4 ms·
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 convolut
by 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 agoTelling 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.