> True, I can see how “weighty evidence” overstated the weak case presented by the author.
You're gloating and high fiving yourself for insulting someone on the internet, in the same breath you're asserting that person isn't well adjusted and needs to go to therapy. I'm not impressed.
> Not all tasks can be done with equal efficiency by different people, thus route tasks to where they are most efficiently performed.
The author is asserting some people "route" tasks that don't get them promoted to others. Your counter assertion is that those people are more efficient at not getting promoted?
> Irony aside, the essay could be categorized as reverse-CBT.
This is dangerously close to gaslighting. The author writes about personal experience, and you're asserting it's a product on insufficient therapy or is some kind of anti therapy.
> You're gloating and high fiving yourself for insulting someone on the internet, in the same breath you're asserting that person isn't well adjusted and needs to go to therapy. I'm not impressed.
I have insulted no person or thing. This statement appears to be mind-reading itself a straw man.
Don’t lie. I did not write that anyone “needs to go to therapy.” If you care to reply, please address the fact that you lied.
> The author is asserting some people "route" tasks that don't get them promoted to others. Your counter assertion is that those people are more efficient at not getting promoted?
No
>This is dangerously close to gaslighting. The author writes about personal experience, and you're asserting it's a product on insufficient therapy or is some kind of anti therapy.
Thank you for asserting my off hand comment isn’t some bad thing. Read the linked article describing reverse CBT. If you disagree that the EFT author’s mindset towards work isn’t that of reverse CBT, I look forward to rethinking it.
Stop lying about what people write. It’s especially unconvincing when what you are writing about is directly above your lie. I did not write that “they were engaging in the inverse of therapy.” I wrote “Irony aside, the essay could be categorized as reverse-CBT. Read more about Lukianoff’s idea at the link below:. . .” Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) is a particular technique proven to help people. Lukianoff’s idea of reverse CBT is that people engaged in it are performing many of the things that CBT works against (without speaking to that as being part of the care prescribed by a healthcare provider).
Again, like your lies about what is written, you lie about “various insults at the author.” It’s plain to see that there is no insult in what was written, especially since you can’t be bothered to quote anything.
You can lie, you can disagree while covering your ears, hopefully one day you can come to grips with the world as it is even if today is not that day.
That's funny, I was thinking the same thing; that your insults are obvious and that your dissembling and condescension is unconvincing. I certainly don't have the wit to make a better argument that you're being insulting than your parting message, wishing that one day I'll get a grip. Laying it in pretty thick, wouldn't you say?
You're gloating and high fiving yourself for insulting someone on the internet, in the same breath you're asserting that person isn't well adjusted and needs to go to therapy. I'm not impressed.
> Not all tasks can be done with equal efficiency by different people, thus route tasks to where they are most efficiently performed.
The author is asserting some people "route" tasks that don't get them promoted to others. Your counter assertion is that those people are more efficient at not getting promoted?
> Irony aside, the essay could be categorized as reverse-CBT.
This is dangerously close to gaslighting. The author writes about personal experience, and you're asserting it's a product on insufficient therapy or is some kind of anti therapy.