[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.

[logicallee]

you agree that a company's policies don't tell you anything about whether it's good to work there? "If you clock in to work even 1 minute late even a single time, you are not eligible for your bonus that month" is a real policy I've actually heard about. it doesn't tell me anything about working there?

You guys don't know what a policy is. you (jsjonst) think it's "follow all applicable laws" which subsume anything illegal like harassment over some protected status. so you think no company needs any specific policy about anything related to that.

your parent thinks policies don't say anything about what it's like to work somewhere.

you both think there are no values that are unambiguously good and whose alternative no one adopts or would adopt, but which are meaningful to adopt. To me "meaningfully adopt" means "immediately add actionable, objective policies everyone can follow" to. to me, that's how you adopt a value. through policies. to you two, there is no relationship between the two.

I simply disagree with both of you.

we have nothing further to talk about. we are too far apart.

I can agree to disagree with the two of you without calling you flat-Earthers.

we just have completely different opinions.