I think it's useful to try to always assume the best from others:

  - If they aren't being friendly this will irritate them in a way they cannot object to too openly.
  - If they are friendly it will avoid damage and even start an upward spiral.

When you're not feeling good enough it's sometimes helpful to remember that even people who create negative impacts often get into positions of power and stay there for one reason or another. i.e if they can do something very badly then why are you so worried about whether you are worthy?

Finally, remember that lots of people feel like you - so try to do little things that start them on an upward spiral. The more you do this for other people, the more they will be glad to see you.

▲ cxr 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

> The more you do this for other people, the more they will be glad to see you.

That's not a given. That's the rational response on their end, but not only is no one perfectly rational, but some people are very, very irrational.

It can sometimes[1][2] be the case that the best option is to be among those who don't attract any attention at all.

Separately:

The spiraling described in this post is worth consideration, but equally worthy are the odd disparities in professional life (or life in general) and the negative consequences that aren't the result of internal forces like paralyzing self-doubt.

Consider an article that starts just like this one, except it focuses on the different consequences experienced by Dawn who is regularly forgiven for things like tardiness and mistakes in her work in contrast to more severe outcomes for Hila, who after arriving late—perhaps for the first time, even—is perceived to be fucking up because that's in her irresponsible nature[3]—even if a sober, objective analysis would reveal that Hila is actually exceeding the expectations one would have for any employee (and her transgressions are well behind the line of courtesy that is extended to Dawn)—for no other reason than Hila being younger or newer to the company.

This can result in a similar spiral of defeat, but it's a kind of defeat by external forces rather than self-defeat.

1. Depending on your environment/experience, you could even say "very often"

▲

t43562 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

It was a bit glib but what I notice is that small things cheer me up. Good interactions with other people in quite trivial matters send me on a good trajectory.

I also notice that whatever negativity I output to someone, it tends to come back to me multiplied by 1.5. So e.g. with my wife, I find myself in some argument but I can trace it back to some smaller negative thing I said earlier. ie. we get into arguments and the arguments spiral. So IMO it is important to remember to be just slightly more upbeat and neutralise things at the point where they are small if possible.

This doesn't work with people who see you as a threat in some way. They are not appeased, but not everyone is like that and you can at least try to make life reasonable for some being - even if it's just your dog.

▲

2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[deleted]

▲

GavinMcG 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Of course it’s not a given as to any particular person, but regardless, it’s the right presumption.

And yes, of course there are things outside your control. Is that really “equally worthy” of your consideration and energy?

	▲	cxr 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		Yes. Questions like, "Should I work to 'do little things' intended to put a given coworker 'on an upward spiral'?" versus, "Should I insulate myself from or minimize blowback where any action is going to be received poorly because my incompetence is considered a foregone conclusion?" and, "How long should I remain at an organization where such things occur?" are all things that relate to decisions that are in your control—or at least might be, with enough of a forward-looking defense early on (if you fall into the group of those unlucky enough to need to ponder them). Really, though, my comment was rather more intended to prompt introspective questions like, "Even if I'm personally on safe footing at my company, is it afflicted by this sort of thing in a way that impacts people who aren't me? And what can I do to either neutralize or minimize the negative consequences those people might experience?" (Readers who are paying attention will notice that this is a form of creating spirals of success for others, as the person I responded to recommended, but an emphasis on the fact that the targets of those actions can be people who have a lesser standing, rather that aiming laterally or upwards.)

▲ 47282847 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I generally agree but in my experience it becomes more complex when you cognitively decide on one thing (to assume the best), but don’t feel it. How you feel influences how it’s going to happen in major and in subtle ways. Your return friendliness may be received as snarky or sarcasm, or at least detected as insincere, to give one example.

▲

t43562 2 days ago | parent [-]

In my experience you can only moderate your response. So you cannot pretend to be very pleased when you're 90% certain that someone has been very rude to you but you can avoid an immediate angry response and give yourself time to think. I sometimes feel that I'm being put upon at the moment and then later think perhaps not - I'm always glad when I manage to restrain my initial reaction.

▲

47282847 a day ago | parent [-]

The main point I wanted to make is that if you only assume the best but don’t actually believe it, you might think their reaction to your (pretended) niceness “confirms“ your assumption, where what it actually confirms is your belief and not their original intent.

	▲	t43562 a day ago \| parent [-]
		Yes, knowing anything for certain is difficult so it's worth always harbouring a little doubt about both positive and negative conclusions. Dzerzhinsky liked to say "Trust but verify", and I think that sums it up - if you look at the world entirely from his point of view, head of the Soviet secret police, then you will suspect everyone and if you act on that you'll end up hurting lots of innocents in amongst the people who would really do you harm. If you're in a situation where this is a good survival strategy it seems to me that one should try to leave rather than play the game.

▲ b_e_n_t_o_n 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

In general it seems like you should assume the outcome you want, so you behave in a way that's conducive to that outcome manifesting itself. If you always assume the worst, then you might protect yourself from rejection but you end up pushing people away.

So assuming someone is friendly even if they aren't is a better strategy than assuming everyone dislikes you.

▲ makeitdouble 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

For people trying to sit more in the middle, forcing a neutral balance is another way to do it: don't burn bridges and don't over assume people's feelings.

That means not one-upping snark, but also keeping a healthy default distance with people you deal with professionaly.

One might miss some genuinely heartful exchanges, but it also makes the worst times way easier to deal with. Compensating for keeping too much distance is usually easy, repairing problematic exchanges is way way harder.

▲

AstralStorm 2 days ago | parent [-]

Except this is self sabotaging, because you have no deep connection you stay alone and feel alone, ultimately spiralling.

	▲	SamoyedFurFluff 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		You can be more open outside of work than in the professional space and not be alone!

▲ nuancebydefault 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Indeed, the default should be to assume the best intentions of people. Also, people can have a bad day and be snarky. Next meeting they might as well be friendly.

Staying positive and not letting (potential) negative feedback derail you, works like magic in the long run.

If someone is really picking on you, or they genuinely disapprove of your work, you will find out in due time.

▲ keybored 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> When you're not feeling good enough it's sometimes helpful to remember that even people who create negative impacts often get into positions of power and stay there for one reason or another. i.e if they can do something very badly then why are you so worried about whether you are worthy?

How does this help? For all you know they’re a snarky something to people beneath them but not to the right people. Or they are snarky to everyone but they’re the kind of pointy-elbow go-getter that got to where they are inspite or even because of that. Are any of these alternatives good?

And now they get to be snarky to people beneath them and only get a tiny sliver of pushback because the mind of the underling has all the time to ruminate but no incentive to push back with anything.

Just more Polyanna HN job advice.

▲

t43562 2 days ago | parent [-]

If all you care about is success then it's not a help is it? If you have some standards though, then you can tell yourself that the price of standards is that you cannot rise in a corrupt hierarchy and you probably wouldn't enjoy it if you did.

I think this is the kind of reason people emigrate from countries where they feel dominated by whatever group was in power to various newer countries where it is still possible to make their fortune.

	▲	keybored 16 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Okay that’s fine.