The thing is, there is no exact scientific "distinct" level for the "toxic" in the word "toxic resilience". You may say "toxic" where another person considers it non-toxic or normal. Unless there is a written law or some kind that specifies "when" the resilience becomes "toxic" the word "toxic resilience" means very little and by that I mean no one would really care or act upon the idea since there is just no specific standard going for it, the word "toxic resilience" simply becomes a fancy word that Dr. Aditi Nerurkar uses.
@@chaurichard3157 I am not sure where you are getting that from what I explained, but if that is the question you are interested to ask so be it, I'm just not interested to answer in the least
@@ota92ppon This is a judgement on being acceptable or not, as according to different people on their capacity to work with and consider the passive pressure. To put this on a scale however, takes away the person's right to evaluate himself by the name of measurement. The clarity you seek could Ideally based on some undisputable and visible example in hope it can be applied to everyone, that's something hard to imagine or be discussed at this moment if I could say so. I am curious what exactly was the suggestion.
@@chaurichard3157 Dr. Aditi Nerurkar used the word "toxic" to describe resilience when she probably didn't realize "perspective" plays a big part for that. How is "toxic" defined? Saying something is toxic means very little when it cannot be scientifically based like a snake's venom level. I would imagine the employer would never consider the situation the employee is facing as "toxic" while the employee would almost always consider otherwise. They would run into an endless argument since neither the employer or the employee can ever put a distinct "toxic" level to resilience. Therefore, the word "toxic resilience" is just a simple fancy word that Dr. Aditi Nerurkar uses and holds very little significance, if there is any at all.
The thing is, there is no exact scientific "distinct" level for the "toxic" in the word "toxic resilience". You may say "toxic" where another person considers it non-toxic or normal. Unless there is a written law or some kind that specifies "when" the resilience becomes "toxic" the word "toxic resilience" means very little and by that I mean no one would really care or act upon the idea since there is just no specific standard going for it, the word "toxic resilience" simply becomes a fancy word that Dr. Aditi Nerurkar uses.
韌性就像是橡皮筋，有的粗有的細，有的彈性（回復能力）強有的弱，能夠承受的拉伸長度（極限）也不盡相同。
唯一相同的，是彈性總有一天會疲乏。而當被拉伸到極限，就會變成一點就爆的炸藥。
我最近對於韌性的理解，是像李慕白的青冥劍一樣，太硬的東西會被折斷，青冥劍則可以卸掉外力，劍身有彈性也同樣能鋒利無比
一、不斷被增加各種業務的便利商店店員，雖然便利了人民，但店員也是人。
二、幾乎每天都在買一送一的星巴克，員工不是上班只要做飲料做咖啡而已，還有一堆雜事要做，尤其是幹部，有打不完的報告，還要處理店裡的一堆破事，上頭交代下來的例行公事任務表也只會越來越多，不會有減少的一天。
我理解的：
韌性是掌握运用在自己手里，哪怕他人如何滥“韌性”
有毒韌性是滥用“责任绑架”他人去完成事情
適應、恢復、成長，待在毒性環境裡或許能適應，但並不一定能恢復，何談成長？
”合理的要求是訓練，不合理的要求是磨練“不就是這影片說的有毒韌性？
看身分是什麼，如果有關於搶救人命的消防、醫護、警察等等，甚至於保家衛國的軍人，我覺得不是。那如果是放在一直說「共體時艱」的屁話等企業、人士等，就是有毒韌性
@@tail8475我覺得搶救人命那些也算在內，幫助別人的前提都是建立在能夠照顧好自己為優先，如果操練過度和工作過勞而累倒自己也是本末倒置。
人都要為自己的選擇跟行為負責，別人的幫助不是應該的，那些軍警消護也是為了三餐溫飽而工作，但不代表他們要犧牲自己的一切。當然，如果他們本人願意這樣的話我完全沒話說。
@@tail8475磨練可以自保的不是
@@user-ly3io4ib9t 救急扶危的工作者, 間中要以過度消耗自己來為社會犧牲是可以預計的, 要是性格上不能接受的人大槪也早在應考時已經通過不了, 但如果是長期地頻繁地要他們過度消耗, 就是社會間接地漠視了他們的須要, 同時是政府在分配資源上沒有做足分工合作的角色.
