“If an important decision is to be made, they [the Persians] discuss the question when they are drunk, and the following day the master of the house where the discussion was held submits their decision for reconsideration when they are sober. If they still approve it, it is adopted; if not, it is abandoned. Conversely, any decision they make when they are sober, is reconsidered afterwards when they are drunk.”
― Herodotus
That's such a little neat trick, it's great. Sometimes I think that some civilizations back then had figured out more about how to be a society at least in some respects, than we have today.
I feel so too, but note that there is a survivorship bias. Consider you have 5 thousand years of societies trying out various forms of living together. Which forms will survive today in the stories? The ones someone felt interesting enough to preserve. Same goes for buildings. There used to be pretty of ugly buildings in the old times as well, they just got demolished and replaced by other buildings, while the beautiful buildings were not demolished.
Yes, our gut is our second brain, it’s the subconscious.
To dismiss one’s instincts is irrational. Our bodies developed fine-tuned monitoring and alerting systems (our instincts). To ignore your gut is to ignore your hard-earned experience.
Trust your gut. The scientific reason for why it’s telling you that will be explained later.
> Trust your gut. The scientific reason for why it’s telling you that will be explained later
Usually that's good advice :-)
In other cases, some people got bullied as children or grew up with a weird parent, and because of that feel in their gut, their intuition tells them,
that no one likes them, and they better stay at home and avoid people. Then, trusting one's gut or intuition, can damage a whole life.
What you call "the guts" and intuition and feelings, can learn the wrong things, during childhood. Can be good to apply some logical reasoning, and also talk with other people if it's something important
Your gut is where prejudices, racism, nepotism, and a whole bunch of other bad shit resides. What the gut optimizes (reducing threats, reproduction, getting food, etc) is very frequently selfish short term thinking.
This depends on the nature of the decision. If it's whether or not to vaccinate or insulate your attic you probably are better off trusting your brain. Many of the problems we face today are due to people spurning eggheaded decision making.
Here’s a familiar bit of egg-headed decision making, to prove to you it is the brain that’s the problem, not the gut.
Ask the grunts/troops/anyone who is actually writing code: how do you really feel? Most feel in their gut things got too complex and bad decisions are being made.
If these engineers only actually listened to their gut, they would be pushing back hard to get complexity reigned in, to get back to a much cleaner architecture. But for a myriad of reasons, such as not wanting to appear clueless in a fast changing tech world, the engineers stay silent.
The rationalization is a very brain activity.
Do a reality check on yourself. What feels have you been rationalizing or dismissing? Take a look by observing—what kind of feeling is it? Where is it in your body? (A lump in your throat, tightness in your stomach?) Observe what it is. Don’t explain it away or it will stop being observable.
Once you observe, you will learn new information, which will then inform your subsequent decisions.
The scenario you outline is of a person experienced in a technical field having second thoughts about something, but not raising the concerns sure to external factors.
This is very different from the scenarios mentioned by the GP, where people who are not experienced in the technical field (i.e. not immunologists or HVAC engineer, respectively) ignore the advice of people who are experts, just because it feels right to them in their gut.
I would say, listen to experts (and not your gut) when outside of your field, and listen to your gut (but not only your gut) when in your field.
I agree that listening to expert advice over your gut is the right thing to do.
But that’s besides the point—-learning to trust expert advice is a brain behavior that has to be properly learned. (For example, many of us have learned to catastrophize and over-generalize, where bad advice from one expert suddenly translates into not listening to all future experts).
I’m imploring: do not dismiss your gut, folks! Please continue to use brain, but stop dismissing your gut.
Yes, I agree that you should also not dismiss the brain when making decisions. This is widely assumed to be the desired, appropriate behavior. (Whereas dismissing your gut is widely regarded as the right thing to do, which is actually a wrong thing to do and is an avoidable bad decision.)
However, I think you underestimate the brain thinking that the anti-vaxxers are making—-believe me, they have done hardheaded rationalization of their beliefs.
Egg-headed decisions come from bad brain thinking, not from trusting your gut.
We definitely rely on technological advances a lot. It might mask our social development status.
To go further, I would say, that there is a mismatch between how much we advance technologically / scientifically and how much we advance with regard to how we live together in a society.
There are so many things going wrong, which one might think have no place in these times, but reveal the savage greed of humanity. Surely in the past there was probably even more stuff going wrong, but today those things are catalyzed by globalization and technological means. Our greed in the small can affect the whole planet. Basically, I am not sure we are ready, in terms of social advancement, to responsibly handle the technology. By that I am not talking about this person or that person specifically, but about us as societies, democracies, and other forms.
Its also quite possible were just looking at the past through rose coloured lenses.
When reading about how past civilizations live you only read the condensed version, the highlights. Whereas when loving modern times every little flaw and problem is visible, you spend 24 hours a day living it, not just 10 minute on highlights.
Not all of the things you mention seem necessarily connected to how people act in a society. Probably most of what you mention is the result of not having modern medicine and modern technology and knowledge.
The point I made is not about those. I am not saying, that the past were happy times. It is about how we behave with regard to each other in the society and how that did not change as much as technology and scientific advancement has been achieved.
For example we are destroying the planet right now. This was not possible hundreds of years ago. We did not have neither the technology nor the number of people to do it. -- Are we advanced enough in social and/or ethical matters, caring about the third world countries, our children and future generations and how they life on this planet, to stop the disaster? Future will tell, but damage is being done right now, which we should not be doing.
I haven't observed the same in India. Most people prefer to go home after they finish work with 15 minute of conversation with their co-workers. I would guess only young people and startup mandate a social drinking event here. It also differs from states since some have ban on alcohol consumption or see it in negative light.
Decision #32 for strategic purchase of more alcohol considered and approved for adoption. Except for Tequila, which is to be banned from the province forever.
This to me sounds like it's a mechanism to cause one's mind to open up more, perhaps useful if one is dependant on alcohol to access a more open mind state and critical thinking, however alcohol is a depressant and so it will actually depress thinking; I suppose it's possible there is insight to be gained by contrasting the more depressed state with the normal baseline.
Maybe not exactly what the excerpt was getting at, but here's a variant: Instead of individuals using alcohol for this purpose, some fortune 500 companies use it too. At corporate "Team Building" offsite workshops, open bars are available to the sequestered employee groups. Those without the self control to abstain or exercise moderation are quickly identified as non-management material.
The excerpt also reminded me of an H. Ross Perot story that I cannot seem to find anywhere online. Someone had approached him for VC and had a sound business plan. The person had had issues with alcohol in the past, and had sworn off it. Perot had learned this (probably from a PI), and at the moment they were going to sign a business deal, Perot insisted on closing the deal with a drink. The other party explained that he did not drink, but Perot was absolutely insistent and would not close the deal without a drink. So the guy left without a deal. The next day, Perot called him and closed the deal. Perot had been testing the resolve and reliability of the guy. The venture was a success and became a Fortune 100 company.
Well given we don't know if the story is true or the VCs intentions. Let's assume good faith and if the person offered the drink took it, then the VC would have stopped this person before they had a sip :)
and then told him to fuck off and that the deal is off, so he can go have a drink at home. it's not just about the physical act of drinking, by convincing that person, you have already broken down barriers inside them. fuck anyone who does this
In the most explicit biblical (and quranic) story of satan, he and god debate Job's loyalty to god. Satan tortures job, kills his wife and children, poisons his crops, his body... The point is to see if Job remains steadfast, always praising god no matter the pain. At the end of the story, god rewards job with a new family, farm and such.
In other stories, Satan tempts. The idea is the same, a sneaky test of piety. Rewards to the steadfast. Punishment for everyone else.
^First time I've used the term "literally" literally in a long time... literally.
The off-site team-building events are not "outside of work". You are being paid for your presence and provided room and board at a company retreat. You are expected to be up, dressed, fed, and shaved (for men anyway) at 6:45am when things get rolling. Everyone knows this and is expected to be there (unless they are sick). If someone boozes it up the night before and is too hung over to show, it says something about their values (or lack thereof).
Perot was a real hard ass, but he was very successful with his investments.
> If someone boozes it up the night before and is too hung over to show
I was replying to " Those without the self control to abstain or exercise moderation are quickly identified as non-management material."
I will never be ready at 6:45 in the morning, I am not a morning person, but I'll be up at 4 am if needed to be, whereas some of my colleagues can't go past 11pm without falling asleep.
Management has nothing to do with what you do outside of work, which drinking with colleagues at the open bar is.
And why stop at alcohol then?
Does eating too much hamburgers at the BBQ counts?
This comes off as crazy and abusive gaslighting behaviour to me. I understand that founders being somewhat narcissistic is almost cliché at this point but that is behaviour that no human should be proud of...
It's commonly reported H. Ross Perot didn't drink. Not a sip ever, a promise to his father. Ross Perot wouldn't allow people to drink at lunch at work. He is quoted as saying he really appreciated people who managed to get off the bottle.
This is both evidence the story is false and true!
But it'd be nice if everyone stopped the virtue signalling. It's boring, the story is obviously a just so story. The true story will at best complex, like maybe he tested if someone would break the no lunch drinking rule over a contract.
