this post was submitted on 12 Sep 2024
118 points (97.6% liked)

neurodiverse

1724 readers
5 users here now

What is Neurodivergence?

It's ADHD, Autism, OCD, schizophrenia, anxiety, depression, bi-polar, aspd, etc etc etc etc

“neurologically atypical patterns of thought or behavior”

So, it’s very broad, if you feel like it describes you then it does as far as we're concerned


Rules

1.) ableist language=post or comment will probably get removed (enforced case by case, some comments will be removed and restored due to complex situations). repeated use of ableist language=banned from comm and possibly site depending on severity. properly tagged posts with CW can use them for the purposes of discussing them

2.) always assume good faith when dealing with a fellow nd comrade especially due to lack of social awareness being a common symptom of neurodivergence

2.5) right to disengage is rigidly enforced. violations will get you purged from the comm. see rule 3 for explanation on appeals

3.) no talking over nd comrades about things you haven't personally experienced as a neurotypical chapo, you will be purged. If you're ND it is absolutely fine to give your own perspective if it conflicts with another's, but do so with empathy and the intention to learn about each other, not prove who's experience is valid. Appeal process is like appealing in user union but you dm the nd comrade you talked over with your appeal (so make it a good one) and then dm the mods with screenshot proof that you resolved it. fake screenies will get you banned from the site, we will confirm with the comrade you dm'd.

3.5) everyone has their own lived experiences, and to invalidate them is to post cringe. comments will be removed on a case by case basis depending on determined level of awareness and faith

4.) Interest Policing will not be tolerated in any form. Support your comrades in their joy!

Further rules to be added/ rules to be changed based on community input

RULES NOTE: For this community more than most we understand that the clarity and understandability of these rules is very important for allowing folks to feel comfortable, to that end please don't be afraid to be outspoken about amendments and addendums to these rules, as well as any we may have missed

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 

I a long-winded way of saying “It’s not what you know, it’s who you know.”

This irks me chat. This is an elephant in the room that should be causing mass chaos

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Cammy@hexbear.net 69 points 3 months ago (2 children)

As someone who's both ND and with a diminished social circle from an isolating family, I hate that people still talk about getting a job as just a matter of applying like there isn't preferential treatment for connected people.

And framing education as the 'great equalizer' hasn't done anything to dispel the myth of meritocracy.

[–] SkingradGuard@hexbear.net 31 points 3 months ago

I hate that people still talk about getting a job as just a matter of applying like there isn't preferential treatment for connected people.

And framing education as the 'great equalizer' hasn't done anything to dispel the myth of meritocrcy

100% this

[–] BearOfaTime@lemm.ee 5 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (7 children)

So you'd like to go back to a time when it was far more "who you know"?

I've been hired many times merely from submitting a resume and interviewing, and not knowing a soul.

And I don't have a bunch of letters after my name - I have a nominal education.

I've been hired exactly one time from knowing someone (I've had many jobs) - but I also had the skills, stayed with the company and took on a lot of work for my team. I felt a serious obligation to the relationship with the person who recommended me. (Plus the interview was good, I wouldn't have been hired otherwise).

So meritocracy exists - it's just that you don't see it fully. Those soft skills are as important (perhaps more important) than the technical - and that's noticed. The merit can be someone's ability to contribute to the team spirit, help keep their peers on the same page, motivated.

And I say this as someone who's soft skills aren't really that good, in fact it's probably my weakness.

[–] SkingradGuard@hexbear.net 44 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

So you'd like to go back to a time when it was far more "who you know"?

In my experience it's like that now. All work I've got was because someone I know knew someone else who's current employer was looking for workers.

[–] Belly_Beanis@hexbear.net 30 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I think every job I've had I got by knowing the right people. The meritocracy thing isn't something I've ever experienced.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] gueybana@hexbear.net 40 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Being well connected and having high social standing are ‘soft skills’ or whatever the fuck.

From your account of your own experiences, I can predict and promise you your name and social class has made a big difference in getting the job

[–] AutoVomBizMarkee@hexbear.net 38 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Meritocracy in the current US workforce is absolutely fake, what lmao. What is this shit.

[–] Amos@hexbear.net 5 points 3 months ago

It exists among the skilled trades within the construction industry, where the value of one's labor is tied to a very tangible and measurable output. High producers are able to command a higher wage because they earn the bosses more money (or they'll take their skillset elsewhere).

[–] jaywalker@hexbear.net 37 points 3 months ago

This reads a lot like you really want meritocracy to be real so you're trying to find evidence for it. Even if you got a job without knowing anyone, how do you know it's not some other reason?

If meritocracy exists how do we explain the absolutely massive wealth gap? What about all those economists who say it's a myth? Even the liberals like Robert Reich say it's a myth.

[–] Cammy@hexbear.net 36 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

I think you misunderstand - Education is good, but it is not an equalizer when it is just the default requirement in a given field. Other factors come into play based on your free time. It's hard to do an unpaid internship, make connections with peers, or take on extra skill training when you're forced to work a full time job just to go to school.

