• rustyfish@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    10 months ago

    Reminder: If someone constantly bitches about his colleagues, calles them idiots and acts like he is the only one who does everything right all the time. Then this person is the problem and is projecting harder than a drive-in cinema.

    This is true 100% of the time.

    • NABDad@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      I recently had a meeting with my supervisor, and he was complaining about how a previous meeting ran over time and repeatedly complaining about how some former team members who moved to a different team caused the meeting to run over time because they wouldn’t just agree to do what he asked, but kept arguing with him about why it isn’t a good idea.

      I had to interrupt him to point out that the meeting we were in, in which he was complaining about the previous meeting running over time because of the previous team members, had just run over time, and they weren’t in the meeting this time.

      I don’t think he liked what I said, but he ended the meeting, and that’s what I wanted to happen.

      He did my annual review three days later and complained that I don’t work well with others, and specifically indicated that I don’t work well with him.

      He’s the only supervisor who has ever complained about me in the 36 years I’ve been working.

      We’ve had two people retire last year directly because of him. There is another person who refuses to have a meeting with him unless it is recorded.

      • Clent@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        10 months ago

        Sounds like your company hired one of my previous managers.

        We routed around him until the company eventually relieved themselves of the dead weight.

    • gamermanh@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      10 months ago

      It’s the “I’m always right” part that guarantees it

      I work with a bunch of fucking idiots who regularly fuck stuff up. But I’m also a fucking idiot constantly fucking Up so I belong

      • MotoAsh@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        10 months ago

        Yea, the having shitty coworker thing DOES happen. It’s more the, “I’m the only good one…” thing that’s the indicator. Even most actually shitty coworkers are good some of the time or else they’d hopefully be canned quickly.

        • indepndnt@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          And if you work somewhere where shitty people are never fired, it’s probably a good time to find another job. Unless, you know, you’re a shitty person and want job security.

      • xantoxis@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        It’s the complaining about it–asserting your correctness to everyone around you–that makes someone the asshole.

        Everyone always thinks they’re right. If you didn’t think you were right to act a certain way, you would do something different! Acknowledging afterwards that you were wrong and made a mistake is what makes someone tolerable.

    • splinty@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      10 months ago

      I think this is generally true…

      … except for driving. I’m the only decent driver out there.

  • thedirtyknapkin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    reminder not to judge a book by its cover. these kinds of self improvement books are often titled to attract the people that need them more than reflect the opinions inside. like that one social media post of the lady burning a book titled “guys like girls who…” because she assumed it was hateful, but the point of the book was to help young women build confidence and realize they don’t need male approval.

        • ProgrammingSocks@pawb.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          10 months ago

          No, you’re massively overgeneralizing. Freud is pseudoscience, but there’s lots of very real studies especially around the 60s (before ethics were considered) that follow the scientific method and have real measurable outcomes and conclusions.

          Don’t be anti science. Science is a method, not a social club.

          • emergencyfood@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            10 months ago

            There definitely is real, experimental psychology, but unfortunately the vast majority of psychology in the popular consciousness, and even in some academic / professional bodies, is modern-day phrenology. (Also I’d cut Freud some slack, since he was working based on the standards of his time.)

        • protist@mander.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          10 months ago

          The only reason you think you have space to say that is because doing direct psychological experimentation on humans is extremely unethical

          • UndercoverUlrikHD@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            10 months ago

            The only reason I “have space to say so” is because it’s not a science. Allowing whatever you mean by “direct psychological experimentation” wouldn’t change that.

            I’m not saying it’s a field of study that isn’t useful, but it’s not science.

            • protist@mander.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              10 months ago

              That sound was a behavior analyst stabbing UndercoverUlrikHD in the spleen. I’m guessing you know absolutely nothing about the different fields within psychology, or even much beyond what you’re exposed to in popular culture. Yet here you are, trying to redefine the scientific method to suit your feelings

              • ZzyzxRoad@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                10 months ago

                I typed this whole comment about how and why sociology is a science, and realized they probably don’t give a shit.

              • UndercoverUlrikHD@programming.dev
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                10 months ago

                You’re absolutely right that I’m not an expert on neither psychology nor sociology. But I’m not basing my opinions on popular culture either. My opinions were mostly formed from years ago when I had to do a month research and write my exam in Examen Philosophicum during my study for a Master of Science, where I wrote about the history of scientific theory.

                It was mostly when I read about Karl Popper and his criterion of falsifiability that I stumbled upon the “science” of psychology. Other than that, my impression of psychology mostly comes from living with a psychology student for three years and hearing about her studies.

                A science without hard facts isn’t much of a science from my point of view. You can’t reproduce or simulate the minds of people thousands of times. There’s so many variables factoring in when you’re researching, or diagnosing. How do you separate the researcher’s emotions and personal interpretation from the “objective” facts of a person’s psyche.

                @ZzyzxRoad@sh.itjust.works Implying I’m a troll isn’t really a great form of argument. Feel free to type your whole comment again and I’ll read it with an open mind.

                @ProgrammingSocks@pawb.social I’m not trying to be anti science, I still think it’s a worthwhile field of study, I just don’t think it’s fits the criteria of science. Feel free to show me wrong.

    • mineralfellow@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      10 months ago

      I tried reading one of these. Gave up when I realized it was basically a very slightly modified version of the four humours philosophy of philosophy. Couldn’t find anything helpful in it.

      • thedirtyknapkin@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        yeah, i don’t know these books, nor do i often like self help books… this post just reminded me of mistakes I’ve seen in the past. the internet is very very fast to hate without checking if they’re right.

    • Death@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      if any book requires its title to be a clickbait in order to sell and author are willing to use such a move, i’d doubt about the quality of its content

      • Randomgal@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        10 months ago

        Not necessarily. We live in a capitalist distopia where it doesn’t matter how good you are at what you do or what you sell. You won’t sell shit if you can’t market yourself. The opposite also applies.

      • Ookami38@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        10 months ago

        Like 50% of the self help industry is showing people that they’re actually the problem in their lives. You’ll never get a person like that to read a book called “actually you’re the problem” but frame it in a way that they agree with, “surrounded by idiots”, and then set up some scenarios, but break them down to show why the other people actually aren’t idiots, and it’s the “surrounded” person’s issues showing through… Well, they may stick around long enough to learn something.

      • thedirtyknapkin@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        10 months ago

        hmm, idk, again in the “guys like girls who” example. it’s targeting people with bad self image and telling them they’re fine the way they are. if you hate that then you’re being way too of a purist on your “clickbait” stance

  • bstix@feddit.dk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    10 months ago

    (or how to understand those who cannot be understood)

    The subtitle really highlights his superior understanding.

    I think I get it. Listen. There are four types of people: Red person, yellow person, green person and blue person. And they’re all narcissistic psychopath idiots. Easy.

  • Deestan@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    Isn’t that exactly what these books are calling out? That if you feel surrounded by idiots, it’s you who need to work on empathy and communication skills?

  • doofer_name@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    the four types of human behaviour

    There are only four?! Gosh. That makes my job sooo much easier. If I only had known before.

  • Nobody@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 months ago

    If you meet an asshole in the morning, you met an asshole. If you meet assholes all day long, you are the asshole.