It's also reported Ross Perot wouldn't hire managers who had a limp handshake shake because they might be homosexuals. Can't you all virtue signal over that instead?
That's the problem. I have forgotten that detail of the story. I tried to find references to this story online, but Google has failed me. Maybe you'll have more luck. It seems like all of the search results come up either related to his presidential bid, or his obituary. I remember that the company in question is now a household name, but I don't remember exactly which one.
Not the main point of the article, but I found this quote interesting.
"...police officers could significantly improve their ability to detect false statements if suspects were asked to give their alibis in reverse order."
This is similar to a technique we use in user research – not to catch someone in a lie, but to help them remember what actually happened. If you ask someone "what is your morning routine like", they tend to forget a lot of details and gloss over things that were difficult / tedious. If you ask them to recount backwards from "how did you arrive here today", they will give you a clearer picture. Not sure it works in all cases, but I use it on myself when I really want to remember a sequence of events.
Intuitively, to me, it’s because it’s sorted “new to old” so the first events are fresher in memory and can be recalled vividly, making the most recent older event likely to be recalled vividly by association, etc. As opposed to starting with the oldest event which is dimmer in memory along with its associations.
I think liars are easier to catch when they recite events in reverse because they visualized their lies in chronological order, like when memorizing a poem. They could become immune to the reverse trick if they practiced their lies in reverse.
You can also use a similar trick when editing your writing, read your work backwards and you're more likely to catch errors you would otherwise have skimmed over by reading forward.
I don't really buy this. True colors do tend to show when someone is being careless in general, especially when they're drinking. But someone who really wants to give you a false impression of themselves or their motives will probably manage to stay on point while drinking with you.
To summarize, beware of false negatives. Alcohol in given quantities doesn't have the same effects on everyone, and if you're drinking with them, you may miss the red flags you set out looking for in the first place.
A HN submission of cached contents of an article, that was cached by a HN indexing system because it was previously posted in the past.
This shows that HNdex is doing its job in helping people discover posts that they hadn’t seen.
It must also be some sort of milestone in the history of HN perhaps, as https://news.ycombinator.com/from?site=hndex.org currently shows that this is the first post to HN from HNdex aside from the Show HN about HNdex itself.
A couple of things that this makes me wonder is:
- Will the cached article itself eventually also be cached and show up when you make the following search on HNdex for example? https://hndex.org/?q=alcohol+social+trustworthiness I’m thinking that the author of HNdex probably already thought of excluding HNdex pages from HNdex itself.
- Is this a new era of HN, where more third-party sites pop up in order to explore and interact with HN in novel ways? I am aware of a few other third-party sites that offer some sort of interaction with HN. But the others that I can think of immediately have been alternate front ends that mostly didn’t do anything radically different. HNdex on the other hand is really something different.
- Since the caches work with things like Google+, and since it has cached articles that have since gone 404’d, it must mean that HNdex is the result of a personal project that has been ongoing for quite a while. Or they extracted the data from other archive sources. Either way, I wonder if any of the other people on HN also have HN-related projects that they either made for their own use and didn’t (yet) set up a public version of, or are working on currently.
If anything HN itself is one of the most readable sites on the web. I'm literally at a beach at the moment and since Germany is rock bottom of Europe when it comes to 4G rollout outside the cities, the only actually usable websites are HN and Reddit via a custom client. Everything else is dog slow.
I've heard it expressed in Japan that coworkers who were unwilling to drink in the obligatory after-work bar visit were untrustworthy. They were taking advantage of their coworkers. The drunk coworkers would share unguarded thoughts while the sober one wouldn't. All taking and never giving was unscrupulous.
Years ago, it was almost a requirement to participate. One rationale was that being drunk excused someone who spoke their mind. As speaking your mind to your boss was not allowed in sober company, but sometimes critically important to the success of a company, you had to at least pretend to be drunk and go along with everybody else's pretense. That's oversimplifying it, but you get the idea.
> One rationale was that being drunk excused someone who spoke their mind
That's not why they do (did?) it, it is used to force management and employers to socialize, they have a very rigid social hierarchy and don't socialize much spontaneously, so they force themselves to do it.
It's the same reason why they have a lot of national holidays based on nature or events (Keirō no hi respect for the aged day, Kodomo no Hi childern's day, Tennō Tanjōbi the emperor birthday, the green day, the mountain day, the marine day etc. etc.) to force them to take a break from work.
Leaving aside the relative merits of various systems of resource allocation, any society wherein one must work to be able to procure food and shelter includes at least a small element of coercion, even if the only force at fault is nature/physics (due to your body’s need for input energy). Farm or die, as it were.
We’ve extended that with specialization, and some societies have patched over it with regulations, but ultimately there is a natural coercive force applied on Earth with regards to “work”: hunger.
Coercion directly suggests threats and force, which is suggestive of toxic retribution. That is completely different than an ethical order from a supervisor to a subordinate to perform a job task directly related to their job or area of responsibility.
In my current job I am a manage of managers owning a small helpdesk department. When I need something done I tell my junior managers the task to accomplish and expect the results in a given time frame. I don't have to threaten harm or use fear as a tool, because that's hostile and toxic.
Perhaps instead you mean influence. Good leaders will attempt to realign the goals and thoughts of their staff to the goals of the work using rewards and positive reinforcement.
I don't mean that entirely, but understand the position from which you negotiate. I'm sure someone who abstains can do well, but I will say that many business relationships are formed from having some drinks and feeling friendly/chatting/etc.
1. I managed to do business without taking drugs as long as I can think.
2. I am used to people coming to me for advice and my services. I never needed to advertise etc. so THEY will have to do business else where just as I said.
3. Just because in your opinion (data please) "many business relationships are formed from having some drinks" does not lead to "ALL business relationships are formed from having some drinks". This is a flaw in your logic.
4. If "feeling friendly/chatting/etc." is the reason for you to take drugs then I advice you to do therapy or something else to learn to be friendly, chatty etc. without the need to take drugs. If you need drugs to achieve this all the time this is a clear indicator that you have serious issues.
I don't doubt 1 and 2, 3 is putting words in my mouth, and 4 may be valid but misses the point. The very idea that "drinking lowers inhibitions" is the point of the article: That the inherent social guards and barriers begin to lower when people feel others in the room are willing to drink and bond with them.
I didn't say it was a requirement, but you have an air of hubris about you regarding your abstinence, and it's worth pointing out that many people drink with respect to their health and well being, and that it is indeed a part of many business relationships. It is also NOT a part of many.
It depends on your role entirely. Management level or engineer you don't need to be a drinker only on certain social company events. If you are on the Sales team you likely need to be in order to close deals and be part of the team. However I am curious if that is changing within the new Covid ERA. Hopefully this is vestiges of the past and we will move past an alcohol based era. It can be a catalyst for problems in the workplace. To be fair it does have some positive attributes as well. edit: typos
There are markets where a B2B sales representative who does not drink would be utterly ineffective as many potential customers won't even listen to their pitches without an alcohol-filled setting, and would not take them seriously if they would organize such a setting but don't participate themselves. The same applies for existing customers, they would refuse meetings/pitches/deals if they don't "have contact" with the assigned representative, so being a non-drinker makes someone unemployable in such roles.
It's not about markets for some niche products, it's about geographical markets where you can't negotiate a wholesale distribution deal for a line of shampoo or a refrigerator brand if you're not willing to drink with your partners.
In most states in the US business transactions negotiated in the presence of alcohol (any alcohol) renders a contract void due to legally provable diminished capacity. It sounds like you are taking unnecessary risks without approval from your corporate legal advisors.
I do not need a sales department because my services and products speak for themselves and people want to have them. They come because of reputation and part of this is being sober, punctual, efficient and professional.
I am sad for you when you need to do this and I am happy for myself not to be in this position where one would force me to take drugs to do my job.
Caffeine and sugar are drugs with similar strength to alcohol in different mental state directions. You come off as judgmental and full of yourself with that kind of rhetoric. If this is how you talk to partners and customers, you must have really amazing products and services.
While its true that sugar is more addictive than cocaine neither sugar nor caffeine induce people to commit sexual assault or impair the ability to operate machines. Could you produce a single instance where somebody was arrested for DUI where the intoxicant was sugar or caffeine?
Perhaps I am judgemental too, but your argument is hilariously absurd and decidedly without evidence.
That is a geopolitical subcultural anomoly. Where I live, over the course of my corporate career, virtually nobody has communal drinks after work. There is a combination of driving commute and family obligations that eliminates that possiblity.
Nice to hear that - I was about to rep Germany as well ;).
Though it's surprising how badly this can go even in close countries such as Switzerland.
I once left feedback such as "this 3h on how to use Powerpoint should only be 30min. It doesn't have a lot of content, and the teacher clearly isn't interested" on a company course (where it was explicitly requested).
I was summarily called into an HR meeting to explain that such direct language was not appropriate.
As a Belgian I can confirm. The Dutch are considered very blunt. We Flemisch people are more subtle and diplomatic. But in a working environment, it's actually pretty good to just be brutally honest about stuff, even when you step on other peoples toes.
