deebosong

True. The practical reality is that it causes colleagues to divert limited resources to address this web of lies. No one wants to do that unless you're a fiend for emotional drama (practically speaking, some are desperate to gather any and all ammo to use against each other). For everyone else, it's emotional labor. And no one is getting paid to do emotional labor (unless that's the unspoken agreement that isn't written in their job descriptions).

If you really wanna out a liar and come out clean on the other end, it's just so much documentation, emotional decision trees, how to phrase & frame & present things, etc. etc. etc.

Often, the compulsive liar will out themselves, create their own demise, or be enabled and further empowered by a toxic system that rewards such types (which if possible, you'd wanna get out of ASAP because prolonged exposure leaves lasting damage to anyone in such systems).

No need to take any pot shots at this trash in terms of aesthetic efficacy in earnest, if y'all know what I mean. But as an experiment, it's interesting. There seems to be an odd consistency to all of them, which reveals a kind of internal logic & coherence of sorts that courses throughout any iteration.

Aesthetically, where can you place these? I feel like the late David Lynch could have used some tropes in his unnerving, unsettling dream sequences (a la the intro dream in "Mulholland Drive" where people are so cheery and upbeat that it feels viscerally disturbing).

That's the consistent feeling that I'm left with watching each one, is just a deep, deep unsettled and uneasy feeling. A scowl on my face the whole time trying to make through each one.

I did crack up seeing a martini glass presented to the camera, then float in place on it's own and the presenter resumes holding it with his other hand.

Everything else made me nauseous.

I like what you're saying.

There's a quote in The Wire, when an ex-cop becomes a teacher in some of the toughest schools. The principal says to the new teacher about to be thrown into the gauntlet, "You need soft eyes."

Feels similar to what you're pointing out.

The real treasure was the weak ties we made along the way.

Jokes aside I do agree with you! The little things actually build up to the big things. Trying to insist on the big things via big-things-methods, that somehow forego the little things that comprise it all, will ironically have you miss the actual big thing. (Which might not be what you're pointing at... but I am!)

To your point, I've come across many who conflate the 2.

Wisdom seems like making good choices for long-term positive outcomes, where there are no rulebooks, lots of uncertainty, and the incentives thrown in your face to act in one direction are only a tiny fraction of the whole picture.

Intelligence seems like an aptitude to grasp concepts that lend itself to wielding a specific thing to a certain utilitarian end.

I'm sure others have said it better than me. But the folks I've met who are obviously intelligent seem to lack the ability to understand the consequences of their choices, and have already predetermined they're not only justified in their myopia, but somehow assume/ presume social support from everyone around them no matter how short-sighted their ideas are that come with obvious negative consequences if you look even one-step beyond their immediate outcomes.

Something like that. All to support your point.

In relationships, offloading personal responsibility onto someone else (aka blaming another person for your choices and behaviors and thoughts and actions) is something like projection, blame-shifting, codependency.

This makes any healthy relationship impossible, as no one can be responsible for someone else's decisions and actions.

Many emotionally immature folks appeal to this and use guilt and shame to get another person to believe they are responsible for someone else's emotions & choices. It's textbook toxic.

Reminds me of crypto. A lotta tokens. A lotta gambling. Very little supplanting of crypto from fiat. Very few use-cases that revolutionize society, etc.

My take is:

Toxic positivity is just as bad as toxic negativity.

Cynicism seems to fall under toxic negativity, in that it presumes negative intent before even finding out if it's true.

I think the article suggests being willing to find out, and take a stand towards choosing to influence your immediate circle to be allies, comrades, amongst fellow "soldiers in the trenches together," rather than just assuming everyone's in it for themselves and therefore there's no point in giving effort to be human towards one another.

I do like what the author says at the end, that even if our influence may seem tiny and insignificant, that it has impact if we notice.

I do think cynicism can be cancerous. I don't equate cynicism with a realistic assessment of an actually bad situation (which is where toxic positivity will want to bypass, brush it under the rug, stick their head in the sand, etc.).

Respect.

I'm gonna start using "shitlit" from hereon out.

And also, there are people I respect who said they read 100+ books a year, and that you should, too. But while others in my circles were eager to jump on the train, for me, I thought it would be performative, and be about having read said 100+ books than digesting any of it. And what more, I recall that I best retain info via reading if I have skin in the game, rather than feeling like reading makes me appear more approvable to others.

All that is to say, it's good to hear from someone who reads a ton that a lot of your reading is kinda junk stuff (even if 150+ books a year is still a crazy metric – and as a tangent, people who ride bikes a ton say that a lot of their miles they rack up are junk miles, so I'm sure there's an equivalent of shitlit in any pursuit/ hobby/ interest/ endeavor).

Just make up new titles.

Super Senior. Super Senior II. Hyper Senior II Turbo. Super Senior: Ultra Instinct.

My world is richer for reading this. I absolutely can see it. Like Redline meets Cowboy Bebop. Both can be b-side vignettes in a larger futuristic SNES world. Not so sure about Star Fox being in the mix, but not entirely out of the question either. But F-Zero & Metroid is a wonderful pairing.

This is frickin hilarious. Your awe and wonder at it, your wife's repulsion, and your eulogy hahaha

I side with this school of thought.

Just call the emotions what they are, accept them in the form of not dressing them up and putting some spin on them to make people feel better about themselves (and ultimately dance around the actual emotion, via forms of denial, bypassing, etc.). And once you accept them for the simple, unadorned, and sometimes unflattering things that they are, you can then process them, and decide via understanding the root causes, contexts, and triggers, to then map out decision trees for how to respond to those feelings and emotions as the best course of action.

And like you mentioned, if you don't address the actual emotions and try to pretty them up, you're gonna leak out the actual emotions sideways, and cause unnecessary strain to those around you, and ultimately place your burden of being responsible for your emotions on others, and most likely throw up a big stink (in the form of projection, more denial, more bypassing, etc.).

Emotional intelligence, self-awareness, and responsibility are very difficult but necessary things, and they often times are unflattering. But like also many other things, there's no shortcuts to learning how to manage and deal with them in real situations with real stakes.

Your boss sounds like they have an extremely rigid view of what emotions are and aren't "correct" in any given setting. Sounds controlling, and lacking a fundamental understanding of reality, people, and basic empathy.

I don't think all bosses are like this, but the ones who express these views in critical junctures that reveal their character and world views as such, I think it's safe to say that they indeed are intellectually and developmentally blunted (of the emotional intelligence, interpersonal relationship, and leadership dynamics variety) in a manner that can cause legitimate harm to anyone under their authority and has to take orders from them.