> “The final feature is a reduced sense of personal accomplishment,” Santos said. “You never feel like you’re doing things effectively and so you feel ineffective and like the work you do doesn’t matter. If you notice signs like this, it’s important that you pay attention early on and make some changes in order to feel better.”
I wonder if this had to do with the fact that in modern society, we often have to go through great mental loops to convince ourselves that our jobs are meaningful. After all, they are very far away from doing things like obtaining food and shelter or even learning things we are curious about.
At some point, I feel like the illusion cannot be held for long: it starts in school when the learning is onstensibly about curiosity but then the gradient between curiosity-driven learning and being a cog slowly eats away at the facade that we have constructed in our minds of actually doing something useful in society until burnout becomes inevitable.
Seems rather obvious as society these days is mostly about furthering advanced technology for very little benefit to the average person except that it keeps the economy going only due to the fact that the economy itself is based on broken principles not compatible with our amazingly high human population density.
Not only that, the rate of change is increasing or speeding up. Brains are not really capable of handling constant change.
There is much more to learn. There are more unknowns. And there is much more competition.
If you take competitive sports and look at size of support stuff its ridiculous these days compared to 20 years back. There is coach, physio, shrink, nutritionist, biz manager, social media manager etc
So now extrapolate and imagine what things will look like 10 years or 20 years from now on the that trend line. Its just not sustainable.
People have to think about rate of change in the environment that surrounds us.
Everything feels like that all the time. And yet we constantly find
ourselves 10 years down the line, with years of exponential growth
piled on top, and some post-Malthusian explanation of how "actually it
is sustainable if we just keep pushing through and believe in
progress".
I'm not saying this or that _is_ sustainable, just that the point
people declare it "unsustainable" is often only the beginning. It's a
(mis)perception David Goggins speaks of a lot - about just how much
deeper an organism can dig in crisis, or how low our pain/risk
thresholds are set. Maybe we unconsciously factor that in.
Personally I think that's reckless and we are better heeding warning
signs. But if we'd done that in 1970 climate change wouldn't be a
thing, right.
Well, so far we have proof of unsustainability: we've already raised the extinction rate of species hundreds of times the background rate. So, already unsustainable.
Very useful comment: the rate of change is just as important as the nature of the change. Hence why the change through evolution in the biosphere is generally much more stable that the change brought upon us by technological innovation.
>I wonder if this had to do with the fact that in modern society, we often have to go through great mental loops to convince ourselves that our jobs are meaningful.
Especially since a lot of them are not.
It's often corporations acting as middlemen and extracting value like parasites, bussiness making bullshit for conspicuous consumption, modern mega-bloated bureaucracy and busy work
Was it ever any different? I’m very skeptical that there was ever a time when the average person did personally meaningful and constructive work.
I think we all have this sense that life should be nothing but personal fulfillment, and anything getting in the way of that is a problem. And maybe it’s even true that that’s how things “should” be, but I really don’t think it ever has been.
What about when the majority of people were farmers. Growing and harvesting your own food so you don't die this coming winter seems about as meaningful and constructive as it gets.
Were the majority of people ever farmers who were entirely self-sufficient, and not producing food for the local gentry or warlord or whatever? Genuinely curious, was there a time when the majority of humans were self sufficient, enjoyed the fruits of their own labor, were not conscripted into tribal / feudal / corporate endeavors?
In the same way digging ditches and then filling them up isn't meaningful. Creating things that last for a year or two, creating food that leaves you hungry, drinks that leave you thirsty. Designing things just to create work instead of value.
I think that they are talking specifically about conspicuous consumption. That is: consuming things just to display to society that you have the resources to consume them.
In the same vein, I was thinking recently about how this ever increasing number of “abstraction layers” in the economy impacts day to day life and community–I think it’s much more likely someone would feel connected to their community and a sense of purpose in life if they, for example, worked out of their own small bakery and met their customers all day, versus working in the back room of a corporate chain supermarket making minimum wage. We seem to be losing things that anchor our communities together, and I wonder if being directly dependent on other people in the community, as opposed to indirectly through layers of bigger, abstract businesses, isn’t one.
There are obvious myriad and complex reasons we’ve arrived where we are, but it’s an interesting topic to ponder. I’ve also thought this shift could be responsible for other societal phenomena: it’s fairly well known that some portion of people are pretty awful to the people working in shops or restaurants. Is this perhaps a behavior that only really develops in a world where people rarely visit owner-operated businesses (where they might face consequences for treating the owner poorly)?
It's helped me a lot to move to a small town that is thriving near a big city, then volunteer on ambulance and firefighting. I see my neighbors every day when they most need help.
I get to show up and give them a helping hand. In just two years I've met so many people and made so many friends.