I'm sure many Japanese salarymen would agree with your description. I used to work in a small familial company in Osaka where you didn't need an excuse to "exercise honesty", but from I gather it was the exception more than the rule.
So far of all the places I worked at it was probably the one I enjoyed the most in terms of atmosphere and relation with coworkers, alas the work was not particularly interesting. I still pay my former coworkers a visit from time to time.
I’ve travelled to many places around Japan, never once has anyone told me that Osaka wasn’t in Japan.
There are lots of stereotypes about people coming from various cities/regions in Japan (Tokyo: cold, Kyoto: indecipherable, Osaka: uneducated/rude, Hokkaido: weird, Okinawa: lazy, etc.), but Osaka not in Japan? Never once.
This is patently false. You drink at the nomikai because everyone drinks at the nomikai. If you don't join, then you are seen as not being a team player. It's as simple as that. There is no subterfuge going on. Hell, the boss is usually the one that ends up the most drunk. Yes, perhaps some people may use it as a way to gain some insight, but you can apply that to anything.
And in addition, whatever is said or done at the nomikai stays in the nomikai. It's a way for the team to blow off some steam and be honest with each other. The next day, people carry on as if it never happened. I've been the drunk guy and the sober guy in these situations. You do learn a lot, but it's not the purpose of the gathering.
Source: I've lived and worked in Japan and Korea for over a decade.
OP is saying nomikais are about trust. P is saying they are about team, and that they help bring the boss down and lift the workers up.
Nomikais are both. If anything it's just an excuse to drink, and each company or team would decide how they drank. It starts in college with bukatsu nomikais. And there are good ones, and the ones where the ring leader is arrested for serial rape. That happened at Todai, and is definitely not normal, but unless you're the leader (there is always a leader) how are you to know until you show up and everyone starts drinking? Much like frat recruiting in the States. My year, someone died (1997 I think it was).
"Son, never trust a man who doesn’t drink because he’s probably a self-righteous sort, a man who thinks he knows right from wrong all the time. Some of them are good men, but in the name of goodness, they cause most of the suffering in the world. They’re the judges, the meddlers. And, son, never trust a man who drinks but refuses to get drunk. They’re usually afraid of something deep down inside, either that they’re a coward or a fool or mean and violent. You can’t trust a man who’s afraid of himself. But sometimes, son, you can trust a man who occasionally kneels before a toilet. The chances are that he is learning something about humility and his natural human foolishness, about how to survive himself. It’s damned hard for a man to take himself too seriously when he’s heaving his guts into a dirty toilet bowl.”
I really don't like this quote: it reinforces this weird idea of what a "real man" is and that a real man should get drunk from time to time.
If someone doesn't want to drink or get drunk, so be it: don't lord it over them like they haven't performed some rite of passage, and it's especially disrespectful towards people who have had bad experiences with alcohol.
It reinforces the idea that drinking is 'normal' and 'fun'. It suggests that people who do not drink must have reasons not to do such an "obviously good" (scare quotes) thing.
Those aren't good things. But I don't think it says much horrible about what a 'real man' is. Ignoring alcohol, it says don't be too righteous, and people who don't trust themselves aren't trustworthy. And those two messages, I kinda like.
Whilst I don't like the message "people who don't drink are too righteous". I do like really the message "People who are (too) righteous are bad".
It encourages a chauvinistic, macho culture. Those who don’t fit into that should not be trusted, that is, excluded (e.g. women, Muslims, etc.). That’s actively harmful.
Can partially agree with Crumley's sentiment but only for a time limited period during early adulthood - it's simply neither socially, nor health-wise, a good idea to foster adult culture that values drunkenness as a truth indicator.
Rather I would like to trust that truthfulness must gradually come to be valued, developed and followingly more easily recognised as a core function of humanity, simply because it is VITAL for the continued evolution and improvement (and potentially survival) of our culture.
Tangent: if we BS ourselves by fostering a culture that believes group sentiments simply because it is popular it may well prove fatal on a civilisation level. This problem is pretty much embodied by the current replication crisis in the sciences where publishing to further ones career comes before validating that what is published is actually, verifiably, true. The latter step is extremely hard and as an individual one may not see much gain from adhering to truth whereas as a society we are critically dependent on it for things to not, literally, fall apart.
That is one of the stupidest things I’ve read. Imagine reading that as a person who suffered a loss from the actions of a drunk person. Why would you want people to lose control of themselves?
Please explain exactly what it is about causing harm to your organs and increasing the probability of harm to others that makes you trust someone more than someone who does not increase the probability of harm to themselves and others?
People who drink but don't want to get drunk are trying to have their cake and eat it. They have an advantage over other people that is only OK if everyone already trusts everyone else in the group. If you don't want to get drunk for health reasons then leave early because hanging around and not drinking is suspicious.
What they're afraid of might be depression. Therapy really only teaches you conscious, rational self-regulation strategies. When you lose the ability to apply those, you might not be fun to hang out with anymore.
Personally I think self-control is what makes a person trustworthy.
The tech industry is rife with drinking culture and alcoholism in general. I do not drink, and I frequently feel isolated as a result, both at business and social gatherings. 30+ year old colleagues will demand a reason for why I don't drink, as if I'm the one engaging in exclusionary behavior :(
I don’t drink, but I never felt isolated because of that. I do go to bars though, I just order a coke, a juice, or even a coffee. Yes, I receive a soft pressure to drink. Mostly when I was in college. Yes, people are surprised and ask (sometimes afraid is a touchy subject) why I don’t drink (I just don’t like the taste). A few of the conversations are repeated dozens of times over the years. Some people are hesitant that I am judging them, but pretty early is clear that I am not. But all that is just some conversation, maybe even an ice-breaker. So it never affected my sociability. It is just a fact.
Edit: ok, a few of the other answers are pretty judgemental towards people who do drink, so if that’s your case, I understand why it would make you isolated
I think this is a really good and healthy approach: engage with the social aspects, don’t get snooty, shoulder the (minor) cost of repeating the same conversation. I look up to this!
Has anybody befriended you after those type of conversations? I've had success explaining why I'm not drinking, but afterwards, it's difficult to reconnect.
Not drinking was never the main topic, just a passing topic. It was never an issue at all. Reconnection or not were due to other things.
But I must say that I never made friends on bars. My friends were neighbors and school friends (in my teens), then college friends, then a few coworkers. And their friends. So I go to the bar with them, not to make friends.
In nightclubs, to meet women, it had a larger impact, but not necessarily a negative one. It would be a conversation point, but I felt that some women actually preferred, maybe felt safer with someone that could better understand and respect limits, idk. I am not from US though, not sure how the culture is here. I never bought any woman a drink (not sure if it’s for real or just a movie thing)
Not sure if someone who'd genuinely take issue with someone else not drinking would make a quality friend. Perhaps a good acquaintance, friend-of-convenience or friend-for-a-purpose, but friend-friend?
I wouldn't call it alcoholism, but I do think there's too much emphasis on alcohol in team building. Getting trashed with your team and making memories (or lack thereof) is kind of a fast track to becoming tight. But there are healthier and better ways to do it.
This is 30+ year old me speaking, but mid-20s me would be out until the early hours of the morning with the rest of the team on a work night, and I loved it. But now that I manage a team, I pretty much never make alcohol the focus of any company event - not really healthy or something I want to be actively promoting to employees. I guess I'm a bit of a puritan now.
Do people actually gets trashed and wasted with their team though? Usually I find that there is a "work" portion where people head to the bar after work and have a few beers and get buzzed and talk about work. And then people leave and people break off into groups and the "friends" portion of the night starts, when you might actually get drunk with your group of friends from work. But there is no illusion that there is any connection to work at that point.
I experienced something similar, when I stopped drinking alcohol for health reasons and still noticing mental impairment when staying at parties until morning.
It's the same way people get defensive when someone else says they're a vegan. People may often take it as this person signaling something they do as 'normal' and your refusal to partake means there might be a health, moral, or other flaw in their practice. That someone else never said anything further, cast down on the questioner for drinking/eating meat/etc., or said "it's debate time", but it's the symbol that the very thought that maybe they should second guess themselves that disgusts them -- and this event was supposed to be fun, and you are making it serious.
I guess the pro-tip is to always have non-alcoholic beverages at a gathering.
There are teetotallers, and then there are teetotallers. There are vegans, and then there are vegans.
I lived in Manhattan for just under 8 years, and have been in Hong Kong for almost 9 years now. I have more friends and colleagues who are vegan here (and a few Jains), but I've never seen the social posturing here that I would sometimes see from vegans in NYC. I don't mean to imply all, or even a majority, of teetotallers, vegans, etc. are virtue signalling in New York, just pointing out the near complete absence of posturing and virtue signalling (at least over those choices) here in Hong Kong puts New York in sharp contrast. I took my wife to New York for the first time a bit over a year ago, and our AirBnB hosts were way over the top sharing their dietary choices, to the point is was very confusing to my wife. I had to tell my wife something along the lines of "Don't worry about it. These aren't actually super strange people. It's just something some people do here. We don't have to worry for our safety." We have vegan friends and colleagues here, and my wife's sister-in-law believes in a branch of Buddhism that doesn't eat beef, but posturing over dietary choices was completely foreign to my wife.
