21–30 of 77 posts
This paper perfectly demonstrates two HR axioms I have observed in a 20 year tech journey from IC system engineer to retired unicorn CTO: 1. Total compensation varies obscenely within the organization. It correlates moderately with intelligence and in no way with effort. Some of the most useless articles you work with make the most money. 2. Leadership really, really, really does not want peers sharing compensation i…
My two cents, I believe there is an nuance worth deliniating, specifically differentiating between being elite "in status" vs being elite "in nature." Painting broad strokes here for the sake of this post (so take with a grain of salt)... Many people born into or groomed for an elite status (via inherited wealth, rich families, strong support systems, etc) are rationally self preservationists. They were born on third…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Human evolution actually escaped the trap of this short term thinking twice: first some 100k years ago, when altruism bloomed (see E O Wilson), and some 2500 years ago with the universal moralistic religions. The group that maximizes their long-term reproduction is the one that inherits the earth.
It is not short-term thinking. It is how we all think on a daily basis, even unconsciously, because it maximizes survival and reproduction, at least on evolutionary scales. > The group that maximizes their long-term reproduction is the one that inherits the earth. Yes, that's an interesting paradox in a world where the poorer tend to have more (surviving) children that the richer. But it emerged only very recently on…
The so-called 'elite' in the US, from politicians to journalists to venture capitalists and business leaders, are not looking all that great right now from my point of view, with a few exceptions.
My two cents, I believe there is an nuance worth deliniating, specifically differentiating between being elite "in status" vs being elite "in nature." Painting broad strokes here for the sake of this post (so take with a grain of salt)... Many people born into or groomed for an elite status (via inherited wealth, rich families, strong support systems, etc) are rationally self preservationists. They were born on third…
This is not a statement about competence, but about inflated ego.
People, animals, everyone look after their own interests and the interests of their offsprings. Any studies that might be conducted will, shockingly not, come to that conclusion. You can't escape 3+ billion years of evolution through natural selection.
Human evolution actually escaped the trap of this short term thinking twice: first some 100k years ago, when altruism bloomed (see E O Wilson), and some 2500 years ago with the universal moralistic religions. The group that maximizes their long-term reproduction is the one that inherits the earth.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is not short-term thinking. It is how we all think on a daily basis, even unconsciously, because it maximizes survival and reproduction, at least on evolutionary scales. > The group that maximizes their long-term reproduction is the one that inherits the earth. Yes, that's an interesting paradox in a world where the poorer tend to have more (surviving) children that the richer. But it emerged only very recently on…
Before it meant the group that even sometimes risked their life for the children of everyone in the tribe. I think you're discounting natural human altruism, which is well studied.
This is why in a village where everyone knows each other people help each other but in a holiday resort locals screw tourists.
This paper perfectly demonstrates two HR axioms I have observed in a 20 year tech journey from IC system engineer to retired unicorn CTO: 1. Total compensation varies obscenely within the organization. It correlates moderately with intelligence and in no way with effort. Some of the most useless articles you work with make the most money. 2. Leadership really, really, really does not want peers sharing compensation i…
My two cents, I believe there is an nuance worth deliniating, specifically differentiating between being elite "in status" vs being elite "in nature." Painting broad strokes here for the sake of this post (so take with a grain of salt)... Many people born into or groomed for an elite status (via inherited wealth, rich families, strong support systems, etc) are rationally self preservationists. They were born on third…
Most of the social sciences would have you believe that if you are white and/or male, that you are automatically in the former category even if you had to do all of those things mentioned by those in the later category.
All they really say is some people have an advantage. It doesn't mean they have it easy. We get advantages from all parts of life, and refusing to engage with recognizing them is a decision, but I don't find it particularly healthy.
Due to various reasons outside of my control, my life has been objectively easier than others. It doesn't mean it was easy. Just easier. If even one or two of those things changed my life could have ended up very different.