Toxic positivity is just as bad as toxic negativity.
Cynicism seems to fall under toxic negativity, in that it presumes negative intent before even finding out if it's true.
I think the article suggests being willing to find out, and take a stand towards choosing to influence your immediate circle to be allies, comrades, amongst fellow "soldiers in the trenches together," rather than just assuming everyone's in it for themselves and therefore there's no point in giving effort to be human towards one another.
I do like what the author says at the end, that even if our influence may seem tiny and insignificant, that it has impact if we notice.
I do think cynicism can be cancerous. I don't equate cynicism with a realistic assessment of an actually bad situation (which is where toxic positivity will want to bypass, brush it under the rug, stick their head in the sand, etc.).
And also, there are people I respect who said they read 100+ books a year, and that you should, too. But while others in my circles were eager to jump on the train, for me, I thought it would be performative, and be about having read said 100+ books than digesting any of it. And what more, I recall that I best retain info via reading if I have skin in the game, rather than feeling like reading makes me appear more approvable to others.
All that is to say, it's good to hear from someone who reads a ton that a lot of your reading is kinda junk stuff (even if 150+ books a year is still a crazy metric – and as a tangent, people who ride bikes a ton say that a lot of their miles they rack up are junk miles, so I'm sure there's an equivalent of shitlit in any pursuit/ hobby/ interest/ endeavor).
Bukowski's books are funny and sad at the same time, but I would not consider it shitlit! Well maybe some if it like Hollywood I could see it, but definitely not Post Office.
You're making a joke (and the reference is great) but this is actually what happens. It's where the idea of "Lead" came from, and in many other industries it's much worse. It's why in business there's "(Acting) Associate Senior Execuitve Global Managing Director, Clients and Markets" type positions, so nobody can definitively compare themselves to one another ("oh, so you'll be reporting to me") and people can feel like they're moving up, instead of just being called "manager" or whatever and understanding it's a wide band.
I don't know Goldman at all, but I know there are plenty of corporations engaging in labor fraud by giving everyone and the kitchen sink the title of "Vice President" because of the benefits under the labor laws. Doing so is fraud if it is clear the title is given to hundreds, if not thousands, of employees who actually perform no functions that warrant an executive title. I worked at a Fortune 500 company with a total workforce ~10,000 of whom ~50% had the title of Vice President and another ~25% Assistant Vice President.
My world is richer for reading this. I absolutely can see it. Like Redline meets Cowboy Bebop. Both can be b-side vignettes in a larger futuristic SNES world. Not so sure about Star Fox being in the mix, but not entirely out of the question either. But F-Zero & Metroid is a wonderful pairing.
Just call the emotions what they are, accept them in the form of not dressing them up and putting some spin on them to make people feel better about themselves (and ultimately dance around the actual emotion, via forms of denial, bypassing, etc.). And once you accept them for the simple, unadorned, and sometimes unflattering things that they are, you can then process them, and decide via understanding the root causes, contexts, and triggers, to then map out decision trees for how to respond to those feelings and emotions as the best course of action.
And like you mentioned, if you don't address the actual emotions and try to pretty them up, you're gonna leak out the actual emotions sideways, and cause unnecessary strain to those around you, and ultimately place your burden of being responsible for your emotions on others, and most likely throw up a big stink (in the form of projection, more denial, more bypassing, etc.).
Emotional intelligence, self-awareness, and responsibility are very difficult but necessary things, and they often times are unflattering. But like also many other things, there's no shortcuts to learning how to manage and deal with them in real situations with real stakes.
Your boss sounds like they have an extremely rigid view of what emotions are and aren't "correct" in any given setting. Sounds controlling, and lacking a fundamental understanding of reality, people, and basic empathy.
I don't think all bosses are like this, but the ones who express these views in critical junctures that reveal their character and world views as such, I think it's safe to say that they indeed are intellectually and developmentally blunted (of the emotional intelligence, interpersonal relationship, and leadership dynamics variety) in a manner that can cause legitimate harm to anyone under their authority and has to take orders from them.
Because it's awesome and fun to do. And rare copies will exist for a select few to share to select parties who would absolutely love to experience the contraband underground work.
Toxic positivity is just as bad as toxic negativity.
Cynicism seems to fall under toxic negativity, in that it presumes negative intent before even finding out if it's true.
I think the article suggests being willing to find out, and take a stand towards choosing to influence your immediate circle to be allies, comrades, amongst fellow "soldiers in the trenches together," rather than just assuming everyone's in it for themselves and therefore there's no point in giving effort to be human towards one another.
I do like what the author says at the end, that even if our influence may seem tiny and insignificant, that it has impact if we notice.
I do think cynicism can be cancerous. I don't equate cynicism with a realistic assessment of an actually bad situation (which is where toxic positivity will want to bypass, brush it under the rug, stick their head in the sand, etc.).