Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A lot of “idiotic” things have reasonable explanations (2011)

theatlantic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 438 posts

Re: A lot of “idiotic” things have reasonable explanations (2011)

#81

Post by asdff »

georgespencer wrote: post #17

This article puts it better than I ever could. I had a similar reaction when I read extremely critical press coverage of some VCs in Europe investing in YPlan, which eventually sold for a nominal amount to Time Out London. The synopsis of all the coverage was: "How could they have spent all that money? And how could the investors have been so STUPID?" My friend Fred Destin wrote a great essay on this[1], and I'll do…

Scale this up to anything and you will want to be governed by a benevolent dictator. Not even senators themselves read the full bills they vote on, and I don't blame them with it being hundreds of pages of reading that could easily be parted out to aides, but the electorate certainly doesn't have this advantage. Maybe 1% of voters are truly informed.

Re: A lot of “idiotic” things have reasonable explanations (2011)

#82

Post by Drakar1903 »

aeternum wrote: post #15
bravoetch wrote: post #8

To answer the question posed in the title (and yes, I read the fluffy article) - luck decides who gets rich.

Luck plays a role but smart and successful people often create many opportunities to get lucky.

Luck is when ability and preparedness meet an opportunity.

Re: A lot of “idiotic” things have reasonable explanations (2011)

#83

Post by thdrdt »

mewpmewp2 wrote: post #53
virgilp wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not "succeding" though. I like to give Trump as an example: everyone loves to blast him for being an idiot. Is he a good president? No. Is he good at the game, but most people totally miss what his game is? I claim, yes. It's unfortunate that he managed to play the US election system for his own purposes, but that doesn't mean he's just incompetent at everything. E.g. he's a rather good populist - that may not…

Which leads to the following: How do you measure if someone is a good president? What measurements do you use to claim Trump is not a good president? Surely it can't be approval ratings since you can't expect public to understand nuances behind the decisions and what the president actually has to be doing? It can't be just GDP because GDP might have been going up anyway? It can't be what the president is saying in pu…

Aren't there universal measurements for leaders/counties?

For example the Bible has a lot of wisdom like: 'If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand.' This was already written some 2000 years ago and has been proven true over time.

So I would argue you could measure the amount of unity a leader tries to create.

Re: A lot of “idiotic” things have reasonable explanations (2011)

#84

Post by baddox »

I don’t really understand the point of the article. It seems to be challenging an assumption that being “smart” has something to do with being financially successful. But why would we start with that assumption? Why would we conflate being “intelligent” with being good at making money?

To me, this seems as preposterous as asking “if you’re so smart, why are you so bad at playing the violin, or why aren’t you a Hollywood movie star, or why can’t you run a 4 minute mile, or why don’t you have a million Twitter followers?”

Even if we make the questionable assumption that the very concept of general intelligence (something like what an IQ test purports to show) is sensible, why would we assume that it correlates positively with success in any conceivable discipline?

Re: A lot of “idiotic” things have reasonable explanations (2011)

#85

Post by Animats »

cathames wrote: post #45

2011 is the context: a height of the start-up wave, ascendance of FB--presumably due to "genius". The implication being that if you are really smarter than others you must have the rewards to show it. Hopefully this would be received today as a tone-deaf denial of privilege. The great myth of meritocracy has been blown apart.

Facebook's dominance was earned. Remember Myspace? They were huge when Facebook started. Now they're tiny by comparison. Google tried and failed several times at social networks. Zuckerberg figured out how to manipulate humans in quantity through subtle programmed social cues. That's an achievement on a par with that of Hiram Maxim.

Re: A lot of “idiotic” things have reasonable explanations (2011)

#86

Post by PakG1 »

georgespencer wrote: post #17

This article puts it better than I ever could. I had a similar reaction when I read extremely critical press coverage of some VCs in Europe investing in YPlan, which eventually sold for a nominal amount to Time Out London. The synopsis of all the coverage was: "How could they have spent all that money? And how could the investors have been so STUPID?" My friend Fred Destin wrote a great essay on this[1], and I'll do…

Regarding sports. Unfortunately, let's not discount the politics and human nature involved in fielding a team. Some players get to play because of their salary, some players get to play because of their relationship with the coach, some players get to play because they're trade bait, some coaches really are wrong, etc.

https://ca.sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nhl-puck-daddy/maple-leafs...

Coaches are human too. They are just as fallible as the rest of us. They may work with better information than the fan, but this doesn't mean that they should never be questioned. And good coaches allow themselves to change opinions if criticism makes sense.

For business... for every Netflix, there's a WeWork that everyone can see is insane and they're not wrong.

Re: A lot of “idiotic” things have reasonable explanations (2011)

#87

Post by Maxion »

sunaurus wrote: post #42
0d9eooo wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or maybe you just don't want to play the game anymore.

I think this is sadly very true - trying to actually be a kind person really limits how well you can play "the game". There's no good solution to this either - if there was more kindness in the world, then that would just create even more opportunities for the people playing the game to get ahead, because they would have more victims to exploit.

One key thing about the game is the definition of "being ahead", and in a way, the meaning you want your life to have.

If the definition of being ahead is to work in upper management, or at trendy FAANG making a large amount of money then you are kind-of forced to play the game in order to "get ahead".

However, if your version of getting ahead is to have a loving family, or to spend time on the hobbies you like or traveling or then you can (and sometimes even have to) spend less effort on the game.

I'm still working on finding my balance, but I've learned that I enjoy life much more when I'm doing something where I can spend less time playing the game, even if that comes with a large decrease in income and "prestige".

Re: A lot of “idiotic” things have reasonable explanations (2011)

#88

Post by close04 »

vecter wrote: post #43
aaronbrethorst wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or their family donated enough money to an Ivy to have a building named after them.

He said success, not wealth. Yes, obviously someone inheriting their parents' billion dollar business is wealthy, but I wouldn't consider them successful unless they've done something on their own.

I like to think of this example [0] when I have the feeling that I got to where I am all by myself, and forget how many and how much others have worked to "build my boat", and how much luck was involved at every step.

[0] https://digitalsynopsis.com/inspiration/privileged-kids-on-a...

Re: A lot of “idiotic” things have reasonable explanations (2011)

#89

Post by raducu »

AbrahamParangi wrote: post #4

Whenever you see someone who you believe to be an idiot succeeding, it usually means they're really good at the game and you don't even understand what the game is .

Also, "idiots" can understand other "idiots" better, thus being able to make money.

Making money is not a function of pure "intelect", but being able to predict what others need and being able to meet those needs.

You can be Einstein smart and not business smart.

Re: A lot of “idiotic” things have reasonable explanations (2011)

#90

Post by [deleted] »

quickthrower2 wrote: post #29
ramraj07 wrote: post #16

What's ironic to me is (IMO) Netflix is probably the shrewdest big company in existence now. Hastings has dominated not one but two markets, the second obviously larger and more insurmountable than the first. Almost Every single decision they make (including and especially ones that make customers unhappy, like their shitty browsing experience) seems so calculated and thoughtful it's just amazing. Even I thought Disn…

Meh, Netflix is one of many for me. Would be happy if it didn't exist, to watch other stuff on other streaming and I don't think they necessarily have the best content. Netflix try's to get you hooked on their originals, but the problem with that is once you binged a series you want something else - they cant keep feeding you the crack that is that current series because they take months to produce, so you switch to…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN