4 ms·

> Who else do you know that’s completely honest? I’ll bet that was much harder to answer. Um, no. Does he really live in such a morally uncentered world that h

by biztos 9y ago

> Who else do you know that’s completely honest? I’ll bet that was much harder to answer. Um, no. Does he really live in such a morally uncentered world that he thinks most people would have difficulty answering this question? (Is the VC world like that?) Of course nobody is 100% honest all the time, that would be pathological. But if you consider yourself an honest person, and live in the same universe I live in, I bet you know a whole bunch of people you consider at least as honest as yourself. If not, that would be very sad, but it would still not be normal.

richmarr 9y ago
> Um, no. Does he really live in such a morally uncentered world... He does explicitly say completely honest, and you admit that nobody is 100% honest all the time. Feel like you're moving the goalposts somewhat here.
- jdmichal 9y ago
  The author is the one who moved the goalposts. Here's the opening question: > Are you an honest person? Now, here's the follow-up, emphasis mine: > ... who else do you know that’s completely honest? Those are not the same question, at all. biztos was correct to call it out.
  - richmarr 9y ago
    > The author is the one who moved the goalposts ...biztos was correct to call it out. Yes, there's an extra word in there. I think you're both missing the point. It wouldn't be interesting or valuable for Horowitz to change his honesty benchmark half way through the opening paragraph. He even includes the word "else" in there, reinforcing the equity of the two measures. So, assuming he's not changing his honesty benchmark... nor is Horowitz likely to believe that each individual reader is objectively the only honest person in their network (or one of few). There isn't even any reason to believe the reader is above average in their honesty. That really just leaves one reasonable interpretation in my mind; the point that humans are subjectively more likely to view ourselves as honest compared to others. Whether you agree with this point or not is another matter, but there's plenty of evidence for similar cognitive biases. But yeah, I don't think this article is Shakespeare.

by biztos 9y ago

richmarr 9y ago

> Um, no. Does he really live in such a morally uncentered world... He does explicitly say completely honest, and you admit that nobody is 100% honest all the time. Feel like you're moving the goalposts somewhat here.

jdmichal 9y ago
The author is the one who moved the goalposts. Here's the opening question: > Are you an honest person? Now, here's the follow-up, emphasis mine: > ... who else do you know that’s completely honest? Those are not the same question, at all. biztos was correct to call it out.
- richmarr 9y ago
  > The author is the one who moved the goalposts ...biztos was correct to call it out. Yes, there's an extra word in there. I think you're both missing the point. It wouldn't be interesting or valuable for Horowitz to change his honesty benchmark half way through the opening paragraph. He even includes the word "else" in there, reinforcing the equity of the two measures. So, assuming he's not changing his honesty benchmark... nor is Horowitz likely to believe that each individual reader is objectively the only honest person in their network (or one of few). There isn't even any reason to believe the reader is above average in their honesty. That really just leaves one reasonable interpretation in my mind; the point that humans are subjectively more likely to view ourselves as honest compared to others. Whether you agree with this point or not is another matter, but there's plenty of evidence for similar cognitive biases. But yeah, I don't think this article is Shakespeare.