3 ms·

"it is not a stupid person ... It is a person who almost certainly has no indication that he will suffer any negative consequences" Jackets and sexual advances

by jonmc12 10y ago

"it is not a stupid person ... It is a person who almost certainly has no indication that he will suffer any negative consequences" Jackets and sexual advances are likely just the symptoms. From Fowler's account it sounds like root cause is a political culture where individuals (esp management) are incentivized to act in their own self interest. Any employee can safely ignore another if that other employee is not politically tied to their personal advancement. I'd like to think this is the wrong side of history, and that smart people should put their self-worth in acting in ways that optimize the benefit for all stakeholders. However, many political science theories predict just the opposite in large political organizations where selfish actors aggregating power end up at the top. I know very little about Uber's org, but a leader with a Machiavellian hat on would likely focus on hiring management that are adept at acting politically. A political culture will eventually weed out those who are not.

Analemma_ 10y ago
> From Fowler's account it sounds like root cause is a political culture where individuals (esp management) are incentivized to act in their own self interest. > I know very little about Uber's org, but a leader with a Machiavellian hat on would likely focus on hiring management that are adept at acting politically. Travis Kalanick is famously supportive of Objectivism, the philosophy where altruism is for losers and acting purely in motivated self-interest is the highest possible good. Once you know that, very little about Uber will surprise you anymore. Surprisingly (or not), running a business on Objectivist principles is a terrible idea. See the saga of Eddie Lampert who put Sears into a death spiral that way: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-07-11/at-sears-eddie-lamperts-warring-divisions-model-adds-to-the-troubles https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-07-11/at-sears-... I for one will be delighted to watch Uber follow their lead.
- BugsJustFindMe 10y ago
  Travis Kalanick is famously supportive of Objectivism, the philosophy where altruism is for losers and acting purely in motivated self-interest is the highest possible good. Once you know that, very little about Uber will surprise you anymore. Complicated. I happen to believe that, regardless of how one desires to spin it, everyone already acts in their own motivated self-interest. It's just a question of how wiling you are to see interest and where you draw your connections. For example it is in my personal interest to not harm others usually because harming others makes me feel more bad in many instances than whatever I would stand to gain. Generally speaking when people feel that way we call them good people, and when people don't feel that way we call them sociopaths. The problem isn't that Travis Kalanick believes that he should act in his own self interest. The problem is that Travis Kalanick doesn't feel bad when harming others.
  - Frondo 10y ago
    It's risky to assign motives to other people without talking to them. You, for example, have said that what motivates you is self-interest (in various convoluted ways). I won't dispute that. Telling me that you know better than I do what motivates me, without having talked to me? Man, why would you do that?
    - BugsJustFindMe 10y ago
      Telling me that you know better than I do what motivates me, without having talked to me? Man, why would you do that? A combination of genetics and upbringing, I suppose. Slightly more concretely, it's a predictive model that by my experience always accurately describes what is happening. This could be exemplified by the classic question: "Would you do X (and get away with it) for Y dollars?" Where X can be anything the questioner wants, and Y is a number that starts astronomically high and decreases until the answer is no. It's risky to assign motives to other people without talking to them. Sometimes, yes. But I think not in this case. What exactly is the risk here? That at some very deep fundamental level beyond observation and understanding a religious philosopher might tell me that I'm wrong? Ok. So what? You, for example, have said that what motivates you is self-interest (in various convoluted ways). More completely what I said is that self-interest includes weighing negative and positive emotion. You willingly do things that make you feel more good than bad. The problem for people here is not Kalanick's self interest. The problem for people is that he doesn't seem to feel bad about hurting others in the same way or to the same degree that they think someone should.
- CamperBob2 10y ago
  Sears died the minute Jeff Bezos paid Network Solutions $50 to register amazon.com. They just didn't know it for a while. Blaming some random political philosophy you happen to disagree with isn't enlightening.
- taneq 10y ago
  > Travis Kalanick is famously supportive of Objectivism, the philosophy where altruism is for losers and acting purely in motivated self-interest is the highest possible good. The little I've read about Objectivism (and about Rand) sounds incredibly immature to me. The naive definition of 'self-interest', the stubborn insistence that 'rational' merely means 'doing whatever I want to'. There's no nuance, no depth of understanding.
yannyu 10y ago
>I'd like to think this is the wrong side of history, and that smart people should put their self-worth in acting in ways that optimize the benefit for all stakeholders. However, many political science theories predict just the opposite in large political organizations where selfish actors aggregating power end up at the top. I'd be interested in reading more about this. Do you have any links, papers, or books you could point people to?
- jonmc12 10y ago
  Happy to post some links below. I'd also by interested in more good reading in this direction, particularly from someone in political science field (I am not). Iron Law of Oligarchy: https://www.britannica.com/topic/iron-law-of-oligarchy https://www.britannica.com/topic/iron-law-of-oligarchy Selectorate Theory: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selectorate_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selectorate_theory Rules for Rulers: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs The Dictators Handbook: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B005GPSLHI/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1 https://www.amazon.com/dp/B005GPSLHI/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?... The Logic of Political Survival: https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/logic-political-survival https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/logic-political-survival

