The outweighing idea is one of the major things CF criticizes.
One of the problems with it is its dismissive. It’s a way to reach a conclusion that contradicts X without saying why X is false. If you treat another person that way, they’ll feel like you’re ignoring their arguments instead of actually winning the debate, and they won’t like that. If you treat part of yourself that way, you’re being dismissive of yourself and mean to yourself.
Another way to view this is if you sometimes open and sometimes close, you have to be available to work in a big time range, like 4am to 9pm or whenever closing finishes. Plus there’s commute before or after and getting ready for work or bed before or after.
So if you both open and close, that might give you 10pm to 3am as safe hours when you can always sleep. That’s only 5 hours. That’s not enough to have a consistent 8 hours of sleep at the same time every day.
It’s better if you can have a consistent 8 hours reserved for sleeping, like 10pm to 6am, which means with some time to get ready and travel you’d only be available to work between maybe 7am and 9pm, which is a 14 hours range. I think being available during a 14 hour time window is being flexible. A lot of people are only available from 9am to 5am, which is an 8 hour range, and they don’t work at other times. For a job that wants you to work different shifts on different days, maybe a 12 hour time range that they always fall within (like 9am to 9pm) would be reasonably fair? I don’t really know; I’m just armchair speculating. Having them shifts fall between 4am and 9pm would be a 17 hours range which is really harsh.
My basic point is I think you should set reasonable boundaries here and then stand up for them without being defensive about it (you should feel justified and reasonable) and without being willing to take a pay cut.
I think the store should have different morning and night people in a way where everyone has some time of day where they can actually consistently get 8 hours of sleep. Asking people to shift their sleep schedules by multiple hours is a big ask that’s really disruptive to good sleep.
I don’t really know what’s normal at these specific type of jobs but moving people’s shifts around as convenient for the store, in a 17 hour time range, is a huge thing to ask that a lot of jobs do not ask for. If that’s actually normal or reasonable, and something many of your coworkers actually put up with, that is a reason to seek a better job. I’m not sure if your coworkers actually put up with that or if some kind of unfair comparison is being made, like some of them don’t close but still think you should do morning shifts and don’t see the connection between the two.
I know sometimes at these jobs managers figure out who is a good or responsible worker and then exploit them and take advantage of them and ask too much of them, so you should watch out for that happening to you where you may get treated worse than lazier and more irresponsible coworkers. A common way that’s done is there are some people who miss lots of shifts and the manager gets the good worker to cover for them, but then when the good worker wants a day off, even if he asks months in advance, the manager isn’t helpful and says “find someone to cover for you or you can’t have time off” and then the good worker tries to call the bad workers (which should be the manager’s job) and then they refuse to cover… There are multiple stories along these lines, as a chronic thing that went on for months or years, on r/antiwork.
Asking you to open one day and close a few days later and keep going back and forth is in many ways worse than working a graveyard shift (where you work at night and have to sleep during the day – which many people won’t do) because a graveyard shift at least lets you sleep the same 8 hours every day.
Introduction to Critical Fallibilism:
CF says all ideas should be evaluated in a digital (specifically binary) way as non-refuted (has no known errors) or refuted (has a known error).
Hmm. That makes sense. So the negatives I may have with something are errors that I should I address. That makes sense. Also I remembered this from Multi-Factor Decision Making Math:
In It’s Not Luck (ch. 21), Eli Goldratt discussed using a pro/con list to decide whether or not to buy a boat. He proposed looking at every con and trying to come up with a solution for it, and buying a boat only if every problem was solved (cons are problems). That’s a decision making method which doesn’t add factors. (It’s actually combining factors with multiplication, as I’ll explain later.)
Goldratt also has other proposals, in the same chapter, like using if-then logic to causally connect an action, like buying the boat, to each con. How will taking the action cause each con? Map that out instead of relying on intuition to connect cons to the action. A solution has to address a con’s causes. A solution changes something so that cause-and-effect (reality, nature, logic) no longer causes the con.
Please include a source link for external quotes outside of and before the quote.
Sorry. Is it corrected now?
I recently watched a video from this dating coach named Hector Castillo. He runs a YouTube channel called Girls Chase. Here’s the video:
In it he talks about how he, personally, and clients he has worked with have found success when they are honest about what they want out of dating (like only wanting to get a girlfriend, when they actually want to sleep with a lot of girls). I feel like this is related to the conflict stuff when it comes to procrastinating. People say they want X when they really want Y and so they can’t really get themselves to do anything because they’re lying to themselves.
I just thought it was an interesting example of where people resolving their conflicts (somewhat) are actually able to act more effectively.
I think procrastination has a bunch of different causes. Most people have multiple causes. This is one cause but some people don’t have it.