[jsjohnst]

I think you are over analyzing it and trying to find faults. At least two of the things you mentioned should be company policies, not values.

Values are things you push for, but might not attain (think aspirational goals), but policies are "set in stone" and if you don't follow them you're punished.

Using the examples you mentioned that are clearly policies, "don't bully other employees or pick on them due to their belonging to some protected class" is a perfect example of a policy vs value. That's clearly a policy and one that if didn't exist at a job, I'd never join said company. Bullying isn't something we strive not to do, it's something we must not do, or else be fired. Checking in broken code may get you a slap on the wrist the first time, but repeatedly do that and again you'll likely be punished.

[logicallee]

I've reviewed your comment. Firstly, it sounds like you think "don't murder other employees" is a policy at 100% of companies, but I don't think I've ever worked at a company with such a policy and neither have you. Your definition of policy is weird - you think policies exist regardless of whether they do. I base this on your comment that you'd never work at a company without such a policy.

Secondly, I'm afraid I disagree with the essence of your comment, even given your weird definition of the meaning of policy.

It seems that your view is that the second a value is phrased in an actionable and effective way you call it a policy: I read your definition of a value as something that cannot be parsed or disagreed with such as "awesome is better than great and great is better than good; but good is better is than bad." That sounds like a value, but if I made it meaningful, actionable, and effective, then it would become a policy. (according to you.)

We are just too far apart to have a meaningful conversation I'm afraid. I read your comment carefully several times before coming to this conclusion.

[nicky0]

Think about it from a less absolutist logical angle, and you may eventually appreciate it. Currently, you are looking for counterexamples for the sake of argument, instead of considering the cases where the principle is useful. You are throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

[logicallee]

I don't find the principle of inversion as a test for values/policies to be a useful tool, sorry. Yes, I'm throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

[barrkel]

Values != policies; the way you put them in a stroke relationship makes me think that you think they're related. They're not.

The point of an inversion test for values is to see if they have any information content (i.e. can act as a discriminator between companies). If the inversion of a value is something that you'd obviously not do, then it's not actually a value; it's just something that normal people should do. Policies are like this. If a policy is inverted and it sounds absurd or criminal, that's ok - policies are hard rules that define normal behaviour. But if a value is inverted and it sounds absurd, it's not actually a value.

Policies are a dividing line between acceptable and unacceptable behaviour.

Values suggest an inclination or bias between two acceptable behaviours.

The reason it's important to distinguish between them is that high-level policies, whether stated explicitly or not, are by and large the same at every company (precisely because their inverse is abnormal or ridiculous); values, on the other hand, make companies distinct. Reading about a company's policies won't tell you whether it's a good place to work or not, although reading between the lines of what they assert their policies to be, may give you a clue as to their values.

[logicallee]

I completely disagree with every single sentence you've just written. Since I disagree with every single thing you've just written we are not going to be able to talk effectively.

I will just quote one line. You write:

>Reading about a company's policies won't tell you whether it's a good place to work or not.

which is one of the most absurd things I've ever read. I don't see how we can engage in meaningful conversation, sorry. We can just drop it.

I just realized that in another comment you called me "silly" but we can just agree that we have very different viewpoints. We view these matters completely differently.

[jsjohnst]

> I completely disagree with every single sentence you've just written.

Well then, I'm very sorry to say, you don't understand what values mean or simply are just going for broke on being argumentative. GP did a better job than I explaining why you were mistaken on what a value is in this context, if you refuse to accept it, that's your right. Just realize you're risking coming off as someone who thinks the earth is flat.

[occamrazor]

All companies I know of have "comply with applicable laws" in their policies, which subsumes "do not murder other employees".

[logicallee]

I regret, occamrazor, that your interpretation and proposed facts reduce to an absurd interpretation of this conversation, and are wrong, respectively.

1. You are wrong that all companies you know of have "comply with applicable laws" in their policies.

Before we get to your interpretation, first let's look at the proposed fact that all companies you know of have "comply with applicable laws" in their policies. There are extremely clear examples such as Uber which actively did not have such a policy as well as very actively keep regulators from enforcing laws against them: https://www.google.com/search?q=uber+regulators - read those links. "Uber used an elaborate secret program to hide from government regulators"; "Justice Department begins criminal probe into Uber's use of software to help drivers evade local regulators."

Here are Uber's 14 official cultural values: https://www.quora.com/What-are-Ubers-14-core-cultural-values which include "always be hustling" and "let builders build". One definition of hustle is a fraud or swindle, or obtaining illicitly. At any rate none of those values had anything like "comply with applicable laws." Likewise AirBNB certainly did not have a core policy of complying with hotel and zoning regulations.

Objectively speaking, it is absolutely false that "comply with applicable laws" is an actual policy at all companies you know of. You're simply mistaken about the world.

But let's step away from this and see why your interpretation is also wrong.

2. Your interpretation if you were right about 1 is wrong

So your facts themselves are wrong but let us assume the counterfactual that your facts are true, and that "all companies" have a "comply with applicable laws" in their policies.

Under your interpretation "comply with applicable laws" also subsumes "don't harrass people based on a protected class" since that's illegal.

Continuing with your (wrong) interpretation, when jsjohnst writes about that statement, "if it didn't exist at a job, I'd never join said company" then it's nonsense given that no such company can exist under your proposed interpretation.

So it is like saying "I would never join a company that did not abide by the laws of physics." Under your interpretation, a nonsense statement. (All companies abide by the laws of physics; all companies have a policy of "comply with applicable laws" under your wrong facts, and under your wrong interpretation this implies not harrassing people based on a protected class.)

Your interpretation changes jsjohnst's statement to be as meaningful as declaring he would not work for a company that did not abide by the laws of physics. Clearly he has no reason to express such a sentiment.

Therefore your interpretation must also be rejected from this conversation.

-

I am sorry to be so harsh but as we are talking about values and policies, we cannot introduce wrongness on so many levels, because the results are disastrous.

I hope you do not feel that I have made this personal. I attacked only a 1-line interpretation you have offered and clearly you are free to change your mind. I do respect your contributions to hackernews and believe you are right on many other things, however, not this issue.

[barrkel]

> I am sorry to be so harsh

You're making yourself look silly, not harsh!