@@starall3385過頭卻會致命😂😂
每天都要发明新词汇来解释现代人文明心理病
well said
亞洲文化：責任制、996、底薪高壓過勞，外加老闆的一句「共體時艱」，也是『韌性』的表現喔~啾咪！( ^.＜ )
ㄠ人的美化說法。
看人看行業吧，雖說現代人追求工作與生活平衡，但也不得不承認，如果自己想做好某個領域，有熱情的投入多少是會忽視到其他事情的，就像那堆知名動漫小說的作家們，幾乎爆肝過來的一大把呢，即使薪水再高也是那樣，但這就是他們熱愛的、而且真的為人類社會所奉獻的，應該要感謝這些人吧
我理解 但感覺會被爛貨濫用
笑死，真的
意思就是，有毒韌性就是人類的自負。
The thing is, there is no exact scientific "distinct" level for the "toxic" in the word "toxic resilience". You may say "toxic" where another person considers it non-toxic or normal. Unless there is a written law or some kind that specifies "when" the resilience becomes "toxic" the word "toxic resilience" means very little and by that I mean no one would really care or act upon the idea since there is just no specific standard going for it, the word "toxic resilience" simply becomes a fancy word that Dr. Aditi Nerurkar uses.
So you need others to tell you what you can't do and what's over your limits?
@@chaurichard3157 I am not sure where you are getting that from what I explained, but if that is the question you are interested to ask so be it, I'm just not interested to answer in the least
@@ota92ppon This is a judgement on being acceptable or not, as according to different people on their capacity to work with and consider the passive pressure. To put this on a scale however, takes away the person's right to evaluate himself by the name of measurement. The clarity you seek could Ideally based on some undisputable and visible example in hope it can be applied to everyone, that's something hard to imagine or be discussed at this moment if I could say so. I am curious what exactly was the suggestion.
@@chaurichard3157 Dr. Aditi Nerurkar used the word "toxic" to describe resilience when she probably didn't realize "perspective" plays a big part for that. How is "toxic" defined? Saying something is toxic means very little when it cannot be scientifically based like a snake's venom level. I would imagine the employer would never consider the situation the employee is facing as "toxic" while the employee would almost always consider otherwise. They would run into an endless argument since neither the employer or the employee can ever put a distinct "toxic" level to resilience. Therefore, the word "toxic resilience" is just a simple fancy word that Dr. Aditi Nerurkar uses and holds very little significance, if there is any at all.
能者多勞。
然後就過勞死了，而且還被說成因身體有病的因素，被當免洗筷。
适者生存
能者過勞。
多勞的也可能是因為無能
其實寄人籬下 有所成長 不就是這樣過來了嗎
奴性強的人是這樣覺得理所當然
覺得很弔詭。
韌性&有毒韌性。
(無爭議定義)身處有毒環境，展現出的抗性 = 韌性。
(女講者定義)等於是你自己認定自己的韌性，但若是利己的他方要求超出該對象的韌性 = 有毒韌性。
但不就是身處有毒環境，展現出的抗性 = 韌性?...
無限循環，陷入悖論。
所以得出，韌性只能自我方定義，不能由他方定義，由他方定義出的韌性為有毒韌性。 ???
一個中性詞，韌性。加個"有毒"，怎麼會操作成我他方的第一人稱的對立詞語?
舉例，"加油" ，但若是利己的他方要求超出該對象的加油 = 有毒加油。 ???
女講者應要真正主張的是 [ " 尊重課題邊界 " ] ，而不是什麼有毒沒毒的韌性。
自我ego擴張的有點太離譜過頭了，進而不排除有操弄詞彙的嫌疑。
要回去看原影片會比較理解他說什麼，只看這片段有可能會失真。
The thing is, there is no exact scientific "distinct" level for the "toxic" in the word "toxic resilience". You may say "toxic" where another person considers it non-toxic or normal. Unless there is a written law or some kind that specifies "when" the resilience becomes "toxic" the word "toxic resilience" means very little and by that I mean no one would really care or act upon the idea since there is just no specific standard going for it, the word "toxic resilience" simply becomes a fancy word that Dr. Aditi Nerurkar uses.
講那麼長，其實就是：「專注，但不要把專注和韌性搞錯了」
沒有提過專注，是說不要誤解overwork就是resilient，也不要受這種錯誤解讀綁架。
她講那麼長，結果你沒有聽懂，因為急著下結論了
鬼島就是有毒亞洲的一個縮影💀
當有家庭負擔要養子女還房貸就不用理會有毒沒毒
組織家庭、生小孩、買房子，應該是自己選擇要承受的吧？但這影片的意思是被要求承擔超出原本的工作範圍，不接受就被指責是韌性不足，才叫有毒。
如果連理會是否有毒的選擇都沒有，應該是要思考上司是不是慣老闆，還是前面的選擇本來就超出負荷吧
說得好像你不能選擇單身 說得好像你不能選擇不被親人情緒勒索 你終究選擇為「家人賣命」 那就是這種下場 不婚不生 快樂一生
A good demonstration of what this video is saying hahha!! Having child + buy a house with not enough resource is the start of toxic resilience....!!!