4 ms·

> 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.

> 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.

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.