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

371–380 of 438 posts

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

#371

Post by michaelcampbell »

GlenTheMachine wrote: post #321

A similar story that I love regarding the infamous Van Halen brown M&M contract rider: “Van Halen was the first band to take huge productions into tertiary, third-level markets. We’d pull up with nine eighteen-wheeler trucks, full of gear, where the standard was three trucks, max. And there were many, many technical errors — whether it was the girders couldn’t support the weight, or the flooring would sink in, or the…

> So, when I would walk backstage, if I saw a brown M&M in that bowl … ...They didn’t read the contract.

I don't know that that necessarily follows. It could be that they read it, said "fuck that", and did everything else to spec. Good story tho.

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

#372

Post by michaelcampbell »

cvlasdkv wrote: post #348
blaser-waffle wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 leadersh…

A lot to unpack here. > The common man isn't expected to understand tariffs, international banking, military theory, computer engineering, social justice issues, and food scarcity. What better use is there of the common man's time than understanding societal issues like justice and scarcity? Are you describing how the world is or claiming how it should be? If you do not understand justice, scarcity, etc. how can you…

> > The common man isn't expected to understand tariffs, international banking, military theory, computer engineering, social justice issues, and food scarcity.

> What better use is there of the common man's time than understanding societal issues like justice and scarcity?

Both of those can be true.

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

#373

Post by zanderwohl »

michaelcampbell wrote: post #371
GlenTheMachine wrote: post #321

A similar story that I love regarding the infamous Van Halen brown M&M contract rider: “Van Halen was the first band to take huge productions into tertiary, third-level markets. We’d pull up with nine eighteen-wheeler trucks, full of gear, where the standard was three trucks, max. And there were many, many technical errors — whether it was the girders couldn’t support the weight, or the flooring would sink in, or the…

> So, when I would walk backstage, if I saw a brown M&M in that bowl … ...They didn’t read the contract. I don't know that that necessarily follows. It could be that they read it, said "fuck that", and did everything else to spec. Good story tho.

But it's trivially easy to do, and the venue knows that not doing it is a violation of contract. A violation of contract could cost them the whole show, so there's no reason not to do it.

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

#374

Post by GlenTheMachine »

michaelcampbell wrote: post #371
GlenTheMachine wrote: post #321

A similar story that I love regarding the infamous Van Halen brown M&M contract rider: “Van Halen was the first band to take huge productions into tertiary, third-level markets. We’d pull up with nine eighteen-wheeler trucks, full of gear, where the standard was three trucks, max. And there were many, many technical errors — whether it was the girders couldn’t support the weight, or the flooring would sink in, or the…

> So, when I would walk backstage, if I saw a brown M&M in that bowl … ...They didn’t read the contract. I don't know that that necessarily follows. It could be that they read it, said "fuck that", and did everything else to spec. Good story tho.

It's a heuristic. A single, cheap, effective one IMHO, but no heuristic is 100% accurate.

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

#375

Post by afthonos »

pdonis wrote: post #330
afthonos wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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”.

> Are you arguing for being ruled by non-experts? No, he is making the valid point that in many areas that are highly relevant to public policy, there are no experts . Those who call themselves "experts" actually aren't. Nobody has enough understanding of the problem domain to make accurate predictions. In such a case, the only viable solution is for nobody to "rule".

Decisions have to be made—including doing nothing. Someone is always "ruling". Diffusing responsibility does not change that fact (though it can have other significant benefits).

I'm sympathetic to your POV, by the way, because uncritically listening to experts has literally killed millions of people in the past century. But the key word is "uncritically". Pushback is healthy, discussion is super-healthy; my position, though, is that in any argument, experts should get more weight unless the people arguing back have strong, on-the-ground evidence.

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

#376

Post by ggm »

koheripbal wrote: post #147
ggm wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But he has conspicuously failed to sell to 50% of his nation. Obama was a consummate salesman too and occupied the middle. Do you really think a rich entitled Trump who inherited his millions out-sold the first black president of the USA? Trump sold to his own. Obama sold worldwide. Tony Blair is a consummate lier and fraud and he sold better than Trump. He has a post prime ministerial income based on selling. Once T…

No one is making the argument that he's the best president ever, or even a good one. The point is that he became the President of the USA - he played the game very very well. It becomes more apparent when you see his videos on the subject from the 1980s - he was planning this move for decades.

perhaps the point I missed, is that because he is so visibly un-sellable, yet successfully sold himself, he wins, because Blair and Obama had underlying competencies. Trump is the best salesman, because he is selling.. nothing. And its being bought.

