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

421–430 of 438 posts

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

#421

Post by lazyjones »

wegs wrote: post #380
lazyjones wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 backg…

> And I'm sorry you find two respected professors, one at NYU and one at Stanford, to be of dubious authenticity.

Obvious straw man. I have no qualms with those professors, just with your claims about their books, which at least one summary contains no trace of. Should I read those books merely to verify your claims? I'm not so sure.

> 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

So your initial claims don't apply to CEOs of corporations with less than 1000 people? Moving the goalpost much?

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

#422

Post by lazyjones »

mam2 wrote: post #309
Traster wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 e…

It's not even only money that gets this reaction. Every time somebody shows off or is lauded for having something that would actually take critics some effort to achieve, such reactions are common. Whether it's muscles (body building is ugly, unhealthy, only possible with horrible drugs...), good looks or many children. People will find some disadvantages and let you know.

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

#424

Post by wegs »

lazyjones wrote: post #421
wegs wrote: post #380

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 backg…

> And I'm sorry you find two respected professors, one at NYU and one at Stanford, to be of dubious authenticity. Obvious straw man. I have no qualms with those professors, just with your claims about their books, which at least one summary contains no trace of. Should I read those books merely to verify your claims? I'm not so sure. > I've virtually never seen these sorts of dynamics at organizations below 100 peopl…

Your username suggests you shouldn't read these books. You should skim notes about these books and write obnoxious posts based on those, claiming the person you're talking to is lying based on no evidence at all.

Indeed, Dictator's Handbook has a nice summary someone posted in this thread. Your link wasn't even a summary, but someone's take-home notes for their own career.

> So your initial claims don't apply to CEOs of corporations with less than 1000 people? Moving the goalpost much?

That's where the goalposts started. They haven't moved an inch. The article was talking about Reed Hastings and Netflix. We were talking about publicly-traded companies with shareholders. "Power" talks about ... power. CEO of a 5-man shop isn't power. It talks about how people climb to the top of corporate ladders at big organizations, and the selection mechanism for who makes CEO. Dictator's Handbook is about big organizations too. It's a game-theoretic treatment.

Obviously some context went over your head. Maybe that goes with digital communications, or maybe that goes with not being interested in longer texts, so much as in skimming summaries.

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

#425

Post by enaaem »

Traster wrote: post #185

I feel like what isn't really properly understood in these situations is the statistical chances that are involved here. 10 people put $50 on the roulette table, and then we celebrate the guy who hit their number. That genius who hit their number still had a negative expected value when placing that bet. Colette Martin would've been right to criticize Reed Hastings if he were making that bet with Netflix's money. But…

It is possible that a rich CEO has a negative EV bet picking strategy. Unlike casino games we cannot exactly determine this expected value, and have to estimate it from past observations. CEOs who generated positive past rewards, will most likely have a positive EV betting strategy.

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

#426

Post by michaelcampbell »

GlenTheMachine wrote: post #374
michaelcampbell wrote: post #371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

There is nothing to indicate any effectiveness whatsoever; how many shows were cancelled as a result? The post even said they'd go ahead and check stuff. Does anyone think they WOULDN'T have checked that show equipment for one of the biggest rock bands of the day if they found no brown M&M's? Really?

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

#427

Post by michaelcampbell »

romwell wrote: post #384
michaelcampbell wrote: post #371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 could be that they read it, said "fuck that", and did ... Exactly. You wonder what else they said "fuck that" to because they don't care or think it's not necessary. An even better case to catch.

As I said in another reply: The post even said they'd go ahead and check stuff. Does anyone think they WOULDN'T have checked that show equipment for one of the biggest rock bands of the day if they found no brown M&M's? Really?

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

#428

Post by michaelcampbell »

jschwartzi wrote: post #389
romwell wrote: post #384

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It could be that they read it, said "fuck that", and did ... Exactly. You wonder what else they said "fuck that" to because they don't care or think it's not necessary. An even better case to catch.

Yeah. I'm imagining the guy who says "fuck that" to picking the brown m&ms out as the same kind of person who goes "10A circuits should be fine. They build safety margins into those" or "those rafters should be fine to hold 2 tons of equipment. They're really stout 2x6's." You know, the kind of person who just assumes they know better and that what is planned doesn't matter. And if you let them do that they will tota…

> "fuck that" to picking the brown m&ms out as the same kind of person who goes "10A circuits should be fine. They build safety margins into those"

You've never worked with an electrician. This is not how these things work.

I love that this story gives people the warm fuzzies; enough to downvote. =D

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

#429

Post by Aaargh20318 »

iateanapple wrote: post #199
Aaargh20318 wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the end it's not about the money. As you said, there are lottery winners who lose everything in a few years, and there are people who build a new fortune after losing everything. That doesn't mean that being born into a privileged life doesn't have advantages, but it's about way more than just the money. It's also the connections you have. The best example right now is Trump, who is a complete and utter failure as…

> who is a complete and utter failure as a businessman yet people keep throwing money at him. Perhaps you are judging him by the wrong metrics? Trump has always wanted to be a “great man” of history while being able to live a life of excess.

> Trump has always wanted to be a “great man” of history while being able to live a life of excess.

He's failing at that to. He'll go into the history books as the worst president the US ever had by a wide margin.

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

#430

Post by jecel »

tomhoward wrote: post #260
Traster wrote: post #185

I feel like what isn't really properly understood in these situations is the statistical chances that are involved here. 10 people put $50 on the roulette table, and then we celebrate the guy who hit their number. That genius who hit their number still had a negative expected value when placing that bet. Colette Martin would've been right to criticize Reed Hastings if he were making that bet with Netflix's money. But…

> we don't read articles about the CEOs who make bad bets and lose them Yes we do, all the time: Theranos, WeWork, WebVan, Myspace, Friendster, BlackBerry, Enron, Worldcom, etc, etc, etc. Sure, we don't hear about companies that never get anywhere because they never did anything interesting to start with, because that's unremarkable. But we hear a lot about the companies that attracted a lot of success or hype early…

> Bill Gates' mother knowing the chairman of IBM

I find this story annoying. Imagine that Mary Gates did not know John Opel. Who would have IBM done business with instead?

Post reply on HN