
Absent-mindedness as dominance behaviour - mhb
http://induecourse.ca/absent-mindedness-as-dominance-behaviour/
======
maxander
In defense of the absent-minded, labeling it a "dominance" behavior requires
several value judgements. One could readily read his examples to demonstrate,
for instance, that once people attain to a certain level of status and respect
(enough that they don't have to worry about people calling them "stupid")
they're simply less uptight about a lot of things than other people are. They
treat social chores and the location of parked cars as being precisely as
unimportant as _everyone_ feels like they are. The way the author talks about
the habit- "everyone would love to be absent-minded", how people can or can't
"get away with it," etc- makes it sound like absent-mindedness is the
_natural_ way of being. One could turn the whole idea around and criticize
modern culture for requiring us all (those of us without professor-level
cachet) to maintain a mandated level of neuroticism. Neuroticism that is
unnecessary for real performance- since, if someone can operate effectively
enough to attain tenure, "absent-mindedness" certainly hasn't crippled their
professional effectiveness.

(In all of this, of course, I except the story about the guy who left the
author rideless at the office. That _was_ a 'dickhead' move.)

Finally, on the claim "they only forget things that benefit them," be very
careful about confirmation bias. I, for one, show up at meetings early not
infrequently- but when this happens, _no one knows_ because no one else is
there.

~~~
jancsika
> Finally, on the claim "they only forget things that benefit them," be very
> careful about confirmation bias. I, for one, show up at meetings early not
> infrequently- but when this happens, no one knows because no one else is
> there.

Additionally-- that fuddy-duddy professor who left their colleague hanging to
attend a conference may have done 100 other absent-minded things at the
conference that were detrimental to their own career. These may include:

* being late to their own presentation because they went to the wrong building

* undermining their own presentation by forgetting every colleague's polite advice to not making gross sniffing noises or laugh like a hyena at seemingly random moments in their public speech

* being completely inept at getting their laptop to play audio/video excerpts or display a graph on a screen

* forgetting to exchange contact info with someone who would have helped advance their career

* give an earnest, brilliant, persuasive response in public to an egotistical and well-respected scholar on the hiring committee for a position coveted by the professor, who then silently takes offense and uses their power to keep the professor from being hired for that position

* forgetting to follow up with an appointment with well-respected scholar who wanted to help the professor publish something that would help their career, causing that scholar to silently vow to never again waste time with that professor

(All based on real events.)

------
ironchef253
I work in technology in a very high scale environment. Tons of people, lots of
new faces all the time, hundreds of emails, social media pings, birthdays,
need to change the cat box, car overdue for an oil change, organizing a
conference, my direct reports are being lazy and I have to find a good way to
motivate them, oh shit I agreed to send that guy that thing in the mail, the
sales guy is pissed at me because I accidentally talked to his customer and
didn’t loop him, oh shit haven’t been into the office this week need to put in
face time, ten LinkedIn invitations, oh what about that webinar....

Jesus just found a stack of business cards from that conference two weeks ago
and this one person wanted to meet and I never got around to it. Did I
complete that sexual harassment training? I just got four reminders saying I
need to read some new policies. Oh look three calendar invites for meetings
tomorrow I didn’t see earlier. Did we get that vendor under NdA? My admin in
the back office is on vacation I need her to finally sort the statement of
work. Fuck it’s almost Friday I need to write that monthly report. My boss
calling me about that thing hold on...

Like me, A college professor is defined by having hundreds of students pinging
them with shit all the time and it is a rolling cast of students and faces you
can’t remember with a monotonous list of shit you can’t possibly keep track
of.

A younger me wouldn’t have understood what this does to my brain. The older me
walks around in a state of being near to burn out and fried all day long.

It’s the volume of requests and things to think about. Keep in mind most of
these things aren’t event my job, they are just overhead I have to deal with
before I can even do my job.

I’m with the professors on this one. It’s brutal.

~~~
ramses0
Your comment really resonates with me. Have you found a way to balance this? I
counsel others that they should focus on prioritizing the infinite task list
and working on the stuff that's going to make a difference, but it feels like
a tough thing to track no matter what. Any tips?

------
Alex3917
When I was in college I slept through four or five meetings with my advisor.
But only because those meetings were scheduled months in advance, and since
they were basically the only thing on my calendar, I'd just miss them unless I
happened to look at my calendar the day before. But as soon as the iPhone came
out I basically have never missed an appointment again, because now I can put
things in the reminders app and can have events in there that are months or
years in advance.

