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

111–120 of 438 posts

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

#111

Post by bergstromm466 »

close04 wrote: post #88
vecter wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

That was great!

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

#112

Post by pydry »

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.

It's often not all that hard to disguise one as the other. I worked for a guy once who was drowning in family wealth and all he had to show for it was a failing business.

After years of losses that almost nobody else would have been able (or willing) to sustain he made it into a moderate success.

Outwardly, at face value, he's doing pretty well, until you count the decade of losses which nobody talks about.

Another friend is a moderately renowned documentary maker. Again, facilitated by family wealth. Outwardly, the appearance is of being successful, which cost a fair chunk of family wealth.

I think in both cases, family wealth drove something akin to an obsession to appear successful, which they largely achieved and nobody mentions the uncomfortable facts about how they got there in polite company.

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

#113

Post by TheOtherHobbes »

Ma8ee wrote: post #54
innagadadavida wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All of these are good factors, but don't leave out ego. Many smart people would rather be "right" and preserve their ego than make money.

And that many smart people have better things to do with their time than making more money. I have everything I need and really want. I much rather play with my three year old son in the garden than being able to afford a new Tesla.

See also: "If you're really so smart, why do you care so much about being rich?"

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

#114

Post by jeltz »

fwr wrote: post #57
nsgi wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So Trump is really good at the political game, for instance?

Is there a more powerful political position he could have?

Yes, he could be a president with reliable support from the senate and the house. But that said he still managed to reach very far.

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

#115

Post by bergstromm466 »

thdrdt wrote: post #83
mewpmewp2 wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

That’s a nice one. Yet do you think then Hitler might be a good leader? (not a joke). He united the white German population in a time of great economic disarray - in both Germany and Europe. Maybe we should measure unity and cooperation with other countries? Global solidarity

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

#116

Post by taneq »

fit2rule wrote: post #99

Oh, this is easy. The usual response to such a question is - "you're just an anti-intellectual! Being rich doesn't mean you're smart - any fool can do it! Real non-fools write their opinions down and other fools follow them." /s I've known some utterly immoral people become very, very wealthy - I might've even helped them along the way. The reason I'm not rich and they are, is that they decided they didn't want to he…

> It does, usually, mean that someone wanted to give you money for some reason

Isn't that the definition of participation in the economy? You created goods, or provided services, or arranged for goods to be created or services provided, and in exchange people give you money?

Cases where people are given money without in some way earning it are far in the minority.

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

#117

Post by TheOtherHobbes »

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…

Some combination of GINI, average life expectancy, number of bankruptcies, business closures, unemployment, changes in all-cause mortality, median household debt, disposable income, educational attainment, and so on.

If you look at a basket of well-being measures as opposed to raw GDP it's hard to argue that Trump has done a good job.

Of course Covid has had a big effect. But there were many policy options for handling that, and Trump - and his far-right equivalents in other countries - reliably picked some of the least effective ones.

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

#118

Post by im3w1l »

koonsolo wrote: post #103
aaronbrethorst wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Passing on wealth to your children is part of the game. Or did you think the game ends after 1 generation?

Now you are moving the goalposts from singular they are good at the game, to their family as a collective is good at the game. A statement perfectly compatible with that particular family member being an idiot.

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

#120

Post by stjo »

Ma8ee wrote: post #54
innagadadavida wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All of these are good factors, but don't leave out ego. Many smart people would rather be "right" and preserve their ego than make money.

And that many smart people have better things to do with their time than making more money. I have everything I need and really want. I much rather play with my three year old son in the garden than being able to afford a new Tesla.

TIL: Didn’t know I was stupid for having different goals than starting a family.

In non mockery voice: I think there is nothing wrong in being smart and perusing academic titles, wealth or recognition. Can’t I be happy travelling the world because I have so much passive income that I don’t care how much I spend? Can’t I be happy running megacorporation without a child?

Post reply on HN