-person incomplete games), but if you removed all of that just boiled it down to strategic decision making, this is what game theory teaches us.
Appreciate the post, … and also his excellent book collection!
>The quiet observer who speaks only when it truly matters
Never do that unless you're around the top of the hierarchy.
[dead]