I wasn't magically dominant before the iPhone came out or more submissive
afterwards, there just wasn't a good tool that matched my workflow. I'm not
sure what the point of this story is, other than that it's hard to generalize
from university-related situations since people in academic settings aren't
always well served by mainstream scheduling and calendaring tools.

~~~
scoggs
I've noticed something similar with my phone being my primary alarm as opposed
to a traditional clock or radio alarm. Having more dynamic control over my
tools has allowed me to rapidly craft and change that alarm to ensure the
desired results. It seems like every time I've relied on a traditional alarm
to wake me up it slowly and subconsciously becomes less and less effective.
Once I've built up a certain "tolerance" to the sound of said alarm I'll hit
snooze or turn it off altogether while still mostly, if not fully, asleep.

That said, the only sure fire method I've come up with to ensure a traditional
alarm does the trick is to set the alarm across the room. This guarantees that
I have to remove myself from bed, walk across the room, and then disable or
snooze the alarm each time I choose not to wake up for good. In this "sure
fire" case it's obvious to me that the tool itself is not sufficient and I've
had to build extra steps into the process to ensure it helps me achieve my
goals.

------
improbable22
Lots of good replies. I'd like to add that incentives seem a better
explanation than power:

The professor's incentives are entirely towards thinking up and pulling off
big long-term projects. The tenure committee is not going to know or care
about whether you seemed on top of your diary two years ago.

The incentives are much the same for graduate students too, another group
known for sleeping through 11am teaching commitments. They clearly don't have
any power, but they know damn well they won't get a job by being diligent
about the small stuff.

The incentives for (say) lawyers or management consultants are massively
different. Hence the firm handshakes and neat suits and always knowing what
time the meeting is. Are these people less dominant, somehow?

~~~
dycemply
I'd argue that they're 2 sides of the same coin. Understanding the differences
in incentives between people gives you an idea of who has the power.

If you took a subsection of grad students and said that if they missed any
teaching commitments, they'd be expelled, you can reasonably guess that those
grad students wouldn't be sleeping through any 11am teaching commitments.

~~~
improbable22
But why does this mean they have power?

The hiring committee at their next job has real power. The administrators who
could fire them have some power too (although failing to impress the former is
almost as bad as being expelled by the latter). This power doesn't seem to
explain who's sloppy very well.

The hot-shit lawyer has loads of power, right? And is never forgetful. But his
life revolves around impressing people right there in the same room. He's been
both selected and trained to be be good at impressing them.

------
andriesm
But I am the victim of my absentmindedness, more often than others are. It's
not some kind of power manipualtion bs like this article asserts, instead I am
diagnosed with pretty severe ADHD.

There really are completely different explanations rather than it is all power
dynamics.

For medical reasons I am not at the moment taking the meds I normally do, when
I am medicated, my forgetfulness subside, and both my life as well as those I
interact with improve.

This one dimensional - everything is a power dynamic - is rather reductionist
bordering on insulting.

~~~
massaman_yams
I was wondering when someone would mention ADHD. If I recall, absentminded
behavior is a big part of the diagnostic criteria for ADHD.

------
sockgrant
I'm one of the absent-minded crowd.

I think it's hard for the orderly types to relate to the absent-minded. For
them, remembering things comes naturally. They project this onto absent minded
types which leaves only one explanation for them being inconsiderate or
forgetful -- that they're lazy or uncaring of others. As if they thought "Yes,
I remember I'm supposed to do X, but whatever... it's not important."

As someone who's very absent minded I can say that there's never any dominance
tactics or purposeful lack of consideration for others. I just forget things
or don't think about them.

If, in the shower, I think "hey I need to remember to buy shampoo as soon as I
get out of the shower", I will literally forget about it within the 2 minutes
it takes me to get out of the shower and dry off. I'll be standing out of the
shower trying to remember the thing I was supposed to remember. Oh well, I
just move on with my day.

It's not an occasional thing. This happens to me 9 times out of 10.

So it's no surprise that when I tell someone "yeah I'll bring X the next time
we meet" I never remember to bring it.

Luckily in my life I've got friends and family that understand that it's just
the way I am and that it's ok. I get the fuddy-duddy professor treatment. I've
had more than a few friends tell me I'm the dumbest smart person they know.

------
quotemstr
I am tired of this worldview in which every personal behavior that we don't
like is _actually_ a secret manifestation of power dynamics. Nothing ever
_means_ anything except as endless jockeying for social position. Nothing is
good or bad or true or false or beautiful or hideous: only advantageous or
disadvantageous. It's a terrible way of thinking about the world.

