4 ms·
I think that it's because the value of social networking has increased to extreme levels. Skill is now nearly worthless in comparison. Rich people don't even kn
by jondubois 8y ago
I think that it's because the value of social networking has increased to extreme levels. Skill is now nearly worthless in comparison. Rich people don't even know what skill means and they don't realize that all the people who are crowding around them are not actually skilled; they're charlatans.
This is because the incentive to engage in social schemes is so high that it makes no sense to spend any effort on honing your skills... So instead of working on improving our value-creation skills, we're all working on improving our ability to bullshit (value capture).
Bullshitting works. Bullshitting is success. If universities offered degrees in bullshitting, their graduates would be the highest paid. Guaranteed.
- stormbeard 8y agoTo me, this looks like an analogy for the state of software interviews.
- torqueTorrent 8y agoEven after Tim Cook said none of his best people have the obsolete degrees everyone covets, the focus and priorities of software interviews is perpetually: "please tell me your LinkedIn profile?" or "what was your college degree in, again?" as opposed to "oh you have precisely all the mad skilz to remake the world in Linus's image".
- SamReidHughes 8y agoIn all my software development interviews in the past many years I've been asked to state or demonstrate my skills and talents.
- umanwizard 8y agoThis is completely different from my experience interviewing.
- bellerose 8y agoI think the theory of skill being nearly worthless in comparison is correct. But I don't think that has really changed from the past. The majority of products & services in this world don't really bring any value to a person. I think the main problem in society is overpopulation. We're getting to the point that too many people exist for the old systems to function and as smoothly & unnoticeable for the mainstream as before.
- analog31 8y agoBut the same group of people has in fact spent dearly on skill for their children, from bassoon lessons to math and computer coaches, and overseas experiences. It's just that an insane amount of skill isn't enough to get all of their kids into Harvard at once, so they're willing to chip in a bit more to make up the difference. My kids are at a competitive high school, so I know these parents and their kids. Nobody is calculating the value of social networking. They simply see Harvard (or other similar places) as the best and they want the best for their kids.
- jondubois 8y ago>> Nobody is calculating the value of social networking. The few who know the value of social networking are the ones who will succeed.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- nradov 8y agoI don't pay for guitar and volleyball lessons for my children because I think they're going to become especially skilled or get into Harvard. I pay because I want to get them out of the house and limit their screen time.
- analog31 8y agoI live in a fairly affluent town with a lot of competitive parents, so I've seen all sides of this. I'm not one of them, but there are definitely parents who see their kids' activities in terms of a progression towards an ultimate goal. My own philosophy is that those activities can lead to a fulfilling life, even if they don't pay back in monetary or career terms. I'm an amateur musician today, and it's a vital part of my life, so I'm grateful for the years of music lessons that my parents paid for.
- taneq 8y ago> Rich people don't even know what skill means Saying this is no better than saying "poor people are stupid".
- invalidOrTaken 8y agoCan't it be both?
- taneq 8y agoNot really, although there are plenty of either. Making blanket statements about a group of people based on a single attribute is bad.