And being neurotypical isn't a merit one earns. If I don't inherently understand how to socialize outside of work or build team spirit, that's extra work I have to do outside of actually doing the work I'm paid for.

How is that rewarding merit and not just the circumstances you inherited?

Edit: I don't want to go backwards. I want to go forward to a time where we don't screen for people based on their ability to smile and attend Christmas parties. We can get there by not accepting this as normal or fair.

[–] AFineWayToDie@hexbear.net 24 points 3 months ago

I've been hired many times merely from submitting a resume and interviewing, and not knowing a soul.

Many such cases! a-little-trolling

[–] SmokinStalin@hexbear.net 8 points 3 months ago

As someone who probably has had a similar amount of professional success with getting jobs cold, you just dont see the LACK of meritocracy. I know I wouldnt've been hired to several of my jobs if my name wasnt so white. You get to know hiring managers after enough time. Just because the is a minimun set of skills required for a job does not mean meritocracy exists.

[–] UlyssesT@hexbear.net 46 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Similar to the stock market itself, salaries are just a numeric expression of rich people feelings about you in particular.

[–] sunshine@hexbear.net 5 points 3 months ago
[–] aaro@hexbear.net 45 points 3 months ago (2 children)

there are some exceptions, like a lot of extremely dangerous professions like crab fishing and underwater welding being paid disproportionately for their typical social clout (obviously not true of all dangerous positions, counter-example is sanitation workers), but yeah

[–] Tom742@hexbear.net 31 points 3 months ago

The key is that those dangerous professions make a lot of money, Janitors not so much, the social clout comes from the money, not the job. Especially thinking of Oil workers here.

[–] WalrusDragonOnABike 6 points 3 months ago

Also, extreme hours can be a thing. I know a place where the blue-color workers make 250K+ while the engineers might not make 6-figures. But the engineers are M-F 9-5 (most of the time) while the workers were rotating shifts and often had months where they averaged 90+ hrs/week.

[–] barrbaric@hexbear.net 44 points 3 months ago

Yes, if anything the more work you do the less you get paid.

[–] TheDoctor@hexbear.net 35 points 3 months ago (1 children)

My jobs have consistently gotten easier and less demanding as I’ve been promoted and made more money. I don’t think this is true across the board, but it’s common enough that the opposite should not be as prevalent of a “common sense” opinion as it is.

[–] jack@hexbear.net 4 points 3 months ago

The only major exceptions are for doctors and certain highly technical, dangerous manual labor jobs.

[–] LanyrdSkynrd@hexbear.net 33 points 3 months ago

Bullshit Jobs by David Graeber(pdf) has a lot to say on the subject of pointless, low effort jobs that pay well.

[–] TheLepidopterists@hexbear.net 28 points 3 months ago

In my experience the more I've gotten paid the less stressful my job has been.

My pay was worst when my job was taking emotional abuse from the consumer public while working in a hot kitchen where I got burned a lot.

It improved when my job became taking emotional abuse from the consumer public in an air-conditioned setting.

It improved a lot more when I lucked into a promotion where I touch spreadsheets and send out emails about the spreadsheets and nobody screams at me anymore.

[–] macerated_baby_presidents@hexbear.net 13 points 3 months ago (3 children)

no, this is backwards. salaries are based on the amount of surplus labor that capitalists are able to extract from labor power in that type of job. the superstructure of a "social hierarchy" flows from these divisions and from previous incarnations (like when there was a big difference between educated intelligentsia and near-illiterate proles. now all work requires formal education). You can see this in the changing cultural views of jobs that have changed in pay.

[–] MoreAmphibians@hexbear.net 15 points 3 months ago (2 children)

This does not explain why people whose jobs are solely to send emails are so highly paid.

[–] BobDole@hexbear.net 24 points 3 months ago (1 children)

The Bullshit Jobs explanation is that the bullshit jobs are those which are most valuable to Capital, not the jobs that are socially valuable.

[–] Chronicon@hexbear.net 9 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

but what actually makes the email jobs valuable to capital when they're essentially bullshit?

[–] Speaker@hexbear.net 25 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

A group of coddled faux-elites with so little exposure to serious work that they could never sympathize with union organizers? They are the grease between the vampires and the zeks, keeping a solid buffer between those with power by fiat and those with power in fact.

[–] macerated_baby_presidents@hexbear.net 10 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

Yeah it does. Which specific jobs are you talking about? I think Graeber is good, but "email jobs" is no more descriptive than "counter jobs" or something. Lots of different counters you can sit behind, lots of different emails you can send. We do ourselves a disservice by trying to analyze "the laptop class" or whatever without examples.

