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

301–310 of 438 posts

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

#301

Post by lucozade »

krapp wrote: post #176
lucozade wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He's not world class at selling walls. He's world class at selling Donald Trump.

Unfortunately, selling "walls" (policy) is his actual job. He's like a vacuum cleaner salesman who can always get his foot in the door, but can never manage to sell a unit.

Not quite.

He's like a vacuum salesman who promises to give his customers dishwashers and toasters for free if they buy a vacuum cleaner.

When they buy the vacuum cleaner, it turns out he lied about the other goods but they still ended up with the vacuum cleaner. But what a lot of people really wanted was the dishwasher.

I may have pushed the analogy a little too far...

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

#302

Post by gizmo »

danaris wrote: post #263
gizmo wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Intelligence is hugely important for any kind of outlier success. It's no coincidence that Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, and Jim Simons are undeniably brilliant. The claim that charisma, street smarts, or connections are more important than intelligence is absurd. There are so many fields in which those things just don't matter. If you're not charismatic don't pursue a career in a field that requires charisma. Simple. It's…

> If you're not charismatic don't pursue a career in a field that requires charisma. Simple. I'm sorry, what field would that be? I have yet to see a field where extraversion, persuasiveness, and regularly going out and having beers with the boss is less likely to get you promotion than being utterly brilliant, doing an amazing job at what you do, and maintaining a healthy work-life balance. At least in America, char…

Those fields where weirdos make it to the top.

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

#303

Post by eswat »

Maxion wrote: post #87
sunaurus wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 tr…

> 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.

Money – and thus at least understanding the game enough – is often a precursor to getting enjoyment out of those things though, to various degrees. Probably less so with family, if the dynmaics are healthy, but definitely more needed for certain hobbies and travel.

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

#304

Post by [deleted] »

bonoboTP wrote: post #269
0d9eooo wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

There is no "not playing the game". You can opt for different mini-games, but the game is eternal, beyond humans, beyond life even. Reading zen stories definitely helps you see this. Even denouncing the game is part of the game. Don't be afraid of playing it. If you don't enjoy in, you need to play it better on a higher level, by stepping back a bit.

[deleted]

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

#305

Post by darkerside »

mlthoughts2018 wrote: post #271
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…

I disagree with the soccer fan analogy. Often in soccer the team manager publicly reveals key perspectives and strategies that always guide their decisions. They also reveal patterns of player selection that link to their perspectives and strategies, often over many years across multiple teams. If Jose Mourinho comes to coach your team, you know right away the player recruitment and selection will be rooted in a very…

I'd say both of those things are frequently true, and it's hard to know which is right when. "Fans" in aggregate also have the benefit of hindsight and confirmation bias. For every smart fan who was right, there were many who were wrong but don't keep bringing it up years later. Coaches OTOH have to live with the decisions made in the moment, right or wrong.

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

#306

Post by Veen »

red_admiral wrote: post #266
thdrdt wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Today information is so easy to get that a lot of people think they know everything about every subject. But, like you said, reading the rules of the game does not mean you know how to play. When a company like Netflix launches a new product it is possible they thought about this with different teams for a long time. Then it's very naive to comment on the internet to say they are wrong and made a stupid mistake.

To take a recent example: when a company like TripleByte launches a new product - namely that key parts of all profiles will suddenly be public - they might have thought about this with different teams for a long time too, but commenters on the internet said they were wrong and eventually they admitted that they made a stupid mistake. Netflix's plan paid off. TripleByte's didn't. Apples and Oranges, I know, but how d…

It's easy to tell them apart because ethical and instrumental reasoning have distinct value systems.

It is irrelevant that Triplebyte's public profiles may have been instrumentally valuable for the company in the long run. No one arguing against them cared about that. But they did care about the ethical implications of that decision -- it was wrong even if it turned out to be good for Triplebyte, which it didn't because their plan was so brazenly unethical that they got a spanking.

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

#307

Post by pas »

beefield wrote: post #41
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 .

Or maybe you do, but simply refuse to play the game due to ethical and moral grounds.

There are games you can't really opt out. Like politics. Whoever wins will have control over you. (So people are highly motivated to play it.)

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

#308

Post by johnmarinelli »

danieltillett wrote: post #283
johnmarinelli wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know much about Jeff Bezos so I try to reserve my judgement about him. But I am confused - how does one come from a poor family and then receive a $300k loan from said family?

The poor family through hard work and saving became a moderately wealthy family over time.

Sure, I didn't mean to sound like I am stomping on the Dream. What I meant was, how specifically did this family that came from poverty accumulate $300k?

Quick research says that Mike Bezos worked as an engineer for Exxon after graduating college, and saving that money wisely can add up to $300k.

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

#309

Post by mam2 »

Traster wrote: post #211
mam2 wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is so true i don't understand the downvotes

It's getting downvoted because it's not a good argument. Accusing the people you disagree with of coming to their conclusions through motivated reasonsing neither actually addresses the logical arguments people are making, or gives the people you're disagreeing with any intellectual credit. It also throws up some horrendous strawmen - you have to be rich to take care of your family? Want to have an open conversation…

Ok here's the conversation, but the thing is that it's not reeeealy a debate: "Money is good to have".

But everytime you say exactly this, there are swarms of people trying to explain to you why it's not so important. It's just pure rationalisation.

That doesn't mean "you should or shouldn't dedicate your life to money because it will not make you happy", but this specic argument IS the strawman people give usually everytime you talk about money, and THIS is actually how most people actually kill the conversation.

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

#310

Post by blaser-waffle »

asdff wrote: post #81
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.

My IT director doesn't know every facet of what is in our environment, and generally is not up to date as to what changes are happening on the day to day. And he doesn't need to be.

The point of high-level workers is so they can focus on high-level priorities. They have staff -- legal aids, system admins, business analysts, whatever -- whose job it is to digest that stuff and put it into simple briefings for leadership to evaluate in the context of other issues.

> 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

The electorate isn't expected to have this advantage, and is not expected to read the bills. The whole reason for representative democracy is so that the common voter does not have to parse this stuff -- that's explicitly the point. I find someone who reflects my views and I put them in office, and trust that they'll be able to digest what's happening and vote accordingly. The common man isn't expected to understand tariffs, international banking, military theory, computer engineering, social justice issues, and food scarcity.

Post reply on HN