This nonsense is not conducive to building or maintaining a civilization. It
doesn't create shared understanding: instead, it supposes that any shared
understanding is actually some kind of ploy to reinforce privilege or
something. It's an endless grievance machine that magnifies our worst mental
impulses: suspicion, ingroup-outgroup double standards, and of course
fundamental attribution error. This crap shouldn't be part of respectable
discourse.

~~~
nostrademons
Basically every personal behavior _is_ a manifestation of power dynamics.
Whether you like it or not. It's just that we tend not to notice or complain
about power dynamics that we like.

The tricky thing about power dynamics is that whenever you talk about them,
people get uncomfortable - both the people with power (who either feel guilty
or subconsciously fearful that that power may be taken away from them) and the
people without it (who are reminded of their lack of power). And so you're
right, it _is_ an endless grievance machine that magnifies our worst mental
impulses. This is why people usually shut up about power (think about it: the
last guy who wrote a treatise on it - Machiavelli - got his name synonymized
with "evil"), and it's only in times of shifts in the power balance that it
comes out into the open.

~~~
pmoriarty
_" think about it: the last guy who wrote a treatise on it - Machiavelli - got
his name synonymized with 'evil'"_

Machiavelli was not the last to write about power. Foucault was famous for
doing so, and Nietzsche before him.

To the extent that Machiavelli's name has a negative connotation it is it not
merely because he wrote about power, but because people think he advocated a
ruthless, self-serving wielding of power and, famously, that "it is better to
be feared than loved".

If you look at what "machiavellianism" means, it is:

 _" the employment of cunning and duplicity in statecraft or in general
conduct... In modern psychology, Machiavellianism is one of the dark triad
personalities, characterized by a duplicitous interpersonal style, a cynical
disregard for morality, and a focus on self-interest and personal gain."_

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machiavellianism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machiavellianism)

~~~
nostrademons
I'm a big fan of Foucault's conception of power.

I think Machiavelli is commonly misunderstood by most people alive today,
though. The bulk of _The Prince_ consists of _positive_ statements, not
normative ones. In other words, Machiavelli is describing his conclusions from
observing a number of powerful families. He makes few value judgments of his
own, but rather the book is framed as a set of tactical advice: " _If_ you
seek power, these are a set of strategies that will help you attain it." At
the time he wrote _The Prince_ , Machiavelli was not particularly powerful -
in fact, he'd just been stripped of office, imprisoned, and tortured, and the
book was an attempt to curry favor with the Medicis, the new Florentine
elites. It was largely successful in this regard, in that Machiavelli was
allowed to live out the rest of his life on his estate without further
interference.

"It is better to be feared than loved", as a factual statement, appears to be
_true_. Take a look at the approval ratings for U.S. Congress, President
Trump, Putin, Xi Jinping, Mugabe, or any other powerful figure and then tell
me, with a straight face, that they are loved. People take offense because
Machiavelli is describing true statements _that we wish were not true_ , i.e.
they judge the work on normative grounds when evidence from the framing &
history of _The Prince_ suggests that it was written as a set of positive
statements.

~~~
ruytlm
Machiavelli is massively misunderstood. 'It is better to be feared than loved'
is not the real message to be taken from that chapter.

A different phrasing would be "you are better to have a promise from another
for which you can compel fulfilment, than a promise for which you can't compel
fulfilment".

If someone promises you something out of love, and they do not deliver, you
have no power to compel them to fulfil their obligation, and so you are left
with an empty promise.

If someone promises you something out of fear, and they don't deliver, you can
use the thing they fear to compel fulfilment, and receive that which was
promised.

It's by no means saying that in all circumstances you should aim to be feared
- and it explicitly distinguishes being feared from being hated.

"Returning to the question of being feared or loved, I come to the conclusion
that, men loving according to their own will and fearing according to that of
the prince, a wise prince should establish himself on that which is in his own
control and not in that of others; he must endeavour only to avoid hatred, as
is noted."

------
canjobear
Isn't it sufficient to explain the author's data to say that academia is an
environment with a high tolerance for flakiness? The fact that professors'
flakiness usually works out in their favor just follows from people usually
acting in a self-interested way. If I forgot about our meeting, on average I'm
going to spend that time doing something that benefits me.

I've definitely had the experience of some academics using absent-mindedness
for dominance, but that doesn't mean it always or even usually is.

A datapoint here is that in my experience fields that are larger and more
practical/"applied" have a lot less absent-mindedness. (You could probably
quantify this with e-mail response times.) But the hot fields are more
competitive than the sleepy backwaters---if absent-mindedness were a dominance
tactic, wouldn't we see more of it in the bigger fields?

~~~
klipt
> Isn't it sufficient to explain the author's data to say that academia is an
> environment with a high tolerance for flakiness?

Yep. Other environments with a high tolerance for flakiness include online
dating - there are pretty much zero repercussions for flaking on a stranger
you decide you don't actually want to meet.

Many guys who've tried online dating have stories of girl agreeing to meet up
then flaking on them. Does that make it a "female dominance behavior"?

I get it, it sucks to be flaked on, whether by a professor or a tinder
stranger, but I don't think it's limited to one gender.

------
maxxxxx
Breaking social norms and getting away with it is an old trick to show
dominance. When you are late you show the other person that you are the one to
be waited for. Zuckerberg shows who the boss is with wearing a hoodie while
everybody else is wearing a suit. Obviously this works mainly if you are
already in a slightly dominant position otherwise you may be viewed as a jerk.

