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 .
So Trump is really good at the political game, for instance?
[deleted]
A lot of “idiotic” things have reasonable explanations (2011)
311–320 of 438 posts
Re: A lot of “idiotic” things have reasonable explanations (2011)
#312Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
It's perfectly fine not to be informed (or interested!) in most topics. It only becomes dangerous when you're uninformed but trust your own opinion more than the experts. Popular examples are climate change, or the COVID-19 response.
SO we are to be ruled by experts?
Show me the model produced by he experts that has been right? Show me the science behind the idea of quarantining the entire population in order to slow the spread of Covid-19. There is science behind quarantining sick people - but not healthy people. Show me the science behind the social distancing - 6 foot rule? I mean really - where IS the science to those things? These experts are self-proclaimed. I am more than willing to listen to a bridge builder tell me why I need to use a certain kind of steel as apposed to another - but many of these experts that we have been listening to lately are anything but experts.
Re: A lot of “idiotic” things have reasonable explanations (2011)
#313While I agree with the main thrust of the article (Chesterton's fence, etc.), the author seems to take as a given the fact that Netflix is sliding back into becoming as expensive as cable, because the content providers are setting the prices.
But Netflix's value is not from competing against cable on price, it's competing against piracy on convenience.
Content providers will never again see the same profits, because the de-facto price of content is zero. It's too easy to pirate, and morally grey enough that people are willing to do it.
Netflix got so big because it captured the market of people who were willing to pay for the convenience. If this gets too high they will just go back to pirating.
Re: A lot of “idiotic” things have reasonable explanations (2011)
#314Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
“For instance, on the planet Earth, man had always assumed that he was more intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so much—the wheel, New York, wars and so on—whilst all the dolphins had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time. But conversely, the dolphins had always believed that they were far more intelligent than man—for precisely the same reasons.” ― Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker's Gui…
> This planet has - or rather had - a problem, which was this: most of the people living on it were unhappy for pretty much of the time. Many solutions were suggested for this problem, but most of these were largely concerned with the movement of small green pieces of paper, which was odd because on the whole it wasn't the small green pieces of paper that were unhappy.
A lot of money simply isn't useful for anything interesting or valuable. Surviving is great, some comfort is nice, but after a certain order of magnitude, it's not so much people having money, it's money having people. While large scale projects are also important and those need money and other resources to be pooled in some form, but they don't require any involved person to be filthy rich.
Re: A lot of “idiotic” things have reasonable explanations (2011)
#315This 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 jus…
Regarding sports, most people fail to understand that most professional sport association (like football "clubs") are actually entertainment companies.
The sport is just the bait for the spectators.
A coach might choose a certain player over another just because the people acclaim him/her.
Also, don't forget that scandals about rigged games are quite regular nowadays.
Re: A lot of “idiotic” things have reasonable explanations (2011)
#316I 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 Hollyw…
Speaking only for myself, I strongly held the idea that being "smart" was the most important thing. It's only in the last 5 years that I've really come to regret that view. (For context I'm in my late 30's) Ideas are cheap, getting things done is valuable.
I remember the thought I had when I did this same belief-flip: ideas alone aren't worth the paper they're written on.
Re: A lot of “idiotic” things have reasonable explanations (2011)
#317A much more thoughtful treatment of this problem is "The Dictator's Handbook." There are three possible explanations: 1) The CEO knows something I don't. 2) The CEO is dumb. Those are rarely it. The third one is: 3) The CEO is optimizing for personal wealth / fame / success, and there are political considerations. Most CEOs can recognize that a business decision can be absolutely the right thing to do for the busines…
I would postulate that 3) is indistinguishable from doing a great job as CEO the vast majority of the time. Only very occasionally are the personal interests of the CEO in conflict with those of the company and its owners. Most CEOs can recognize that a business decision can be absolutely the right thing to do for the business and not make that decision if it either would cost them (1) their standing with shareholder…
Your postulate is generally correct on a quarterly time span. It's generally incorrect on a 5-year time-span. Good examples are Carly Fiorina gutting HP in ways which weren't immediately externally visible, or Bezos / Jobs pursuing tactics which took years to show value.
Key differences between the Board / shareholders and the CEO include:
(1) Amount of time available. Boards meet a few times, and it's exceptionally hard to get buy-in for something which doesn't have a concise executive summary. Shareholders have even less time.
(2) Insider information. Shareholders (and, to some extent, Boards) have far less inside information than the CEO.
If you'd like good evidence, the book "The Dictator's Handbook" builds a pretty good case that mirrors my experience operating at both executive and board levels. It's not a complete explanation, but I think it accounts for 50% of the types of dynamics described.
If full-length academic texts aren't your thing, CGP Grey has a nice summary on Youtube too: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs
>> The key skill CEOs need to be CEOs can be summarized as: "How to become a CEO."
> That's a very cynical and reductionist view
It may be cynical, but it mirrors my experience. It's definitely not reductionist. "How to become a CEO." is an incredible complex, intertwined set of skills. Some of those skills include effectively leading companies, but others do not.
Re: A lot of “idiotic” things have reasonable explanations (2011)
#318Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's perfectly fine not to be informed (or interested!) in most topics. It only becomes dangerous when you're uninformed but trust your own opinion more than the experts. Popular examples are climate change, or the COVID-19 response.
SO we are to be ruled by experts? Show me the model produced by he experts that has been right? Show me the science behind the idea of quarantining the entire population in order to slow the spread of Covid-19. There is science behind quarantining sick people - but not healthy people. Show me the science behind the social distancing - 6 foot rule? I mean really - where IS the science to those things? These experts ar…
I’m confused. Are you arguing for being ruled by non-experts? Sounds like you think we already are, what’s the problem?
The opposite of “expert” isn’t “uses magical common sense to arrive at the right decision”, it’s “crapshoot”.
Re: A lot of “idiotic” things have reasonable explanations (2011)
#319Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's perfectly fine not to be informed (or interested!) in most topics. It only becomes dangerous when you're uninformed but trust your own opinion more than the experts. Popular examples are climate change, or the COVID-19 response.
SO we are to be ruled by experts? Show me the model produced by he experts that has been right? Show me the science behind the idea of quarantining the entire population in order to slow the spread of Covid-19. There is science behind quarantining sick people - but not healthy people. Show me the science behind the social distancing - 6 foot rule? I mean really - where IS the science to those things? These experts ar…
The Imperial College paper that kicked off the whole thing has plenty of details on various quarantining scenarios, including full population quarantine and at risk population quarantine, or any combination thereof. Did you read it? Do you not agree with the simulations or what are your objections?
Re: A lot of “idiotic” things have reasonable explanations (2011)
#320Whenever 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 .
And other times you understand the game and it adds to your distaste. Like for example, success of Jared Kushner .