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

#377

Post by pdonis »

zimpenfish wrote: post #343
pdonis wrote: post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://judithcurry.com/2020/04/01/imperial-college-uk-covid...

From browsing that site, she seems to be a professional science contrarian - worth keeping in mind when reading that article.

> she seems to be a professional science contrarian

She's a scientist. To the extent she's a "contrarian", it's due to her personal experience in seeing how science actually works as compared to how it's supposed to work.

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

#378

Post by pdonis »

afthonos wrote: post #375
pdonis wrote: post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Are you arguing for being ruled by non-experts? No, he is making the valid point that in many areas that are highly relevant to public policy, there are no experts . Those who call themselves "experts" actually aren't. Nobody has enough understanding of the problem domain to make accurate predictions. In such a case, the only viable solution is for nobody to "rule".

Decisions have to be made—including doing nothing. Someone is always "ruling". Diffusing responsibility does not change that fact (though it can have other significant benefits). I'm sympathetic to your POV, by the way, because uncritically listening to experts has literally killed millions of people in the past century. But the key word is "uncritically". Pushback is healthy, discussion is super-healthy; my position…

> Decisions have to be made

In general, I disagree. Most of the time decisions do not have to be made--more precisely, decisions by "leaders" who get to dictate what everyone must or must not do so not have to be made, and should not be made. Our political structure makes it seem like they do, but that's a bug in our political structure, not an actual necessity.

> in any argument, experts should get more weight

If "experts" is defined as "people who have a demonstrated track record of making accurate predictions in the past", then yes, I agree.

However, by that criterion, as I said, in most domains that are of importance for public policy, there are no experts. Your statement, while correct in itself with that definition of "expert", does not help at all in those domains.

Any other definition of "expert" does not justify your statement.

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

#379

Post by Barrin92 »

solidasparagus wrote: post #205
Barrin92 wrote: post #69

Well, the title is easy to answer, even many exceptionally talented people are never rich, and there's a significant amount of luck involved in being rich. It's pretty easy to be smarter than many people while never having financial success, or respect, or an audience or whatever. It's worth picking up the actual thesis from the article though. If for example Hastings is rich, does that mean he's not an idiot (or doe…

> average S&P 500 company now lives fewer than 20 years No, the average age of an S&P 500 company is now less than 20 years. Which is heavily influenced by the rise of technology and the many S&P 500 companies that were created in the last ~20 years. It does not mean that companies are dying faster, just that S&P 500 is filled with young companies.

I don't think that's correct, at least according to this soruce (https://www.imd.org/research-knowledge/articles/why-you-will...)

"A recent study by McKinsey found that the average life-span of companies listed in Standard & Poor’s 500 was 61 years in 1958. Today, it is less than 18 years. McKinsey believes that, in 2027, 75% of the companies currently quoted on the S&P 500 will have disappeared. They will be bought- out, merged, or will go bankrupt like Enron and Lehman Brothers."

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

#380

Post by wegs »

lazyjones wrote: post #338
wegs wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

... to the extent you consider one of the most influential and best-researched management books a "cliche and conspiracy." I'll mention I didn't claim that a CEO rarely knows something a critic doesn't; just that things like the CEO's greater understanding of something like market dynamics are rarely the basis of what is externally perceived to be a "bad" decision by an armchair critic. The basis is usually political…

> Pfeffer's Power is a good read (but quite controversial -- the book basically makes the claim that CEOs are fundamentally psychopaths). Can you point me to a summary that makes this claim? Because https://www.slideshare.net/johnnemo/power-by-jeffrey-pfeffer... certainly doesn't. > You know nothing about my background. It just makes you look like you're either a jerk, or ran out of sound arguments. You made 2 appeal…

No, I can point you to reading the books.

If you're don't read books, I don't think this is a bridge you'll cross. And I'm sorry you find two respected professors, one at NYU and one at Stanford, to be of dubious authenticity. I'm not quite sure where to go from there in the conversation. There are many individuals who find Pfeffer dubious, but de Mesquita is extremely highly regarded.

I'm not going to share my background on the internet, but ex-CEO doesn't make you qualified to talk about much of anything. It depends on the organization. I've virtually never seen these sorts of dynamics at organizations below 100 people, and they don't become universal until around 1000-10,000 people. You need to reach a certain scale of competition before people start acting in ways which are game-theoretically optimal. If you have 10 people, it's easy to keep alignment on mission, vision, community, and business. If you have e.g. 10,000 people, and 1% are gunning for CEO, the only way to get to the top is to out-gun the other 99. That competition is what leads to these dynamics.

Post reply on HN