6 ms·

I don't like any of those categories. 1st group: starfucker douchebags, properly characterized by the OP. Prone to serve the "high-status" set they want to joi

I don't like any of those categories. 1st group: starfucker douchebags, properly characterized by the OP. Prone to serve the "high-status" set they want to join as soon as they have access to those people, and therefore a liability to anyone who wants . 2nd group: contains a lot of clock-punching mediocrities, also correctly portrayed by OP. 3rd group: driven by empty ambition, likely psychopaths. These people are responsible for the "next quarter" mentality that has ruined the US and shaken the world economy. What unifies types I and III is the narcissistic character of a toxic and dangerous personality. What differentiates them is low (I) vs. high (III) self-image. The stronger self-image of the third set makes these people more dangerous, IMO. What about? Group 2+: Those who want to be comfortable, so they can spend their mental energy on things that are actually interesting and useful. These are people who wouldn't mind getting rich, but are more interested in solving interesting problems and making the world a better place than in having toy X at age Y.

angelbob 17y ago
I think the advice about Group 2+ would be "don't partner with them either. They've got priorities other than making money, and making money is hard enough you can't do it accidentally."
- pw0ncakes 17y ago
  Explain. Do you really think the Google founders set out to be billionaires? I think that most of the interesting and decent rich people had no idea they'd be so successful. They put one foot in front of the other until they had something of great value.
  - fnid2 17y ago
    For the record, they also didn't set out to compete with any of the existing search engines, rather their interest was to prove the viability of their linux cluster and an internet of data was a good theater for that.
    - pw0ncakes 17y ago
      Right. In terms of intellectual and creative advancement, the overwhelming majority of it comes from people who were both uninterested in monetarily capturing the value of it, and also bad at doing so. Most people with the talent for making money are people with few other talents (just because of the general rarity of talent; when the correlation is zero, people with talent X are very unlikely to have talent Y).
      - fnid2 17y ago
        Interesting take. I see so many "business types" looking for developers to help them build their great idea. But developers aren't interested in building someone else's idea, so it may be the opposite approach which is mo' betta. Business people should be looking for existing technical products to sell, rather than trying to think of ideas themselves.
        pw0ncakes 17y ago
        The issue is that our society worships the hell out of money and the making thereof, at the expense of all else, creating an environment where the business people become "high priests" and get orders of magnitude more compensation, influence, and power than equally qualified and responsible people in other industries. Large companies also use the creative, interesting work as a reward for doing well at the upper-grunt (middle management) level, so it goes to the most loyal, and those best at playing the "business game", rather than the most qualified. The current arrangement makes as much sense as for particle physicists to tell Michael Jordan how to play basketball.
- froo 17y ago
  Not necessarily, a couple of the web's biggest properties came to be from it's founders other priorities. Google (backrub) started as a research project. Craigslist started out as a way for Craig Newmark to not feel so isolated. Wikipedia... the list goes on.
  - callmeed 17y ago
    How does Wikipedia relate to this at all? It's a non-profit.
    - aarongough 17y ago
      It may be a non-profit but it does still have people on the payroll, people who get paid to do what they love...
      - ZeroGravitas 17y ago
        And could be raking in millions in advertising dollars, like the non-profit Mozilla, if it chose to.
        robin_reala 17y ago
        The Mozilla situation is rather different. It’s actually two entities: the non-profit Mozilla Foundation ( http://www.mozilla.org/foundation/ http://www.mozilla.org/foundation/ ) and the for-profit Mozilla Corporation ( http://www.mozilla.com/ http://www.mozilla.com/ ). MoFo shepherd the code, but MoCo do a lot of the business arrangements.
        ZeroGravitas 17y ago
        I think it's more MoFo sets the direction, MoCo pays the tax. "The creation of the Mozilla Corporation should eliminate some of the thorny legal and tax issues that have been caused by the revenue-generating potential of Firefox and Thunderbird. The Mozilla Corporation will now handle all relationships with commercial companies and its status should allow more flexibility in this area. It is hoped that the income from the Mozilla Corporation will help the Mozilla project (including both the Foundation and the Corporation) to be more self-supporting, though donations will still be welcome." http://web.archive.org/web/20060907025204/http://www.mozillazine.org/talkback.html?article=7085 http://web.archive.org/web/20060907025204/http://www.mozilla...
- run4yourlives 17y ago
  That all depends on what your goals are though, doesn't it? If you are a VC or investor, this advice is true. If you however are an entrepreneur and share their interests and passion, this advice is horribly inaccurate.
fnid2 17y ago
Right! There are two kinds of wealth: Monetary wealth and time wealth.
- pbhjpbhj 17y ago
  >Mark 8:36 (The Message) What good would it do to get everything you want and lose you, the real you? What could you ever trade your soul for? There is wealth in being able to be yourself (which might be an abstraction of your 2 wealths?). Also, to love and be loved.
dnsworks 17y ago
Group #1: Social Media Scene people. You'd meet them at any networking event in San Francisco, like tonight's SF Beta Group #2: These are your friends who work at Facebook or Google. Group #3 ???
- pw0ncakes 17y ago
  Wall Street.
  - soe 17y ago
    exactly... i think he has to come up with another group to describe the personality he really means... in for money but ethical?
wynand 17y ago
Exactly. Group 2+ is also the most valuable to the world in the long run, if only because people's mental health will be much better. I also wouldn't be surprised if the members of Group 2+ generally hate the control that the typical manager exerts.
Timothee 17y ago
The thing is that "the boss" in that story is putting himself in group 3. As such he probably sees anybody in group 2+ as useless and mediocre as people in group 2.
yequalsx 17y ago
The Group 2+ is the group that society ought to strive to empower. They are the ones from whom real progress is made. Almost all of the truly great discoveries and inventions come from this group.