My weirdness was that I didn't own a TV for about 10 years prior to getting married. I understood a lot of people who didn't own TVs were really annoying about it. I presume not owning a TV is too passe as a virtue signal these days. With me, it only came up if someone asked me what I thought of the latest episode of XYZ.
Anyway, I see huge differences between New York and Hong Kong about how people present that they don't drink alcohol, are vegan, etc.
I think certain people are desperate to create an identity because they rejected their past identity (became atheist for example). I don't really understand why people are so militant about these things either. I don't drink normally but I'll drink on occasion (with my colleagues for example). Because of this I never get questioned if I decide to stick with water on a particular occasion. My colleagues don't feel like it isn't perfectly valid and it requires none of the (perceived) virtue signalling on my part.
In my experience people get annoyed at hanging out with (the more intransigently judgey type of) vegans because it radically limits the possible places to go eat, and it can get tedious hearing a moral lecture at every available opportunity. I’d speculate that some vegans need to constantly talk about their veganism as a way of suppressing their own uncertainty about their decision. [Not unlike people who have adopted other causes as a core part of their identity; vegans are hardly unique here.]
I’ve never seen someone get mad when a vegan e.g. brought their own food to a social gathering, or directly answered questions about their experience of veganism.
I don’t really buy this explanation because vitriol against vegans is alive and well even in regions and communities where vegans are effectively non-existent. N.B.: I grew up in rural Wisconsin and have never knowingly met another vegan in my life.
>some vegans need to constantly talk about their veganism as a way of suppressing their own uncertainty about their decision.
I met up with some friends in a park recently. It was hot so I suggested ice cream and one vegan dude I'm not that close with comes with me to get it. As we are walking back I notice he is eating an ice cream which is weird cos he's vegan. Without me prompting he says
"Oh damn, I forgot I was vegan"
Then he goes on a monlogue about how he's been feeling so good since he became vegan and he thinks it's great but he sounds totally unconvincing. Like he doesn't believe himself. Later he pulls some pre made vegan food out of his bag and slowly starts eating it. Turns out his girlfriend packed it for him. I talk to some friends about it later on and they inform me that he regularly cheats and pretends to himself it was an accident. Dude is probably malnourished and under the thumb of his vegan girlfriend. It's kind of sad.
Or when you say you don’t intend to get married. They take it as a personal attack on their decision to get married when it actually has nothing at all to do with them or their marriage. Even the most progressive people can be weirdly defensive about the cultural norms they’ve adopted.
A friend who spent much time grappling with how to refrain from social drinking came up with the essentially factual sentence "I've had _plenty_ of alcohol, thanks" (said with enthusiasm in a way that implies he's partied in the past to the point where he had a problem and has to refrain now going forward, without actually sounding like a buzzkill - it takes a bit of practice but is easy to get across in just the right notes)
During my 20s, I routinely gave up drinking for Lent. My friends were all drinkers though, and going our for drinks was very much part of our routine.
What worked for me was just to get my own drinks at the bar, and always order non-alcoholic stuff. When folks were buying rounds of drinks, I'd just say "Nah, I'm good for now". No need to mention that I wasn't drinking, and no need to explain why. It's easy to time your drink orders so that you're out-of-phase by few minutes. Then you're ordering at the bar, and you have total control over it.
That way, I've got something in my hand to drink along with everybody else. Maybe it's a soda-water with lime, or maybe it's a near-beer poured into a pint glass. But I was taking part in the social aspect, and that's what mattered. I never lied if asked what I was drinking, but I wouldn't go out of my way to bring it up/make it visible either.
Anybody who's had some good nights at the bar will tell you - there's nothing wrong with being a non-drinker, as long as you're not an asshole about it. Nobody likes to feel judged (even implicitly) for their life-choices. But if you can avoid giving off that vibe, nobody will care at all what's in your glass.
In my observation, the social pressure isn't to drink _alcohol_ per-se. It's to drink _something_. Something that you bought at the bar, and something you're drinking along with everybody else. Soda-water is fine as long as you're pacing your drinks with the people around you, so that you're being part of the group.
If anyone doubts the strength of the social pressure to drink alcohol, it's pretty telling that even in societies that stigmatise addiction, it can be easier to hint at alcoholism than to simply say you don't like to drink.
I'd like to think the younger generation is better at "tolerating" not drinking.
I remember my father and his colleagues used to have drinks together on occasions, and throw up, and get home sick, and wake up with a headache. My father hated alcohol, yet he still felt obliged to drink together. I had acquainted several of his colleagues, and not surprisingly, none of them like drinking. Most of them hated drinking.
So, it's actually a self-fulfilling prophecy. Everyone thought others expected everyone to drink, thus showed up to drink, and validated everyone's expectation.
If they were to sit down, sober, honest about their not liking alcohol, they would have found that a bunch of people who didn't enjoy drinking, forced themselves to drink with one another.
This impression was marked on my mind, that I initially thought I always had to drink, too.
But, I was wrong; we had plenty to do in gatherings, BBQ-ing, playing cards and board games. And as long as I'm into some of the activities, not drinking isn't a barrier to friendship, or trust, or "team spirit".
It's quite liberating that the circle I'm in has jumped out of the self-fulfilling prophecy of "obliged to drink".
Many statistics have shown that younger generations are less likely to drink: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-45807152 (among many other things: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/44880278) so it seams like staying sober is becoming more normalised. The recent growth of non-alcoholic drinks and bars certainly suggests that.
I imagine that since drinking is a social activity, without the social pressure to drink many are simply forgoing it entirely - which itself acts as a feedback loop that further reduces the social pressure to drink. I think a lot of people are discovering that you really don't need alcohol as a kind of "social lubricator" to have a great time out.
Drinking culture and alcoholism are not equivalent. Drinking culture is an annoying peer-pressure thing that builds comraderie, but takes up a lot of time. Alcoholism is a disease that leads people to drink alone more than not (to avoid stigma).
This is also my experience, but I’ve always worked with pretty down to earth people. The better leaders I’ve worked under have made it a point to always ask new employees if they would prefer any non-alcoholic options in particular before any events, rather than assuming.
Working in general is alcohol soaked in our culture. All over the world. Working people drink together.
Alcohol has been marketed so heavily in all cultures for so long, and by so long i mean since beer was safer to drink than water, like pretty much since we invented fermentation, other than some brief puritan periods, alcohol it has been a huge part of human culture.
If you stop to think for a bit, how many wars, how many disasters how many deaths, conflicts and other terrible things in human history that's happened, where alcohol may not have been a direct factor, but the people doing these things probably drank regularly.
Alcohol is this strange partially acknowledged influence over so much of human culture and history, it's mindboggling when you start to really consider it.
There's a piece of dialogue from a show I really like which has stuck with me for years.
---
Person 1: "Is everyone out here really so lifeless?"
Person 2: "Yes. Yes we are. That's why we drink."
Person 1: "Well, I drank just fine before."
Person 2: "Yeah, because your world was so overwhelming and scary and you needed a break from it all. Now, you're going to drink because each day is so goddamn dull, and that takes a lot more booze."
So we're talking about situations where it's not particularly a positive or negative influence, just an influence? You could make similar arguments for a lot.
How many times have indoor toilets changed the world through the butterfly effect? I doubt it's a small number.
> 30+ year old colleagues will demand a reason for why I don't drink
Sorry to hear people treat you this way.
Depending on the situation and my energy level, I have a few standard answers. Obviously I'm careful about which one I use in what circumstance, but I get a kick out of shocking people who push when they shouldn't, and I find it teaches them not to push.
I'm very aware these are all excuses that I shouldn't have to make, but I feel they teach me more about the person I'm dealing with than just setting up a "dig in the heels" approach of "I don't want to".
My favourite is "My parole officer told me not to drink again". Playing with delivery on that one is a lot of fun. Say it quietly like you're scared someone else will hear, or say it super loud like you think it's a massive joke, and you might just drink again anyway!
"I promised myself I'd go a month without drinking to see how I feel" (How they respond to that tells you a lot about if they have any care in the world for you and your choices)
"A good friend was killed by a drink driver. I've had a hard time with alcohol since" (true story, so I don't feel bad saying it)
"I'm a professional athlete, alcohol messes with my training"
Many people can remember an excuse like that. I met a few coworkers who get a kick out of this - and it makes you appear manipulative and erratic when I catch you on the lie.
I prefer the truth - not a suspicion of the guy being a sociopath.
I’ve been reprimanded earlier in my career for not given these “blatant” bullshitters “the benefit of the doubt”. It trained me just assume honesty despite evidence.
I’ve since been able to move to smaller companies where the truth is more acceptable. In larger orgs you can never say someone is dishonest without damaging your career. At least that was my experience and observations.
My buddy (non-drinker at the time) had a job that required him to grease the wheels with clients and a major lubricant was alcohol.
He came up with an idea: cranberry juice in a wine glass
Everything seemed to be going swimmingly well, till one of the senior clients came up to him and whispered in his ear: "it works better if you don't put ice cubes in there" :)
Anyway, he started drinking pretty quickly after and hasn't looked back since.
