I can't be the only person disturbed by the penetration of terms like "obsession" into nominally professional culture. You should not be asking your employees to qualify for DSM symptoms just to not get fired (with severance, lol, that is genuinely a step up from nothing even if it's clearly meant to soften the psychological shock of reading about A- B- and C- employees).
You may not find it appealing, but the truth is that most major successes are driven by obsession. It’s not a balanced or psychologically sound way to live—no one claims it is. If you believe great achievements come from people working regular hours, taking it slow, and maintaining a comfortable pace, you are mistaken.
Newton, Steve Jobs, Marie Curie...the list goes on. These people's success wasn't a product of balance or moderation
> You may not find it appealing, but the truth is that most major successes are driven by obsession.
Great, don't force it on your employees. I am not working for you for anything other than a paycheck and flexible working conditions and stimulating work.
No, being unemployed is the coercive factor here. It's not fair to treat at-will employment as non-coercive unless non-employment is actually zero. Non-employment currently stands at about 7.7%: https://www.richmondfed.org/research/national_economy/non_em...
Why would anyone turn down a chance to make a living if a job is offered? Why do you think the fed ensures that there are never enough jobs for everyone? Why do you think the fed and the business world talks about the economy in terms of "jobs" and "unemployment" when these are metrics largely unrelated to stuff like "am I actually getting a fair wage" and "is housing priced anywhere near rationally"? etc—the non-coercive labor market is a complete illusion.
i would argue the communication registry of influencer/youtuber culture skews superlative.
meaning i would translate obsession -> dedication in common language.
The only information about this obsession in the document is about learning, and there is a specific mention that people are judged based on results and not hours, so I am willing to say that this language is much less alarming than what I heard in my experience in startups.
You'll find that most undesirable human behavior and perception does. This is just "product obsession" marketing bullshit forced onto real-life relationships. If you want to engage in this type of culture because it helps you fit in with founders; fine, that's your own brain you're messing with. Don't force it on others.
Nobody is forcing anything on anybody here so there's no need to end your thought with a defiant coda.
> If you want to engage in this type of culture because it helps you fit in with founders; fine, that's your own brain you're messing with.
You misunderstand the objection I hinted at. Which is fine. I'm not pro-"marketing bullshit" because it's not an either/or choice. What I object to is taking a perfectly normal word someone uses and then choosing a narrow, fraught, medical interpretation of the word to ascribe to them a viewpoint of, essentially, "they want you to be mentally ill!"
I wouldn't wish "obsession" on anyone. It is extremely unpleasant and harmful to experience. Willingly giving your life to a company is not obsession, it's a choice.
Yes, this is a large part of the concept of liberation. Why are you trying to sell people shit nobody asked for? We could be making technology that enables expression of the individual and of society rather than commodification of it.