~~~
gowld
The only purpose of a suit is to assert dominance. The hoodie is just a
different spin on it.

"I won't wear a tux!"

"Of course not, dear; tuxedos are for waiters!"

-Sunset Blvd

~~~
maxxxxx
It depends on your position. When I wear a suit it's to fit in because
everybody else does it.

------
jerf
I would also recommend reading the comment thread on the site, if you skipped
it.

------
derefr
> No one ever shows up early because they forgot what time the meeting was at.

I _do_ do that. But I have ADHD.

I endorse the author’s suspicion that the "absent-mindedness" being described
here, has not much to do with the neurological kind. It might be a dominance
behaviour, or whatever else, but it certainly expresses differently than the
behaviours of people who genuinely forget things they _want_ and _need_ to
remember.

I forget where I parked, but that's after attempting quite hard to memorize my
location while leaving the parking spot. I suspect the author's father didn't
bother to _try_ to remember: quite a different experience!

------
howscrewedami
It can definitely be used as a power move... but claiming absent-mindedness is
ALWAYS a power move is a very bold claim.

~~~
preordained
Exactly. One I'd have a hard time explaining by this model is my comical
ability to get lost while driving. This has almost always hurt me--
occasionally others--but primarily me. I have the same problem navigating
halls in a video game. I've worked at it and gotten better, but that weirdly
specific deficit has always haunted me all the while Ive been perfectly
adequate as a programmer, etc.

------
jonnycomputer
An interesting argument, but ultimately deficient. For one thing, our
recollections are biased; we are probably more likely to remember instances of
a behavior in which one is negatively affected than otherwise.

The author is free to form their opinions however they like, and personal
reflections of this sort are really great for formulating hypotheses. But
then, you need to get down to the serious business of actually systematically
gathering data to test it, or at least go look into the literature.

Also, the author, casually asserts that its mostly men who do this. The author
gives some good reasons why that might be. But again, this assertion of a
matter of fact, is based on his own, situated, biased, unreliable, motivated
recollection.

------
juancn
It could simply be an energy minimization strategy, since it has little or no
consequence (perhaps due to pre-existing status or dominance) there's no point
in spending energy on that.

In a sense, to succeed you need to choose what you are going to be bad at.
It's impossible to be great at everything, so focus your energy on what's
important, and let the unimportant slide.

------
gregorymichael
Conflicted here. On the one hand, I agree that it's easier to say, "That's
just the way I am, deal with it." On the other hand, folks deal with things
like ADHD and depression and different cultural upbringings that make it more
difficult for them to, say, remember things than "normal" people. Feels like
the author is using his dad as a sample size of one as evidence for a broad
statement here.

------
stuaxo
As a forgetful person, I would love it if it I could control it.

But no. Sometimes it is really bad - like feeling really engaged and
consciously listening, then the person goes and forgetting what they said.
More often it is more insidious than this unfortunately.

------
acd
It could also be that university professors sometime have Aspbergers syndrome
which is a form of autism.

------
woolvalley
Techies are absent minded, but use tech tools to mitigate the behavior.

~~~
quotemstr
I can certainly be absent-minded. Lately, I've gone to a lot of trouble to
start using various reminder and task applications in an effort to become less
absent-minded. If I slip up, it's because I made a mistake, not because I'm
trying to advertise my primate social dominance score.

------
air7
I literally just got out of the shower and couldn't remember if I used the
shower gel or not... Absent-mindedness is not (just) a social behavior.

------
arduanika
This is truly an article that makes you reflect on the stereotypes and
assumptions you have about people.

For instance, before reading this I had this unexamined generalization that
Canadians are all kind and empathetic, but after seeing Prof. Heath's attitude
towards his colleagues...

------
AnimalMuppet
I could maybe halfway see this.

I've been working on my current job for 8 years. I've been a programmer for
30. In the last year, I've started feeling free enough to say "I don't know"
or "I don't remember". Before that, I felt that I _had_ to remember, or, if I
didn't, I had to find out, because I felt that I was supposed to know. But
now, I've realized that it's OK for me to not know everything.

That's not dominance behavior, exactly. I'm not deliberately not remembering
to put co-workers in their place. I'm also not trying to skate on my
responsibilities: "You figure it out yourself; I'm too important to do that."
But it is a level of security. My image of myself as a good programmer isn't
destroyed if I don't remember some detail amid the tens of thousands of lines
of code. And I don't fear that my boss's image of me will be destroyed by
that, either.

So maybe, at least some of the time, it's not a exactly dominance behavior,
but it's a behavior that only those in secure positions can afford.