I’m always happy when people get mad that I don’t drink because it usually means they’ve never met an alcoholic whose life has been ruined by the bottle and that’s happy to me.
Of course, they should know better than to ask the guy with an extremely addictive personality type who has played more WoW than hours they’ve ever spent watching TV. But hey, the world must be becoming a better place if fewer people know how bad addiction can be :)
Or they have an acohol problem and by not drinking you're un-normalizing alcohol consumption and making them feel self-concious of their faults so they lash out to distract from that.
No idea if that's a true thing that happens, but that is definitely the sterotype of people who want everyone to drink.
I don't get pressed about it often, but usually when people ask why I don't drink, I just say that I have poor self control and all my memories with alcohol end in vomiting.
If they push it further than that, I tell them I have family with addiction issues and don't want to risk it.
I think being sober around drunk people is like going to a naked beach with your clothes on. It just doesn't feel right, and if you don't want to drug yourself up then you shouldn't want to be around people who are.
It won't feel right if you're trying to fit in the same way, because you fundamentally are lacking the necessary attributes to do so (drunkeness, lack of clothes), but that doesn't matter if you don't feel a need to fit in. If you have any interest in people-watching, or perhaps one might call such interests anthropologist tendencies, things are fine. Observe, interact and join conversation or events as you please.
Besides, most people are multi-dimensional, even if you don't fit in on this thing, you might fit in on another axis. Why are you even with the group to begin with? Focusing on that will be more important for social bonding than focusing on joining or not in alcoholic drinks.
Or going to a normal beach with a hijab? If your friends can't respect you deciding not to drink, it's much like being uncomfortable with you going to the beach with them with a hijab.
I don't drink either, but I'm perfectly happy to answer "It's unhealthy and I don't like it" when people ask me why. Of course, I also try to avoid social interaction, so if this is a rude response it might not be as useful for others.
That's akin to declining chocolate from a fat person by saying "no thanks, it makes me fat". I don't drink for medical reasons , although I used to in my twenties. I don't feel the pressure to drink, but understand why some people feel they need a reason. Saying "I don't feel like it" should be sufficient for most people
Drinking occurs in Muslim and Mormon households. Some are okay with it. Some have immense guilt for perceived sins, which can feed into a negative feedback loop in alcoholism, other substance abuse issues, and mental health issues. The advertising industry has blood on its hands where alcohol is concerned, at least, but alcohol is addictive enough to bring addicts out of the woodwork.[0]
Alcohol is also a part of society and culture. It’s neither good nor bad inherently. It’s only bad to use it against your own moral code, or that of others, or that of your local jurisdiction. What you do with that abuse potential is up to you.
Please drink responsibly, if you do at all. Drinking’s perceived minor heart benefits give people license to drink when they may not otherwise, to little benefit. However, social drinking is an opportunity to socialize, and with the intent on the socializing, the potential harms for overindulgence can be curbed. It’s easier to not get addicted to begin with.
You have to be able to stop drinking for your choice as to when and why you drink to hold water, or your drink of choice.
Some just replace it with something else. In my experience khat culture is effectively identical to drinking culture in much of the ME and in ME enclaves in Western nations.
This. Fortunately, "I am allergic to alcohol" always work. (Not sure if I have one -- I do have some allergic-like reaction to alcohol when I was a child, but I am not going to risk it)
Or just tell them the long and thoughtful truth on why you don't drink in detail. Mental clarity, avoidance of toxins, better workouts, etc. A nice exhaustive list.
I garauntee they'll be sorry they even asked and zone out in 10 seconds or less.
Then maybe people shouldn’t ask why if they don’t want to hear the answer. I think it’s a rude question to ask so I don’t really have any pity for someone who finds themselves bored with the response.
That depends more on how you say it. Try not to invoke guilt. After all, you presumably like these people and don't want to make them feel bad - but you just don't want to drink. Guilt is where it can go wrong, so you kind of have to dance around it.
I have found it’s generally quite easy to say “I don’t like the way it makes me feel”, which is relatively guilt-free. A less-strong one might be “I don’t like the taste”. It helps that it’s true in my particular case, of course.
I happen to be excluded from your "we" ;) We would like it if people didn't do this, but it happens and it doesn't help us to be annoying. Especially in cases where people don't realize that they're prying being sanctimonious in response can come off as being unreasonably smug.
Mental clarity not important for hangouts, toxins is a dumb buzzword, you're not working out tonight, etc.
The real list of reasons is probably very short, and should not be inflated to be annoying on purpose.
Edit: Okay, so why the downvotes? Am I wrong in interpreting "exhaustive" in the context of that post as "inflated to hell and back instead of trying to be a real list"? I would be very surprised if I'm misreading that.
FWIW, people who cut out alcohol for muscle building reasons (As opposed to direct weight loss/diet reasons) are well aware that the effects of oestrogen release lasts for weeks, up to 6, iirc. It’s a pretty good reason to not drink.
For general weight loss, I’m unsure if the alcohol effects anything on a chemical level, but alcoholic drinks are calorie dense as hell.
Alcoholic drings have a lot of calories, but they are also known to increase your appetite. Finally, they can disrupt proper judgement, of whether you need to eat a dessert or not :)
A fun fact though: beer, milk and orange juice pretty much have the same calorie density. This is why I drink mostly water, very little milk and orange juice and hopefully not too much beer.
When you drink, even in moderation, your mental clarity probably isn't at peak level again for at least two night's rest.
That's my experience anyway. People who think they're back in tip-top shape after a night out tend to be the ones who drink so often they live in a fog and can no longer distinguish between that and clear mindedness anymore. I think that's true for a surprisingly large amount of people.
Or just tell them No. As long as you are not hurting anyone, you're under no obligation to justify your life choices to your co-workers.
I suppose some people might find that stand-offish, but the type of people who won't respect boundries on something as simple as this definitely won't respect boundries when it really matters.
I mean sure, if one feels invested enough in such people to expend the considerable effort to enlighten them and the folly of their judgment. But if one is already convinced of their own way, such an effort could be not worthwhile, or even fall on deaf ears.
I don't know if the USA is representative of the rest of the world in this regard but, with respect to drinking, American adults fall into deciles that surprised me[1]. Roughly 40% consumed almost no alcohol in the week before being surveyed, 40% were low-to-moderate drinkers, 10% averaged about two drinks per day, and 10% holy shit that's a lot of booze.
I think that chart is misleading, 0 drinks in the last week does not mean "doesn't drink at all, " which implies total abstention. You can easily go weeks or even months without a drink as an occasional drinker who only partakes at social gatherings.
I’ve never been implored to smoke marijuana by any people smoking marijuana. They are also far more pleasant to be around than drunk people, with zero chance of violent outbursts.
Just relaying my personal experience, but I don't drink either and have never felt excluded. I occasionally get asked why (most people don't even notice) and I tell them the truth "I feel like crap the next day, even with just one drink".
In the US, there is a huge portion of the country, if not majority, that must drive home from work. Women certainly can’t afford a couple drinks before driving, maybe even one, as it can impair their driving abilities and result in drunk driving. Probably true for many men too.
Yes, of course. And I would recommend abstaining from any driving after any amount of alcohol, but I meant sufficiently impaired that it causes you legal troubles.
What part do you find confusing? You forgot to explain your confusion, sorry!
Edit: apparently I‘ve been rate-limited by HN’s anti-spam techniques, so I can’t comment further for a few hours, but encouraging employees to ingest a drug, especially at a workplace, especially a drug that makes people more susceptible to manipulation, doesn’t seem to square with any good-faith interaction between a company and its employees. The point of throwing a party with alcohol at the workplace seems to be an effort to throw money at employment satisfaction, but extremely cheaply and to no positive material effect for the employees. Why not just give the money spent on the party to employees and organize off-site as “normal” people uninhibited by corporate values? Well, that doesn’t benefit anyone BUT employees.
I’ve been to a fair number of off-campus celebrations, lunches, dinners, events, etc and the atmosphere is greatly relaxed and more respectful for it.
"Creepy" means everything these days and you'll find people invoking it for everything. A guy dating a woman five years younger than him? "Creepy". Wheeling a keg into an office on Friday? "Creepy". Approaching the opposite sex? "Creepy".
So I think you'll send a clearer message to explain what you mean instead of leaving it up to everyone's interpretation of the word "creepy".
Edit: To respond to your edit, I can see how you can think something like that. But at the same time, alcohol is also an effective age-old mechanism for social bonding, and social bonding is important at a workplace. I think there's a certain cynicism in looking at social drinking at the workplace as some manipulation-play that errs into the side of unreasonableness. I, myself, often opt out with a sparkling water, yet I think the ritual is useful to really meet and befriend others at work.
The nice thing about our drinking rituals is that they are inherently social. We don't need to go to some contrived "team building" activity. And it's effective to get people to talk to each other in a way that "Okay everyone, it's social time! Get chattin'!" just isn't.
Alcohol definitely has its downsides. It's unhealthy. It can get people to make fools of themselves. It can make people aggressive. For sure, these are problems. But I wouldn't so quickly dismiss the upsides. Some social drinking can make things possible that I'm not even sure how to replicate without it, like getting people to actually open up and be real with one another. There's something to say about that that isn't just negative. Just like I don't think the workplace is optimal when we're all just impersonal professional drones who never really get to know the real human behind our coworkers.
