Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The self-made man

slate.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 88 posts

Re: The self-made man

#31

Post by waterlesscloud »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #30
waterlesscloud wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>You take Zuckerberg and leave him in the middle of the woods, and what happens? Does he still create wealth? If I were to bet on it, I'd bet very heavily on him creating wealth under those circumstances. As measured by creating a system for survival. Obviously not as well as someone trained in such things (as implied by your dodge), but better than someone who lacked his intelligence, and more importantly, his drive…

Maybe it only seems ordinary to you, because it doesn't interest you. Its upper-middle-class arrogance showing, that nobody's job is as important as jobs like mine. What makes cleaning 'ordinary'? Try firing your cleaner/garbage man/street sweeper for a month and see how that impacts you. And what on earth does it mean, to contribute to an economy wherein only 'non-ordinary' folks benefit? That's pretty circular reas…

>And what on earth does it mean, to contribute to an economy wherein only 'non-ordinary' folks benefit?

I have no idea where that came from or what it means, so I can't respond to it.

I made a point of saying that I respect the importance of ordinary workers. I've spent most my life in ordinary jobs, your assumptions about me aside.

However, the fact remains that individually their contribution to the economy is much, much less than the individual contribution of someone who founds and directs the construction and growth of a large company.

Re: The self-made man

#32

Post by dragonwriter »

waterlesscloud wrote: post #24
rayiner wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You may not agree with it, but its not arbitrary to say that the economy should strive to give people credit for what they choose to do, rather than what you luck into. Its a distinction based on a well-defined criterion. I'm not really interested in discussing outliers like Michael Jordan, or tiny segments of the economy like sports or entertainment. I'm talking about how we distribute the proceeds of our industrial…

The only difference? If you were stranded in the wilderness and needed to survive from scratch, would you rather be with a group of attractive people or a group of smart people?

> If you were stranded in the wilderness and needed to survive from scratch, would you rather be with a group of attractive people or a group of smart people?

The naively obvious answer is "smart", but given that what people have evolved to find attractive in general (before distortions from makeup, etc., designed to fool natural attraction) is somewhat tied to health and physical fitness, and ability to contribute in a survival situation is very much affected by that as well as smarts, then if those are the only two measures available, there's reason to at least seek some balance between then rather than purely favoring smarts.

Re: The self-made man

#33

Post by danielweber »

orwhat wrote: post #28
rayiner wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You may not agree with it, but its not arbitrary to say that the economy should strive to give people credit for what they choose to do, rather than what you luck into. Its a distinction based on a well-defined criterion. I'm not really interested in discussing outliers like Michael Jordan, or tiny segments of the economy like sports or entertainment. I'm talking about how we distribute the proceeds of our industrial…

What would you think if I said there were indications that most conscious decision making isn't fully conscious at all? That, to a degree, free will is an illusory shadow of subconscious processes and that by the time you choose something, you've really already chosen it? And that genetics, prenatal development, and cultural influences all have a great say in those subconscious processes? For example, if a child beco…

It often leads to the same conclusions.

If people have free will, then we punish those who harm others.

If people are finite state automatons, then we punish those who harm others, because that's how you change inputs into the finite state automatons.

Re: The self-made man

#34

Post by JoeAltmaier »

waterlesscloud wrote: post #31
JoeAltmaier wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe it only seems ordinary to you, because it doesn't interest you. Its upper-middle-class arrogance showing, that nobody's job is as important as jobs like mine. What makes cleaning 'ordinary'? Try firing your cleaner/garbage man/street sweeper for a month and see how that impacts you. And what on earth does it mean, to contribute to an economy wherein only 'non-ordinary' folks benefit? That's pretty circular reas…

>And what on earth does it mean, to contribute to an economy wherein only 'non-ordinary' folks benefit? I have no idea where that came from or what it means, so I can't respond to it. I made a point of saying that I respect the importance of ordinary workers. I've spent most my life in ordinary jobs, your assumptions about me aside. However, the fact remains that individually their contribution to the economy is much…

Glad to hear about respecting 'ordinary' workers. Still, I suspect there's a difference between respect and understanding the importance of these workers.

If the pay of 'ordinary' jobs is to be set to some low minimum level, then the 'job making' or 'economy building' of the non-ordinary people will have no benefit for most folks. Its fine to brag about building wealth; but if its the highly-educated building wealth for themselves then who cares? But them of course.

The economy is not the plaything of those that have figured out the system. Its not there to make them wealthy, though I have no problem when that happens. As long as we remember the whole system is supposed to be for everybody.

