Ex remote non-linear intern here: I wasn’t interviewed by Ben, but if I had been, then there’s information I would have shared with Ben, but not community health.
(Though I have less faith in Ben than before after seeing him publish without waiting a week)
(I don’t have any direct knowledge of the claims in the post as I was remote and had already finished my internship)
Though I have less faith in Ben than before after seeing him publish without waiting a week
It seems to me like by publishing it when he did, he acted according to Alice and Chloe’s interested who were protected by an earlier publication at a cost to other parties.
If I were in the position of someone like Alice or Chloe and think about whether or not to talk to Ben, that would make me more likely to talk to Ben not less.
I guess there’s a difference between being the person who was hurt vs. someone on the sidelines who has general information about how someone is like as a boss.
If you’ve been hurt, then you would probably want someone to fight for your side. If you’re on the sidelines, you might want someone who’s trying their best to form a fair picture overall. You might not want to share anything that could be used to paint an unfairly negative picture.
So would you say that although you have less faith in Ben than before, Alice and Chloe should have more faith in him? That seems wrong to me; I feel like “faith” in context should cash out as something less interpersonal than that? Like it should be a prediction about how Ben will act in future situations. Then “Alice should have more faith in Ben than me” sounds like a prediction that in future Ben will favor team Alice over team Chris; but that’s not a prediction I’d make and I don’t think it’s a prediction you’d make.
(It does seem reasonable to predict something like “in future, Ben will favor team person-who-was-hurt over team person-on-sidelines-who...”. But I don’t think that’s where you’re going with this either?)
Ex remote non-linear intern here: I wasn’t interviewed by Ben, but if I had been, then there’s information I would have shared with Ben, but not community health.
(Though I have less faith in Ben than before after seeing him publish without waiting a week)
(I don’t have any direct knowledge of the claims in the post as I was remote and had already finished my internship)
It seems to me like by publishing it when he did, he acted according to Alice and Chloe’s interested who were protected by an earlier publication at a cost to other parties.
If I were in the position of someone like Alice or Chloe and think about whether or not to talk to Ben, that would make me more likely to talk to Ben not less.
I guess there’s a difference between being the person who was hurt vs. someone on the sidelines who has general information about how someone is like as a boss.
If you’ve been hurt, then you would probably want someone to fight for your side. If you’re on the sidelines, you might want someone who’s trying their best to form a fair picture overall. You might not want to share anything that could be used to paint an unfairly negative picture.
So would you say that although you have less faith in Ben than before, Alice and Chloe should have more faith in him? That seems wrong to me; I feel like “faith” in context should cash out as something less interpersonal than that? Like it should be a prediction about how Ben will act in future situations. Then “Alice should have more faith in Ben than me” sounds like a prediction that in future Ben will favor team Alice over team Chris; but that’s not a prediction I’d make and I don’t think it’s a prediction you’d make.
(It does seem reasonable to predict something like “in future, Ben will favor team person-who-was-hurt over team person-on-sidelines-who...”. But I don’t think that’s where you’re going with this either?)