I can tell you I made a friend by going for beers with him and opening up about stuff. I think the alcohol played a role, because the opening up part came after at least a beer.
And no, I'm not an alcoholic. I'm tipsy already after a beer.
I’m not sure how you’re treating the opposite sex to be considered “creepy” by approaching them, but it’s definitely something to be concerned about.
Anyway get your drinking rituals away from me, I don’t want to bond with my coworkers, especially not at the workplace. I consider it creepy to even conflate a paid relationship with anything personal.
If I make friends with my coworkers, that’s certainly not the business of my boss, or their employer, or really anyone.
A manager offering an employee amphetamines to improve their performance is unethical, and extremely creepy.
A manager encouraging employees to take up smoking to fit in better with their coworkers is unethical, and extremely creepy.
A manager encouraging employees to consume alcohol at work in order to foster team building is not fundamentally different than either of the above, it's just milder and deeply entrenched by convention as socially acceptable behavior.
I drink in general, yet at work gatherings with alcohol I stick to sparkling water.
I'm approaching my mid-30s and never had anyone "encourage" me to put the water down and suck on a beer. Nor do I think wheeling a keg into the office is the same as a manager encouraging you to drink.
You definitely stand out when you're in a drinking context and your hands are in your pockets. There's something that can feel distrustful about that in some scenarios. I'd encourage non-drinkers to at least learn to play along and have some beverage in their hand.
A lot of our creep-detector software seems to kick in when someone isn't playing along with social ritual, and complaining that you have to play along doesn't really serve you. They're just basic social skills.
To recap: there's nothing creepy about bullying people into drinking -- pretending to drink if they must! -- to prove their loyalty to the group, and despite the fact that should be common knowledge for everyone, you've never seen it happen?
Dude, a "beverage" can just mean a glass of water.
We're talking about parts of human psycology like not having the same posture as the rest of the group. Of course it's prejudice, but it's also real and difficult to be aware of when it's happening to you.
Also, nobody is showering their drink on you if you don't participate, so blowing your blunt smoke in their face is a much bigger asshole move for me.
> Alcohol makes people violent and out of control, more so than any other drug.
No, PCP is known to make users violent beyond what alcohol would do. And increased alcohol consumption correlates with less ability to act violently, because at some point the drinker is going to be unable to move, while PCP does not degrade one's motor skills.
Presumably it's entrenched by convention because it's a successful practice; organizations that do it are in some small way more successful than ones that don't. I doubt that is true for amphetamines.
I don't know about offering cigarettes, but I've definitely been in environments where smoke breaks were an effective way of building connections across the organization.
Would you feel the same way about "successful practices" which discriminate against employees on the basis of race, sex, or religious preferences? There are plenty of commonplace social practices which do not benefit employees or society. The mere presence of a feature does not prove that it is adaptive.
But they do benefit employees. I am not a smoker but a number of people in a former company were and they shared a camaraderie that if you didn't hang out with them you wouldn't get. It also cut across levels, so you could be an intern and it was an easy time to hang out with some mid level manager and get noticed.
Of course it's successful to intentionally manipulate you with alcohol. Just because you can explain a phenomenon does not justify it; that's just giving up on the concept of "values" altogether.
For sure, but I'm not so sure they would be net-positive for an organization. Plenty of people can't take them in a sustainable way, and if they were given out like beer at happy hour I think a lot of folks would go off the rails.
My last employer offered an on-site therapy benefit and I sometimes wondered whether we'd see a progression from therapy -> on-site psychiatry -> little nudges to take ADHD tests -> everyone is taking Adderall.
And coffee? What about sugary sodas? Energy drinks with supplements?
I think even your examples make clear there is a spectrum here and not absolute equivalence.
You can’t assess these things in a vacuum from their position in society. If adderall were over the counter and considered as safe as alcohol, the spectrum would change.
If alcohol were offered in a culture where it’s frowned upon it might be seen as worse than cigarettes.
> ...deeply entrenched by convention as socially acceptable behavior.
Have you considered that some things are deeply entrenched because they work?
I think most people who aren't teetotalers and who have worked at a startup have brought beer or whiskey to the workplace for after a long day, and I don't think that it's that different when the boss brings the beer: if you are working with people you can't trust, you probably have other issues.
Nobody's saying you have to drink, but it's not a tragedy if that leaves you out of some of the benefits of social drinking.
It introduces a non-work ritual into the workplace that is exclusionary to non-drinkers. It is naturally divisive to the workplace by encouraging social bonds between drinkers and excluding non-drinkers without a regular alternative.
It's like having a basketball game every Friday and expecting the guy in a wheelchair to show up and keep score. Sure, they can socialize a bit, but its inherently ostracizing and annoying especially if the person doesn't want to keep score.
Sure, voluntary social drinking among employees is fine whenever. And work sponsored drinking on occasion is fine, same as a work sponsored basketball game once in a while. Wheelchair guy won't have a problem with that. But every week? Ostracizing.
But having the sole, weekly, work-sponsored social event as something exclusionary is cult-like and creepy. It makes drinking integral to regular social bonding at work.
Sure, people can sip a sparkling water and play along. And they do. And sometimes it's fun, but it's almost never the context under which that individual prefers socializing. And once people have had a few drinks, it is ostracizing because they are not drunk. They cannot discuss their drinks, offer shots, or engage in drunken antics.
What this article doesn't tell you is that this is only historical practice among people making deals with their own money--entrepreneurs--or higher-up executives or partners in a law firm etc.
As someone who works for a living for someone else, you are doing yourself no favors by getting drunk around your peers or bosses. As an employee you are trading your labor for money. You aren't necessarily going to be putting anything at stake personally, so whether or not there exists trust between you and your peers matters very little (regardless of MBAisms or management platitudes about teams). As an employee, getting drunk around your peers or being around drunk peers can only lead to negative consequences. The facade people put up is good. You don't want to know what's behind that; you didn't pick these people, you're not marrying these people, you're working with them on a temporary basis then moving on. Also, employees shouldn't talk about politics or religion at work for the same reason.
> The facade people put up is good. You don't want to know what's behind that; you didn't pick these people, you're not marrying these people, you're working with them on a temporary basis then moving on.
This strikes me as a touch too misanthropic.
I went to school on a temporary basis with a whole load of people, who just happened to be my age. It was the same at university - people who happened to pick the same courses as I did. I never chose any of these people, yet I'm lucky enough to have made some wonderful friends, and I think that if I never took the risk to get to know anyone properly (not much risk, IMO - most people aren't putting up a facade that hides some horrible reality, at least not in my experience) my life would be much poorer.
School is a different domain. It's more similar to the case of entrepreneurs getting drunk together to make sure they can trust each other. As a young person in school, the subject of your interactions with your peers is friendship and relationship itself. You are making a conscious investment of your time, you are putting something at stake, and therefore knowing if that person is hiding a different side of themselves is relevant.
Making friends is good. This isn't about not making friends. This is about how to keep your job. Your boss gives you a job but your coworkers can take it away. Don't listen to advice that is meant for high level businessmen when you're not one. Don't mix worlds, don't find opportunities to create enemies, don't try to turn your workplace into your social life.
> don’t try to turn your workplace into your social life
I think this advice is too absolute. So many people, in my experience, make positive and long-lasting friendships at work that I just can’t see your advice as being generally good. If anything, in some work cultures I think this kind of aloofness could be very negative - you could end up an outsider: unprotected, uninformed, and alone. I think you could also struggle to build the kinds of networks that can get you into the next job, or open doors in the future.
At the end of the day it’s obviously a personal choice about how you want to treat your work life. YMMV, etc...
Meh, if you have the opportunity to choose who you drink with I'd beg to differ. I've had many an enlightening discussion around how to deal with management, or some new angle to tackle a problem, or bringing to light a previously unknown opportunity, or a meta-discussion around how to deal with life itself and not just the job. I've also made some great friends along the way.
Now forced events with peers of varying closeness I'd be more likely to agree with you.
It absolutely does. We're social beings, after all. I used to be very antisocial, but once I learned how to actually talk to people, I wouldn't trade it for the world.
Not sure why you’re getting downvoted. You spend most of your time with the people you work with. If you can’t get along with them your life is going to be bad.
> you didn't pick these people, you're not marrying these people, you're working with them on a temporary basis then moving on
To be perfectly honest you're reinforcing the practise rather than arguing against it like you think. The whole point of everyone getting drunk together is to get to know the "real you". It sounds like the "real you" is quite mercenary, bitter, and reductive. No wonder you don't want to let down your carefully-crafted facade.
Arguably, building trust and social relationships with coworkers can create opportunities you wouldn't otherwise have. Networking is the common word for it. The more people out there in the world, and especially within your industry, who are thinking of you, the more often you'll get a message from someone you trust about some new job opportunity they just came across and thought might be a good fit for you. Those tend to be better opportunities than the ones that get publicly broadcasted, and they don't tend to get offered to people who seem standoffish.