It helps to feel like I'm doing something valuable to society and not just fixing the validation on an input form for the 1000th time. I feel deeply connected to my neighbors now in a way that I never would have imagined.
It also breaks up the day to get to run down for a call, and not just be stuck behind a keyboard all day. Sometimes I'll go work from the station, which has great AC and WiFi.
Likewise, I’ve become a parent and moved into a small community and it feels a lot better for sure. Im still ball tied to a corpo for a living but even that seems to have got somewhat more bearable by being part of some community.
I worked at a company making project management software and, although in the grand scheme of things the product wasn’t meaningful, I enjoyed working on it until the company tripled in size and I was fixing bugs for enterprise support team number 3.
I like making things. People find satisfaction in toy making as well (especially at nerf, from what I hear), even though toys are not inherently meaningful.
What killed it for me was realizing that my individual contributions didn’t affect anything with the product.
> People find satisfaction in toy making as well (especially at nerf, from what I hear), even though toys are not inherently meaningful.
I think toys are meaningful. They encourage exploration and fun. That's certainly meaningful and fun is a basic human instinct. What isn't meaningful is that which does not contribute to an increase in human happiness in the long-run, such as the creation of new iterations of phone models that last only a few years just so people have to upgrade.
It's difficult to define meaningful, but I would include that which allows people to enjoy their life in a sustainable world that is compatible with creating opportunities for freely exploring all aspects of human existence, while maintaining respect for other living beings. Much of what we do in the modern world is not that.
Maybe on a market/profit level. On an interpersonal level, though, joy is not valued. If someone feels that you are expressing joy they are very likely to view you less than they did before. We find the expression of joy to be distasteful and childish, and culturally are disdainful towards it. Only cynicism and stoicism are acceptable.
I'm a youtuber and software developer with a small but determined following.
Almost all of that has been gained, not through the quality of my work, but the degree of enthusiasm I showed for it. It's on me to make sure I'm still going in the right direction, because my audience will be swept up in the enthusiasm.
Joy is not only valued, but it is marketable. So is anger. Cynicism is considerably less marketable, and stoicism isn't really observable at all: you're probably thinking of expressions of woe implying great burden and suffering.
When you specifically say on an interpersonal and cultural level that "joy is not valued", and "only cynicism and stoicism are acceptable", that's a screaming red flag that you aren't hanging out with the right people.
Also, who gives a fuck if someone else looks down on you for being happy? Let them wallow in their own misery and judgment. You don’t need their approval. Live for yourself and not for others.
P.S. You might be surprised to find out what they are actually thinking. It’s usually not what you imagined.
The surprise has come because what they are thinking is, in fact that expressions of joy make them respect you less. They hide it, but only for so long.
You don’t get to express joy to family or friends or partners. They will have less respect for you.
You do not get to be an adult man and feel joy about anything. You certainly don’t get to express it.
I’m sorry your friends and family look down on you for expressing joy.
If I was guessing, they don’t actually disrespect you less. They are actually jealous, but don’t feel comfortable expressing their own joy, so they take it out on you, to pull you back down. They probably aren’t even aware that’s why they are doing it.
But that’s a problem with them, not you. You aren’t responsible for their emotional disregulation. It’s your job to take care of you, before you help others. Put on your oxygen mask first, yeah?
It’s a sad life to be rigidly beholden to only express emotions in ways that you imagine others would approve of.
If you care about the person or have the time, then it is good to at least consider their views and feelings (which are often different than what we imagine them to be — you can only find out if you go to the source of truth and ask them. This might sound scary but in a healthy relationship it’s okay to talk about this stuff), but you don’t have to be beholden to them.
And, of course, it should go without saying that doesn’t mean you should completely ignore the current circumstances. E.g. If you are at a funeral, you should tread more lightly, obviously. Every situation is unique, and you have to use your judgment.
It’s ok to do things other people don’t like, as long as you aren’t a jerk about it. Live authentically and listen to your inner voice. Do so with kindness, wisdom, and courage. You might be surprised by the positive reactions you get from others.
Good luck to you.
P.S. This is so important I have to say it twice. Everyone has issues and will project those issues in the way the interact with the world around them. It's not our job to cater to the issues of others. It's our job to take care of ourselves and live honestly and authentically. Sure, we make compromises for those that we love, but we want to do so because of that love, not because we are afraid of what they might be thinking.
The thing is that in the past, the "non-useful" work (e.g. intellectual work) was often backed up by a philosophical and religious system. Now there is no sacredness to Reason or to science. In a totally secular worldview (I'm an atheist myself) there isn't an inherent value to doing that kind of work.
To be fair, philosophers and religious figure throughout history have struggled with "acedia"[1]; which seems very much like something we'd call burnout today.
