4 ms·
I think the convention is that it's "ok" to be amazed by material goods and observable feats, but it's not "ok" to be amazed by lifestyles, philosophies and mor
by chipsy 16y ago
I think the convention is that it's "ok" to be amazed by material goods and observable feats, but it's not "ok" to be amazed by lifestyles, philosophies and moral codes, or speculative experiments.
A: "How did you make so much money, B?"
B: "I got up early every day, worked hard, kept learning and stuck to my principles."
A: "But there must be some kind of trick. How did you _really_ do it, B?"
Ego also comes into play, since people lacking self-respect will see themselves as a static entity seeking outside validation, not a work-in-progress that grows through achievement. Suggesting otherwise attacks their blind spot, and they'll tend to react to it as a threat.
- Mz 16y agoIt seems to me my biggest issue is with individuals who are doing substantially better than expected and have been amazing other people for some time but whose achievements fall far short of mine. These individuals are typically defacto social gatekeepers. It is a catch-22 because offending them alienates a large number of people but kowtowing to them in order to stay on their good side would involve agreeing with them at times when I really don't.
- neworbit 16y agoHah. They have enemies. Find them and explain. If you're talking about Bill Gates, sell to Larry Ellison "Here's how I'm going to put a thumb in his eye." Or at a more accessible level, tell the same thing to Calcanis as regards Arrington.
- Mz 16y agoNice idea but I don't think it applies in this situation.
- jimbokun 16y agoReminds me of this Bloom County http://www.notchcode.com/blog/2008/09/fitbit-another-great-design-both-on.html http://www.notchcode.com/blog/2008/09/fitbit-another-great-d...