And I'm speaking as a standoffish person who seldom to never gets those offers, but my wife often skips the need to job hunt because perfect jobs just fall into her lap from all the connections she's made.
Personally I have a very simple rule. I don't drink alcohol, and I don't need to have a reason for it. I tend not to give any single reason if anyone asks me about it; just any excuse on top of my head. Most of the time it suffices. The times it doesn't, I give up and let them think whatever they deem fit.
I have no issues against alcohol and people who drink. If people want to judge me on my teetotalism, it's up to them, but their judgement is not going to have any effect on my choice. I made mine and I'm going to stick to it.
I've found that Stoicism helps a lot in dealing with this. The choice to drink is in your hands. Other people's thoughts are theirs, and different people will think differently. You can only control whether you drink or not, so leave the judgement (if any) to others and don't think too much about it.
Not OP, but my story is I was living in a Middle Eastern country for a few years - although you could get alcohol at hotels it was expensive and there was basically no selection (usually only Carlsberg on tap, and similar beers in bottles). So I didn't bother drinking when I was there. It made me realise that I could have fun and socialise without alcohol.
When I came back to Europe I tried drinking a few times, but I didn't really like it. As I hadn't been drinking, even one beer would make me feel so bad and dehydrated the next day (certain non-alcoholic beers do the same, so I don't think it is necessarily the alcohol). My wife was in the same situation, and then got pregnant so she also wasn't drinking. In the end I drifted away from my old friends who I would drink with, and made new friends who were happy to do things other than drinking.
Admittedly it does make certain social situations a bit awkward (my co-working space has a weekly beer night, although I'm usually not the only one who doesn't drink), but overall I don't miss drinking. Looking back the only reason I drank before was due to peer pressure; I never felt having a cold beer after work was a very effective relaxation technique.
For me personally, I do not like the idea of impairing my cognitive functions. And I have done very cringy things while drunk. I regret it every time the following day. Bad sleep, anxiety, depression afterwards. Unproductive following day. Unnecessary calories. Setbacks in gym. So many reasons, honestly.
Not OP, but I have (virtually) the same rule. I’m averaging about 3 beers a year, and only when I really, _really_ feel like it.
I don’t have a specific reason for it. The one reason most people seem to accept is when I say “I don’t like the feeling of losing control”, although that’s only partially it. Another one that comes up is “I don’t need that to have fun”. Although I grew up in France and Belgium, I don’t like the taste of either wine or beer.
I completely agree with OP though: I don’t frankly care when people judge me for not drinking.
Drinking helps people bond which is why people like it. You don't have to drink all the time to get that benefit, just a small bit sometimes to break the ice. Beer is pretty good once you get used to it, the taste completely transforms.
I find it interesting that you think this is noteworthy. On a global scale half of the adults don't drink alcohol. In the US around a quarter of all men and a third of women don't drink.
Narrow it down to 21-50 year old men with no serious existing health conditions, no Asian heritage and no religious alcohol restriction and I bet it looks more like 90% rather than 75%.
Born in one of the highest consumption countries way above the US. My dad never drank, I never drank, hardly ever seen my mom or grandparents drink (though they're not strictly against it).
I assume drinkers just tend to go to places where people drink like pubs, clubs which I've never been to. I'm sure non-drinkers tend to be rare there.
Also assuming that drinking might correlate with sociability there could be a friendship paradox style thing going on where people you know are much more likely to be drinkers.
Not a direct answer, but my original account has been broken into, the password has been changed, and the poster is making bad comments. Not sure how to handle that.
When I feel good my body and heart has a slight euphoric feeling and alcohol moves me further away from that. I used to drink but sort of just gradually reduced it over time after meeting friends who didn't drink, it wasn't really a conscious decision though, just going by what makes me feel good
If someone asks me I'll answer fully and honestly. I don't like all recreational drug use, think it's a waste of time and potentially dangerous to yourself and others. Then I'll share a bunch of statistics about how alcohol is responsible for 3.5% of all cancer deaths. And how even small levels of consumption increase the risk.
I'm not going to stop anyone from doing this, but if they're asking my opinion already then I'll let them know I think it's a bad idea.
Personally, I have not chosen not to drink alcohol. But I have made a couple of different life choices. Equally arbitrary from others' perspective. And equally alienating. (Less than 10% of peers).
I hadn't known about Stoicism, but had discovered this concept for myself.
Perhaps some of those who are asking why you made this choice are missing the point. It's arbitrary and doesn't require justification to them. No more than their (and my) converse decision to drink alcohol needs to be justified to you.
Drinking is as old as time, but what I feel is more modern is this silly gamification of "getting real." There is a problem if you have to drink to get real. Get real when you're sober. Have long, winding conversations about anything and everything when you have your faculties together. Tell it like it is because that's what you do, but soften the blow using your brain not beer.
It might be that the drinking is a social cover that permits everyone to “get real” at once, and that the drug that is alcohol is actually irrelevant in the social sense, much like how a fire alarm is more a signal of permission for a group to begin evacuating without social judgement or other cues.
This is an interesting take which leads to a conundrum: how does the non-drinker "get real" with the drinker who usually just gets real in mutual drinking scenarios?
I’ve had success getting people to open up during coffee talks by asking probing questions. The key is to truly care about the person when you ask. Often requires sharing of your own struggles.
As someone with asian genes I have this thing called the asian flush [1]. As far as I understand it my body breaks down alcohol too fast resulting in all the waste products flooding my body.
Basically, I'm allergic to alcohol.
Alcohol makes me feel like shit, my heart starts beating in my chest, my head goes red, I get huge headaches. I always thought: why do people like this so much? Then I found out I'm allergic to alcohol.
It kind of sucks because so much socialising in today's world is based on alcohol. It took me 25 years but I've finally managed to accept the fact that I literally just can not drink alcohol. It took me 25 years to be brave enough to stand up to the social pressure of drinking. Geez.
You've obviously never gotten drunk with an online friend. Not to mention that there has been an increased interest in home cocktail making since folks started staying home, sharing the creations online.
There is more than one way to socialize with alcohol.
Yeah, never. I have $1500 worth of alcohol in my house, had my first drink 19 years ago, have close friends who a) own bars, b) own vineyards, c) own breweries and d) are execs at major international spirits companies, but yeah: never drank with a buddy while video chatting.
Alternative idea: maybe my remark wasn’t to be taken as black/white, but instead was exploring social engagement in 2020.
A lot of changes in behavior while drinking are, at low doses, social / cultural remission rather than via universal effect of the drug in question.
The simpler answer is that people build relationships through shared interests and experiences. Getting brutally intoxicated is just a pretty boring one that some people reach for.
I found this curious when I lived in the UK. People didn't seem keen on talking to strangers at a coffee shop, but were at the pub. I had a date once that declined dinner with me as too serious but offered getting drinks instead. It was really confusing, but it seemed having drinks was a requirement for establish new social connections. I inquired if people thought that this was true and healthy for relationships, and it seemed the consensus was "yes, it's true; no, it's probably not healty, but it's not gonna change". It seemed very odd for it to be a social culture requirement.
Then moving to Southeast Asia where the social events centered more on the food than the booze gave me a place where I felt more comfortable. There's no 'stiff upper lip', and strangers at lunch or in teh market are as jovial and friendly as those I'd met at the pub a few times I went.
I’ve lived in London and in Asia, and there’s as much drinking in Asia if not more. I remember reading that south korea is the biggest consumer of alcohol per capita in the world
I'm in Thailand now. There's a lot of Chang and Leos tipped back all over, even casually on the stoop of 7-Eleven, but it's more about the sentiment of not needing to have a drink. The only time it's remarked is when people say it's odd for a Westerner to not go to the bars (which is annecdotal but indicative of how Western culture is perceived here).
It was a bit different in Laos though where Beer Lao can sometimes be cheaper than water and is sort of a national pride and probably most well-known export.
> Dares, in other words, are a psychopath test. They allow the opportunity to scrutinize people’s displays of social emotions on demand, rather than having to wait for an aversive event to happen.
Perhaps raising the stakes is a great social indicator at seeing how people handle intense situations.
So perform the action that reduces the ability to control yourself, but don’t perform the action so much that you lose control of the ability to control yourself?
I don’t drink, and I’ve often read and worried about this culture of coworkers and peers who won’t trust you, and leave you out of social functions because of your choice.
I’ve never encountered it though, and people seem to accept at face value that I don’t drink, and I’ve never felt left out. Even if the activity was a bar, I’ve always been invited along.
Maybe I’m just lucky, or the companies I’ve worked at have a different sort of people at them, but I’m grateful for it.
Good thing that you're not in ex soviet zone. Not drinking there when someone offers is sign of weakness and personal offence to the one who offered to drink. Unless you have a proovable medical condition, but then everybody just feels pity for you. And what are you doing in this "dacha" anyway then :)
For reference see movie "Peculiarities of the National Hunt". Spoiler, it has nothing to do with hunting.
Alcohol as a way for alcohol companies to get rich at the expense of young people's health and sometimes lives.
I actually think there is kind of a conspiracy around alcohol. Because the effect of alcohol is to reduce your cognitive function, and that often causes normal people to become drunk since they have an impaired decision making ability about stopping. Drunk people sometimes make mistakes that interfere with their lives.