Yeah I don't think that burnout is a modern problem at all. But I think that I can point to certain aspects in modern society that cause it that may not have been present before, such as the completely emphasis on utility over everything else, and a spiritual and philosophical desertification.
I grew up in the UK which has the most extreme sense of "anything unproductive is useless". I completely failed my English oral test but because I was good at Maths and Science they just wrote "A" in my grade for GCSE English anyway. Who cares about humanities education (low wage, low GDP, likely unemployment) if you are good at Maths? Many people on this website will even swear there is no downside to foregoing an education in literature, philosophy, art, etc. We also don't have a liberal education at university: I studied physics and only physics for my entire university education.
I sympathise with the article you posted. It's interesting that it has been historically considered a moral failure and even punished:
> The Benedictine Rule directed that a monk displaying the outward signs of acedia should;–
> "be reproved a first and a second time. If he does not amend he must be subjected to the punishment of the rule so that the others may have fear."
Much of my shame over burnout came from knowing it was sinful. I don't think letting go of that shame has helped, though.
I think the problem is not a secular worldview per se (and I am a Christian myself) but a materialist secular worldview that encourages things like the hustle culture and the undervaluing of personal relationships and community.
I got a PhD myself. And I think it's definitely at least partially true: I was told flat-out that I should stick to big-business style research (i.e. research areas with large, complex and directed research plans) and forget following my own curiosity. Of course, once you get tenure in places where it exists or you make it, you can deviate from that.
It's even worse in industry, where I worked after academia. I felt like I was using 5% of my brain to do things I was bored to death with. This isn't just me either: many of the people I've worked with feel the same, including virtually all my fellow PhD students.
I feel like the only thing keeping it going is the novelty of working in new places, meeting new people, and getting new projects. It's almost as if we have a basal attraction to novelty because it's a survival instinct, but we have distilled life so that novelty is the only thing left, stripped of substance long ago when we traded thought for automation.
Of course, it's even harder to see it because we have "propagandists" (i.e. then 1% of people who have carved out a protective bubble for themselves due to a combination of luck, ingenuity, and gaming the system) that say that amazing things are happening.
I think a lot of people aren't necessarily happy because they're highly skilled at it, but because its a default state of being. If it was purely a skill then environmental or biological factors wouldn't play any role.
If anything, we learn to be unhappy. It's no secret how toxic academia can be - I would say the original commenter's personal observation that only 1% of people are happy is probably because many people around them are deeply unhappy.
I know I felt this way when I was in a different career. Once I moved out of that field, I was astounded to find out that people are actually not depressed most of the time. I won't lie, the improved financial situation that followed was a big factor - it's definitely easier to be happy when you're not poor!
So, I agree, a recalibration is in order. But that might involve removing yourself from certain social groups as much as it requires a thought pattern adjustment.
I never claimed that only 1% of people are happy. You are reading my comment far too literally. People can find meaning in their lives independent of their work, even if they hate their job. Nor do I think that people are happy because they are lucky, or that people who are happy are true propagandists.
I only meant that not many people can find true meaning in their work only, and that this phenomenon is far from a theoretical optimum. Of course, people that find meaning in their work aren't literal propagandists. Only, their efforts and enthusiasm is promoted as propaganda as an emergent property of the system that needs their efforts in order to support a pathological system.
There is a bit of a problem with the Internet tending to amplify negative views, giving you the impression that everyone is unhappy - no, it's just that all the unhappy people are on the Internet all the time.
Maybe people are depressed because of the ideas that:
- happiness comes from outside yourself
- the world is fucked (people who think this tend to blame the economy, the environment, the threat of nuclear war)
- humans are weak and ineffectual, so we can't change the environment or ourselves
Why do these ideas exist? Because people trying to sell us on voting this way or that (illegal immigrants are ruining the country! big bad corporates are ruining the environment!) or spending our money a certain way first have to convince us that the status quo is unacceptable and that they alone can effect change.
Get rid of these ideas and watch your well-being skyrocket.
And while happiness needs the "inside yourself", it also needs the outside. Especially the outside that affects the inside, like reduce socialization and spaces to meet causing loneliness, social media and "personal highlight reels" posts from thousands that one sees causing feeling of inadequacy and missing out, an economic climate that brings precarity and uncertainty, etc.
Of course if you e.g. make $200+ plus stock bonuses and such a year in a cushy IT job you might dispute the latter is a thing, and if you're an introverted "hacker" type, you might dispute the former is a thing as well. It's like billionaires saying "everybody can succeed, just look at my and my unicorn 1 in 1000000 company".
And while we can be happy even with bad external conditions (e.g. third world poverty) it's very possible that we cannot be happy with all kinds of bad external conditions, e.g. a damaged social fabric, widespread atomization of society, meaningless work, status and income uncertainty in a consumerist (not a third world, where everybody is poor anyway) society, and so on.