angelbob 17y ago

I think the advice about Group 2+ would be "don't partner with them either. They've got priorities other than making money, and making money is hard enough you can't do it accidentally."

pw0ncakes 17y ago
Explain. Do you really think the Google founders set out to be billionaires? I think that most of the interesting and decent rich people had no idea they'd be so successful. They put one foot in front of the other until they had something of great value.
- fnid2 17y ago
  For the record, they also didn't set out to compete with any of the existing search engines, rather their interest was to prove the viability of their linux cluster and an internet of data was a good theater for that.
  - pw0ncakes 17y ago
    Right. In terms of intellectual and creative advancement, the overwhelming majority of it comes from people who were both uninterested in monetarily capturing the value of it, and also bad at doing so. Most people with the talent for making money are people with few other talents (just because of the general rarity of talent; when the correlation is zero, people with talent X are very unlikely to have talent Y).
    - fnid2 17y ago
      Interesting take. I see so many "business types" looking for developers to help them build their great idea. But developers aren't interested in building someone else's idea, so it may be the opposite approach which is mo' betta. Business people should be looking for existing technical products to sell, rather than trying to think of ideas themselves.
      - pw0ncakes 17y ago
        The issue is that our society worships the hell out of money and the making thereof, at the expense of all else, creating an environment where the business people become "high priests" and get orders of magnitude more compensation, influence, and power than equally qualified and responsible people in other industries. Large companies also use the creative, interesting work as a reward for doing well at the upper-grunt (middle management) level, so it goes to the most loyal, and those best at playing the "business game", rather than the most qualified. The current arrangement makes as much sense as for particle physicists to tell Michael Jordan how to play basketball.
froo 17y ago
Not necessarily, a couple of the web's biggest properties came to be from it's founders other priorities. Google (backrub) started as a research project. Craigslist started out as a way for Craig Newmark to not feel so isolated. Wikipedia... the list goes on.
- callmeed 17y ago
  How does Wikipedia relate to this at all? It's a non-profit.
  - aarongough 17y ago
    It may be a non-profit but it does still have people on the payroll, people who get paid to do what they love...
    - ZeroGravitas 17y ago
      And could be raking in millions in advertising dollars, like the non-profit Mozilla, if it chose to.
      - robin_reala 17y ago
        The Mozilla situation is rather different. It’s actually two entities: the non-profit Mozilla Foundation ( http://www.mozilla.org/foundation/ http://www.mozilla.org/foundation/ ) and the for-profit Mozilla Corporation ( http://www.mozilla.com/ http://www.mozilla.com/ ). MoFo shepherd the code, but MoCo do a lot of the business arrangements.
        ZeroGravitas 17y ago
        I think it's more MoFo sets the direction, MoCo pays the tax. "The creation of the Mozilla Corporation should eliminate some of the thorny legal and tax issues that have been caused by the revenue-generating potential of Firefox and Thunderbird. The Mozilla Corporation will now handle all relationships with commercial companies and its status should allow more flexibility in this area. It is hoped that the income from the Mozilla Corporation will help the Mozilla project (including both the Foundation and the Corporation) to be more self-supporting, though donations will still be welcome." http://web.archive.org/web/20060907025204/http://www.mozillazine.org/talkback.html?article=7085 http://web.archive.org/web/20060907025204/http://www.mozilla...
run4yourlives 17y ago
That all depends on what your goals are though, doesn't it? If you are a VC or investor, this advice is true. If you however are an entrepreneur and share their interests and passion, this advice is horribly inaccurate.

fnid2 17y ago

Right! There are two kinds of wealth: Monetary wealth and time wealth.

pbhjpbhj 17y ago
>Mark 8:36 (The Message) What good would it do to get everything you want and lose you, the real you? What could you ever trade your soul for? There is wealth in being able to be yourself (which might be an abstraction of your 2 wealths?). Also, to love and be loved.

dnsworks 17y ago

Group #1: Social Media Scene people. You'd meet them at any networking event in San Francisco, like tonight's SF Beta Group #2: These are your friends who work at Facebook or Google. Group #3 ???

pw0ncakes 17y ago
Wall Street.
- soe 17y ago
  exactly... i think he has to come up with another group to describe the personality he really means... in for money but ethical?

wynand 17y ago

Exactly. Group 2+ is also the most valuable to the world in the long run, if only because people's mental health will be much better. I also wouldn't be surprised if the members of Group 2+ generally hate the control that the typical manager exerts.

Timothee 17y ago

The thing is that "the boss" in that story is putting himself in group 3. As such he probably sees anybody in group 2+ as useless and mediocre as people in group 2.

yequalsx 17y ago

The Group 2+ is the group that society ought to strive to empower. They are the ones from whom real progress is made. Almost all of the truly great discoveries and inventions come from this group.