But if you become drunk and make mistakes multiple times, which I assert is actually a completely normal consequence of regular drinking for everyone, then people will literally say that it was not the alcohol that caused the problem, but that you have defective genetics (are an alcoholic) if you decide to stop drinking.
So I think they idea of alcoholism as a genetic disease is actually a really effective propaganda by the alcohol industry. No one can really safely consume significant amounts of alcohol regularly without making mistakes. Some people are more susceptible, but that doesn't mean that they are genetically flawed or that other people can't easily run into problems also.
> you have defective genetics (are an alcoholic) if you decide to stop drinking
Is it a commonly held belief that alcoholics are genetically inferior to non-alcoholics? I personally associate addiction problems with a poor environment (low social support, overly stressed, depression) or early childhood trauma more than genetics. However, I'm just one person with my own conceptions. I'm curious if it's seen as a genetic flaw.
Well actually, after you say that, I realize there is a more basic concept here.
The basic concept is that when alcohol causes problems for people, the culture blames the person and assumes they are an outlier and have something wrong with them (they are addicted, or "can't handle their alcohol"). This is false, because alcohol has detrimental effects for everyone.
Because acknowledging that alcohol can be generally problematic or sometimes dangerous for the population overall might lead to people's fun being curtailed. So anytime things get out of hand, which is every single weekend, that person who had the problem with alcohol is labelled an alcoholic, rather than acknowledging that the alcohol actually caused everyone some problem (for example, a hangover) and that particular person just had it worse than other people.
Personally, I think that there are simple ways to apply technology to help limit excessive intoxication, especially in places like bars. Count the number of drinks with an app or something. Its too easy and too common for individuals and groups to become excessively intoxicated which is damaging to their health and dangerous in terms of vehicle operation etc. So the level of alcohol consumption needs to be monitored and taken much more seriously, rather than just blaming the victim in any case where an impaired person or group makes the wrong decision to have another drink.
I think this BS about people being broken if they can't "handle their liquor" actually helps perpetuate alcohol problems because people actually try to "prove" that they can "handle it". And it goes along with a culture that over-emphasizes how much enjoyment people have from alcohol.
I think it's likely genetic (though I'm no expert in the biology), however addiction is not a flaw. It's a dominant trait for a reason. Addiction helps people achieve amazing goals when directed at the right problem. The problem is when it gets directed towards negative things like alcohol, some drugs, or other destructive addictions (like hn or reddit ... partially joking). When directed at exercise, learning, building, writing, creating, or other positive passions, it can help addicts achieve what most non-addicts can't even fathom. It needs to be balanced though, which is sometimes the most difficult part, if it's even possible.
Applying addiction to work can be beneficial, but overdoing it (which is always the struggle) leads to workaholism. Even drugs and alcohol work the same way. A little can be amazing. A lot can lead to rehab or death. Or videogames. Programming. Technology. Music. Anything. Addictive behaviors can lead to a lot of good or a lot of bad. Great artists, musicians, programmers, designers, etc. Or living on the streets drinking, shooting up, or smoking crack/meth. Two sides of the same coin. It can be a thin line. It depends on the individual, their mentality, the support around them, and many other factors.
Only one thing's for sure. It's not a genetic flaw.
That doesn't excuse anything. Tobacco has been around forever too, yet most people will agree that tobacco companies have done some pretty horrible things.
Where I work lots of people have bottles of liquor on their desks, even some sprint retros or meetings are done with a bottle on the table. There are endless happy hours & days of the week where we get served alcohol on premise. Team outings cannot happen without alcohol being involved.
Take two sets of people: those who drink & those who do not - guess which set gets promoted/large raises/etc.
The most convincing reason I have seen for drinking is the one given by Aldous Huxley in The Devils of Loudun: to escape our "sweaty selves". In short to achieve a small escape from the constant experience of being ourselves.
A somewhat similar take though more strategic it is said the ancient Persians either debated drunk and decided sober or debated sober and decided drunk.
Basically, because alcohol is no joke. The amount of personal tragedy it produces year by year is staggering [1]. Yet as a society we currently decide it to be worth the costs and shift the responsibility to the individual: "drink responsibly". So when someone tells you "my responsible behavior is to not drink", I find it quite reprehensible for you to answer "I know better, you should drink anyway".
[1] Also speaking from personal experience, unfortunately. Yet it is hard to get a good feeling for how may lives it impacts, because cold statistics [2] don't resonate properly, and many stories occurring in you personal circle are deemed family matters or similar. It's only when you open up with your own problems / problems of people close you, that others open up as well.
1) Pressuring (as opposed to discussing, persuading) anybody to do anything they’ve really got their mind set against is usually fairly toxic behaviour, especially if there are likely to be distinct downsides to that behaviour. Edge cases might be acceptable but generally it’s toxic.
2) It’s a widespread problem due to the widespread adoption of drinking and/or binge drinking practices in many societal groups.
(I speak as a drinker, who I have to admit has sometimes wondered “what’s wrong with you?” when someone is strictly teetotal.)
Alcohol is toxic, kills brain cells and damages pretty much everything in your body, and is highly addictive to top it off. The only reason it is legal mostly everywhere is how easy it is to make and how ingrained it is in society.
It is much more damaging and much more addictive than most outlawed drugs. To top it off, it interacts badly with almost everything else.
if you want to improve trust and communication in the workplace, encourage positive & healthy social relationships among employees, so they are comfortable enough to speak their mind.
drugging people into an uninhibited state so they speak their intoxicated thoughts is not a long term solution.
It is an interesting theory; but I don't think it holds up very well on close inspection.
For one thing, human 'trust' is mostly about raw familiarity. If trust were linked to actual trustworthiness, politics would be completely different and "any publicity is good publicity" wouldn't be a proverb. Motivated untrustworthy people generally have great success getting people to trust them, drinking involved or otherwise.
In addition, trust even being an assessable characteristic is debatable, people's reliability is very dependent on context and circumstance. Nobody is trustworthy in a divorce court, for example.
"causes people to get along more freely and easily" makes a lot of sense, but the utility drunken parties for assessing trustworthiness seems weak.
It’s interesting because I have a hard time trusting people who don’t drink. And I often will not get along with someone until I at least get a drink with them. It’s not great as I know some people who categorically do not drink.
For folks who act a lot differently while inebriated, the accepted belief (way back when) was that alcohol changed their personality. I figured out that the alcohol released the suppression on those personality traits. In my case, it made me quiet (for once).
History: Drinker from 8-24. Quit because I started feeling sick from it. That's my history w/ intoxicants in general.
Sidebar: I don't care if someone's buzzed. It's just a state, like being tired or caffeinated. However, it seems common for drinkers to have a moment of embarrassment around non-drinkers but I kind of wish they didn't.
I never got drunk because I cannot stand the taste of alcohol. I can drink at most half a glass of wine or beer. (Similarly, I can also not stand the taste of some artificial sweeteners. I am probably not a supertaster, because I do like grapefruit very much. I also have a problem with many 'synthetic' smells and cannot stand smoke.)
I never realized that this had an effect on my social life, by not joining in with getting drunk with others (especially in my younger years). In my current social circles, excessive consumption of alcohol is not the norm.
I only skimmed the article but the paranoid tone reminded me of some idea I had regarding alcohol:
As an adult the constraints of social life are really heavy and indeed we have to fake / lie / hide constantly. drinking alcohol is not spying technique, it's a lubricant to restore your intuition and natural self without care
Also, even without the social burden, existential crisis lead to paralysis often, alcohol or other drug can make you feel creative and random again, a bit like a child.
Isn't it also sophomoric to not drink because of some superstition originated by a guy 1400 years ago that a being in the sky will burn you for all eternity because of it?
I knew a guy in the military who often stated: "Never trust a man you cannot have a drink with"
I had always felt conflicted because alcoholism was a common thing there and often people were sorting these things out.
This article was precisely his point. It has always stuck with me. Some of the most counter-intuitive advice from the least expected minds which has changed my views much later in life.
This isn't something new. Psychologies has concluded it's easier people friends with those who they 'commit crimes' (doing something evil) together. Consuming alcohol is just one of those, only it's way too popular.
The usual thing in Russia for doing business. Easy to spot an idiot when he is drunk.
Someone who is not drinking is perceived as someone who has an issue to hide.
Maybe because for most people intoxicating themselves around others who are intoxicated is an inherently pleasurable experience? You really think basically all cultures in the world have been drinking for the past 10000 years out of peer pressure?
Pretty sure it's because water was naturally hard to get and keep clean, meanwhile the body adopted ethanol since it's fermented and therefore killed many unhealthy pathogens.
Water history and alcohol history have pretty interesting histories.
I just dislike the taste of alcohol and I don't see how it's pleasurable.
Delusion. It's a child's mindset. As kids they saw their parents and older kids drink alcohol and associated it with an exclusive privilege of maturity. They never grew out of that. They also delude themselves into thinking that they are uniquely immune to the negative effects of the poison they put down their throats.
alcohol increase aggressiveness and self indulgence, not directly truthfulness, and it's sad to see frat boy culture getting glorified on shaky psychological myths.