There is a long chain of responsibility in an organization to allow anyone to function effectively at their job. Repeating what I wrote above, take away 'ordinary' tasks and the company grinds to a halt exactly as dead as if the CEO were removed. Maybe not; a company can go on for a year or so without a CEO on momentum; it stops dead if payroll stops processing, or heck if the lock on the front door breaks and nobody can get into the building.

Re: The self-made man

#35

Post by foolrush »

lukifer wrote: post #7

Humans have a problem with complexity and compound causality in general; any person who succeeds does so by some combination of both individual grit, and support from society and loved ones (even if indirectly), regardless of what the proportions happen to be (if one could even measure such a thing). Thinking that success must derive exclusively from either society or the individual is sheer absurdity, driven by a ne…

“Thinking that success must derive exclusively from either society or the individual is sheer absurdity, driven by a need to impose an idealized narrative upon messy reality.”

Very astute postmodern summation.

The only thing missing in this is the possibility that the myths of narrative (male hero), constancy (see genetics and scientism), etc. are all driven by ideology. In particular, capitalist ideology; the value of capital is predicated on foundational ideology. “Made man” for example, reinforces individual capital ownership as opposed to cultural byproduct.

A counterpoint might be other cultures with an Eastern religion based view chance / fortune as having a greater and more culturally secured role in the lives of an individual.

Re: The self-made man

#36

Post by waterlesscloud »

dragonwriter wrote: post #32
waterlesscloud wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only difference? If you were stranded in the wilderness and needed to survive from scratch, would you rather be with a group of attractive people or a group of smart people?

> If you were stranded in the wilderness and needed to survive from scratch, would you rather be with a group of attractive people or a group of smart people? The naively obvious answer is "smart", but given that what people have evolved to find attractive in general (before distortions from makeup, etc., designed to fool natural attraction) is somewhat tied to health and physical fitness, and ability to contribute i…

I knew someone would likely make that response.

Fitness is related to, but not the same as, attractiveness.

Of course it's possible to imagine a scenario of puny or fat nerds vs gorgeous athletes, but that's adding in things that don't necessarily relate and it's pretty clearly avoiding the intent of the scenario.

Re: The self-made man

#37

Post by calinet6 »

lukifer wrote: post #7

Humans have a problem with complexity and compound causality in general; any person who succeeds does so by some combination of both individual grit, and support from society and loved ones (even if indirectly), regardless of what the proportions happen to be (if one could even measure such a thing). Thinking that success must derive exclusively from either society or the individual is sheer absurdity, driven by a ne…

However, the public discourse and political narrative is decidedly in the individualistic camp, aligning more on the side of what people want to believe, rather than what is true.

This allows those with power to take advantage of the situation to a large degree.

It is there that the wishy-washy reductionist argument of 'the world is complex' ceases to be useful (not saying you're making that argument, but it often comes up). We need to push the world a little more to one side; a little more toward the balance point of this messy reality, with full recognition and respect for that complexity.

Re: The self-made man

#38

Post by orwhat »

danielweber wrote: post #33
orwhat wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What would you think if I said there were indications that most conscious decision making isn't fully conscious at all? That, to a degree, free will is an illusory shadow of subconscious processes and that by the time you choose something, you've really already chosen it? And that genetics, prenatal development, and cultural influences all have a great say in those subconscious processes? For example, if a child beco…

It often leads to the same conclusions. If people have free will, then we punish those who harm others. If people are finite state automatons, then we punish those who harm others, because that's how you change inputs into the finite state automatons.

Hmm... I don't know about that. Justice is wildly different than reconditioning.

Re: The self-made man

#39

Post by danielweber »

orwhat wrote: post #38
danielweber wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It often leads to the same conclusions. If people have free will, then we punish those who harm others. If people are finite state automatons, then we punish those who harm others, because that's how you change inputs into the finite state automatons.

Hmm... I don't know about that. Justice is wildly different than reconditioning.

Not necessarily fixing those who are caught, but pour encourager les autres. There are no morals here, since we are all just machines, and we're just trying to get the machines to do what we want.

Re: The self-made man

#40

Post by newppc »

rayiner wrote: post #14
seren wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I certainly does not work as hard as the cleaning lady getting up at 5 am to clean my desk. I just sit there typing lightly on my ergonomic keyboard, in my air-conditioned office and in the end, I will probably end better off, even though she might have crossed a deadly desert to come here and won't see her relatives for a long time. I just have the chance of being born around. Hard work == success, is probably a var…

> I certainly does not work as hard as the cleaning lady getting up at 5 am to clean my desk No kidding. I was in the office at 10 pm the other night, and the cleaning guy came around to empty the trash cans. He's like "man, still here at 10?" And I'm thinking "well so are you."

Hopefully he didn't start till 6pm though :)
Post reply on HN