I was going to spell this out in initial comment but decided in favor of brevity. By "the amount of surplus labor capitalists are able to extract from labor power in that type of job", I mean that efficient extraction of labor power in some roles can force capitalists to steal less surplus in other roles. For instance, if programmers are paid $200k to save finance firms $1m a year in operational improvements, nonprofits may have to pay their programmers $90k even if they're getting nowhere near $500k of surplus labor out of the deal, because otherwise the programmers can go work for finance firms and make $200k. Lawyer jobs that close billion-dollar mergers or wiggle out of EPA fines make it more expensive to hire a criminal defense attorney. When labor is commoditized, you get something similar to the minimal socially necessary amount of labor that values commodities. So I expect that many high-paid "bullshit jobs" are staffed by labor that could be extracted more efficiently in other roles.

e: on second thought, second paragraph may be bourgeois labor market theory rephrased into LTV. But I think it's obvious that salaries are part of economic base, and social hierarchy is superstructure, not the other way around.

[–] MoreAmphibians@hexbear.net 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Responding late but by "email jobs" I'm talking about all the MBA jobs that corporations are stuffed with. These people mostly send out emails about if a project is done yet and hold meetings about how done projects are (usually color-coded to green, yellow, and red). They don't create surplus value so capitalists can't skim the surplus value off of them.

[–] macerated_baby_presidents@hexbear.net 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Do you mean consultants? Project managers? I think an actual job title would help me understand what you're talking about.

[–] MoreAmphibians@hexbear.net 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

The specific ones I'm thinking of are called Business Analysts.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)

Salaries are one part a maintenance fee to keep the worker able to work and one part based in supply and demand. It's not "how much rich people like you", rather it is "how can you be kept working for us" (the requirement of which depends on industry and how much training is required. For example, logistics and food have a very high churn whereas white collar jobs can take longer to get a worker generating surplus value so they are paid more), and "how difficult is it to hire someone here" (which is why lawyers and doctors are highly paid as there is a high supply and a low demand). How wages are determined is discussed in depth by Marx, among other scholars.

[–] SpiderFarmer@hexbear.net 10 points 3 months ago

More or less. I did eventually land a job with my degree and it's the easiest work I've ever had at $19 an hour. I feel sorry for my co-workers who work just as hard as me, but sometimes earn less.

[–] JuanGLADIO@hexbear.net 7 points 3 months ago

Mine is slightly based on merit but only because the people who I assist are there because of hierarchy. My position exists due to their incompetence.

[–] BearOfaTime@lemm.ee 5 points 3 months ago (11 children)

Of course who you know plays into it.

The reality is that developing cohesive teams that work well together is the hardest thing to do in any business. It's why enterprises spend so much money on team building of any sort. Why they'll have basketball courts, volleyball courts, bowling, softball, and teams for them all.

It's pretty amazing to watch people change at work when they are part of these things. Even more amazing to see it in yourself, even when you're aware of the purpose of such things.

Having the technical skills is a baseline, being able to work well with others is the minimum, but everyone is looking for people who can lead - as we all have to lead when we have the expertise for the gap we're facing. So if you know one person because they've worked with someone on your team who works well with others, of course that makes them more attractive.

It's kind of tiring hearing the NA complaint about this. Yes, we're not like most people, but screaming at the world to change to suit us is ineffective. The best we can do is work on figuring things out, and maybe getting individuals on board by engaging with them not adversarially, but as teammates trying to achieve a goal together.

Because even NT kids poorly raised with crappy attitudes aren't going to be sought after.

In the end, build your social net. Work on developing your own "team" - people you've met along the way that would make good teammates.

Stay in touch (there are systems for this, sales people are really good at it, see what they do, maybe get one into your circle). We may find the soft skills annoyingly, confoundingly irrational, but it doesn't change they exist, it's the way the world works, and we're not changing that.

[–] btbt@hexbear.net 59 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

farquaad-point The liberal has mistaken the artificially built current status quo for the natural, inalienable order of things!

[–] Edie@hexbear.net 41 points 3 months ago

Fuck that, I don't wanna mask. They can take their shitty games and rituals and stuff it.

[–] Eco@hexbear.net 41 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

nah i'm going to scream at neurotypicals until they stop being shitheads thanks. i'll be as adversarial as i want

[–] AutoVomBizMarkee@hexbear.net 33 points 3 months ago

We may find the divine right of kings to be annoyingly, confoundingly irrational, but it doesn't change that it exists, it's the way the world works, and we're not changing that.

[–] Chimbus@hexbear.net 15 points 3 months ago

Shut the fuck up liberal

[–] wtypstanaccount04@hexbear.net 7 points 3 months ago

Thanks bud! What's your LinkedIn profile?

[–] ChestRockwell@hexbear.net 3 points 3 months ago

Unfortunately comrade, the real existential consequences of materialism (and the reality that it isn't meritocratic but simply the web of networks and connections you are born in and must exercise agency in) is something ppl can't generally cope with.

So they believe they've earned their position even though the deciding factor is often who they know.

This doesn't necessarily mean they are unqualified (though sometimes it is) but that they did not truly ever 'earn' it.

If only obama had leaned even harder into "you didn't build that", it would have been better.