by jonmc12 10y ago

Analemma_ 10y ago

> From Fowler's account it sounds like root cause is a political culture where individuals (esp management) are incentivized to act in their own self interest. > I know very little about Uber's org, but a leader with a Machiavellian hat on would likely focus on hiring management that are adept at acting politically. Travis Kalanick is famously supportive of Objectivism, the philosophy where altruism is for losers and acting purely in motivated self-interest is the highest possible good. Once you know that, very little about Uber will surprise you anymore. Surprisingly (or not), running a business on Objectivist principles is a terrible idea. See the saga of Eddie Lampert who put Sears into a death spiral that way: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-07-11/at-sears-eddie-lamperts-warring-divisions-model-adds-to-the-troubles https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-07-11/at-sears-... I for one will be delighted to watch Uber follow their lead.

BugsJustFindMe 10y ago
Travis Kalanick is famously supportive of Objectivism, the philosophy where altruism is for losers and acting purely in motivated self-interest is the highest possible good. Once you know that, very little about Uber will surprise you anymore. Complicated. I happen to believe that, regardless of how one desires to spin it, everyone already acts in their own motivated self-interest. It's just a question of how wiling you are to see interest and where you draw your connections. For example it is in my personal interest to not harm others usually because harming others makes me feel more bad in many instances than whatever I would stand to gain. Generally speaking when people feel that way we call them good people, and when people don't feel that way we call them sociopaths. The problem isn't that Travis Kalanick believes that he should act in his own self interest. The problem is that Travis Kalanick doesn't feel bad when harming others.
- Frondo 10y ago
  It's risky to assign motives to other people without talking to them. You, for example, have said that what motivates you is self-interest (in various convoluted ways). I won't dispute that. Telling me that you know better than I do what motivates me, without having talked to me? Man, why would you do that?
  - BugsJustFindMe 10y ago
    Telling me that you know better than I do what motivates me, without having talked to me? Man, why would you do that? A combination of genetics and upbringing, I suppose. Slightly more concretely, it's a predictive model that by my experience always accurately describes what is happening. This could be exemplified by the classic question: "Would you do X (and get away with it) for Y dollars?" Where X can be anything the questioner wants, and Y is a number that starts astronomically high and decreases until the answer is no. It's risky to assign motives to other people without talking to them. Sometimes, yes. But I think not in this case. What exactly is the risk here? That at some very deep fundamental level beyond observation and understanding a religious philosopher might tell me that I'm wrong? Ok. So what? You, for example, have said that what motivates you is self-interest (in various convoluted ways). More completely what I said is that self-interest includes weighing negative and positive emotion. You willingly do things that make you feel more good than bad. The problem for people here is not Kalanick's self interest. The problem for people is that he doesn't seem to feel bad about hurting others in the same way or to the same degree that they think someone should.
CamperBob2 10y ago
Sears died the minute Jeff Bezos paid Network Solutions $50 to register amazon.com. They just didn't know it for a while. Blaming some random political philosophy you happen to disagree with isn't enlightening.
taneq 10y ago
> Travis Kalanick is famously supportive of Objectivism, the philosophy where altruism is for losers and acting purely in motivated self-interest is the highest possible good. The little I've read about Objectivism (and about Rand) sounds incredibly immature to me. The naive definition of 'self-interest', the stubborn insistence that 'rational' merely means 'doing whatever I want to'. There's no nuance, no depth of understanding.

yannyu 10y ago

>I'd like to think this is the wrong side of history, and that smart people should put their self-worth in acting in ways that optimize the benefit for all stakeholders. However, many political science theories predict just the opposite in large political organizations where selfish actors aggregating power end up at the top. I'd be interested in reading more about this. Do you have any links, papers, or books you could point people to?

jonmc12 10y ago
Happy to post some links below. I'd also by interested in more good reading in this direction, particularly from someone in political science field (I am not). Iron Law of Oligarchy: https://www.britannica.com/topic/iron-law-of-oligarchy https://www.britannica.com/topic/iron-law-of-oligarchy Selectorate Theory: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selectorate_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selectorate_theory Rules for Rulers: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs The Dictators Handbook: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B005GPSLHI/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1 https://www.amazon.com/dp/B005GPSLHI/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?... The Logic of Political Survival: https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/logic-political-survival https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/logic-political-survival