I don't think they made the claim that only 1% of people are happy, but 1% are "propagandists" as defined by having carved out protections for themselves. Which sort of carries weight if looking at wealth distribution of the global economy and discounting the likelihood of people having a fulfilling life below the top 1% wealth level. But it's silly to discount that 99% of the population in my opinion.
>If you think: -only 1% of people are happy, they are happy because they are lucky, every happy person is a propagandist, you need immediate recalibration of your worldview. You only live once, and you ought to be happy.*
The universe doesn't give a fuck, and having one life is not a guarantee or a contract to anything, much less "hapiness" (itself ill-defined).
The fact that the universe isn't capable of giving a fuck one way or the other is immensely invigorating to me. It means it's all up to me. There's no god or gods with their thumbs on the scale one way or the other.
(Life doesn't have to be fair for your outcomes to be all up to you, by the way. You're dealt a hand of cards, and you can play them well or you can play them poorly.)
Well, the configuration of thumbs on the scale is set when you’re born. You could be born in a poor/rich family, healthy/disfunctional family/country, you are inheriting some generic material that may play well or not in the environment where you grow up and so on. Yes, some of it is up to you later on in life but getting there in the first place is not a given.
> I wonder if this had to do with the fact that in modern society, we often have to go through great mental loops to convince ourselves that our jobs are meaningful.
Most of our jobs are not meaningful. They'll carry no impact beyond our tenure, the company's existence, and so on. Most don't help society in any form or fashion, sans generating revenue.
One thing you can do is think about having a meaningful life instead of job. Your job doesn't have to be meaningful in order to have a meaningful life.
when i'm feeling down about the meaninglessness of my company/work, i try to find small wins wherever i can.
someday you'll be stuck untangling a giant muddy ball of legacy code to help a company solve a problem that you don't care about (or even arguably makes the world worse). but just re-scope your expectations and realize that "hey, i made life a little easier for some of your coworkers by fixing some annoying things
Hunter Gatherer: collect nuts, tubers, kill some bison.
Modern Man: get the money, collect some skills, fire some underlings.
Maybe our brain has adapted those base instincts. And modern burn out is more equivalent to what early man would experience in a famine, during times of scarcity.
If you can't get the money, you starve.
Burn Out is the Modern Man equivalent to the stress the Early Man would feel in a harsh environment and near starving.
That's odd: during my K-12 I had believed (encouraged by MAD magazine?) that school was where we learned how to find meaning in life, despite spending large chunks of it in granfalloons paying (just enough) attention to things other people have deemed Important?
Exactly: the take I got from MAD is that the lesson Education teaches is not what it claims to be teaching, but how to survive, if not thrive, between the lines of a bureaucracy. If you manage to live despite the machine in K-12 (when the bureaucracy is at its strongest), then it's all downhill later in life, when you could actually spend time in a karass or two, and at least get more and more control over what you're doing, when, and with whom.
Womeone is paying me to do a thing. Therefore, what I'm doing must, at least on average and over the long term, be so valuable to some number of people that it's worth continuing those payments.
That's not that abstract to me, and it certainly feels meaningful.
They can pay because they had make a mistake or don't have a knowledge.
For example I was working with a team of 6 creating a project for a bank that was discontinued after 3 months, without any reason and code was simply deleted.
> Womeone is paying me to do a thing. Therefore, what I'm doing must, at least on average and over the long term, be so valuable to some number of people that it's worth continuing those payments.
I feel that is not a logical conclusion. What if someone paid a hitman to kill their boss because they got into a fight with them and they aren't emotionally stable enough to have a discussion?
Yes, an extreme example, but consider this: not every increase in perceived value is necessarily good.
An extreme example indeed, and a heinous one, which is probably why contact killings are so rare and so expensive. My key operating words of "on average" and "over the long term" are in full effect here.
I direct interested readers to David Friedman's _The Machinery of Freedom_ for some worked examples of how capitalism might minimize such actions from taking place.
I highly doubt it. Look at artists, what they do can hardly be described as "survival" or "productive". Yet they seem to get a great amount of joy from their work. Even if no other person cares.
I wonder if this had to do with the fact that in modern society, we often have to go through great mental loops to convince ourselves that our jobs are meaningful. After all, they are very far away from doing things like obtaining food and shelter or even learning things we are curious about.
At some point, I feel like the illusion cannot be held for long: it starts in school when the learning is onstensibly about curiosity but then the gradient between curiosity-driven learning and being a cog slowly eats away at the facade that we have constructed in our minds of actually doing something useful in society until burnout becomes inevitable.
Seems rather obvious as society these days is mostly about furthering advanced technology for very little benefit to the average person except that it keeps the economy going only due to the fact that the economy itself is based on broken principles not compatible with our amazingly high human population density.