4 ms·

What do you mean exactly by “good grades” people / “bad grades” people? Are you trying to make some kind of insinuation as to people’s intelligence here? Do yo

What do you mean exactly by “good grades” people / “bad grades” people? Are you trying to make some kind of insinuation as to people’s intelligence here? Do you literally mean people who got good grades in high school and college versus those that didn’t get good grades? Clarifying your base definitions would be very helpful in understanding the point you’re trying to make.

doctorpangloss 8y ago
No, I think my whole point is that I'm talking about people who got good grades as kids versus people who got bad grades as kids. Your grades say as much about your intelligence as you think it does. My point about video game developers is that there are plenty of people who are really smart but got bad grades, so they got different opportunities but turned out really successful. But if you got bad grades, you're pretty much guaranteed to not be working at Google. It's about a difference of opportunities, and how it relates to personal stories (like this candidate's), and how your opportunities / personal stories can affect your ability to lead.
- lawrenceyan 8y ago
  Okay I see your point. You believe that “good grades” people, or people that have a led a relatively linear / easy path to success due to being naturally talented at navigating the existing systems that permeate today’s society, lack the understanding for how to properly lead the people in society who don’t integrate as well into these existing systems. Is this an accurate understanding of what you’re trying to say?
  - doctorpangloss 8y ago
    > relatively linear / easy path to success due to being naturally talented I don't really believe that. > lack the understanding for how to properly lead the people in society who don’t integrate as well into these existing systems. Not really about that either. Looking at things the way you do is a very "good grades" point of view. When I was talking about "bad grades" people problems as government problems, I meant like being a beneficiary of a social assistance program like SNAP. The only person Andrew Yang regularly interacts with on SNAP is his kids' nanny. He's never lived that life, never received government assistance, practically no one in "good grades" society has during their adult life. The nanny didn't fail to integrate into "existing systems." She doesn't lack "natural talent." An idea of "good grades" society is systemizing comparisons like that, that one person is better than another at something, whereas government leadership is fundamentally about one person-one vote and preserving the commons.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
__ralston3 8y ago
Yea “good grades” people / “bad grades” (as I read it, and was intended) is clearly not meant as a play on intelligence
PakG1 8y ago
I get this. If you've ever done software consulting for horribly backwards industries or companies, I think it's clear what he means. It's easy to look from the outside and see obvious and clear solutions. Why don't they fix that problem? Why do they still do that? You gather your requirements, make your solution, and hand it over. Of course, it's never that simple. There is a ton of historical gunk in their processes that people are too busy to fix, and they're busy tearing their hair out just to keep the ship running. Not even agile can save your software solution, it was doomed from the start. Soon enough, you're making spaghetti code to adapt to the spaghetti processes. It's so horrible that it's obvious why no sane or superstar-talented person wants to work there. It's not worth the pain and effort, it makes way more sense to work for a company that has a lot of things figured out. Ah, Netflix, where they publicly brag on their website about their culture and having dream teams full of superstars. Heck, Netflix pays way better too. So the company gets the employees they deserve, not the employees they need. That isn't to say that Batman isn't worthy of respect. Batman saves the company over and over again every day. But they really needed Harvey Dent. Unfortunately, whenever a Harvey Dent goes to work for that company finally, he either dies a hero and has to leave, or he lives long enough to become the villain that just perpetuates the monstrosity and makes it worse. Hey, he's getting his paycheque, whatever, who cares anymore. The company is still alive and paying me. Before, I was so idealistic. Then I was biding my time while looking for a better opportunity at another company. Now I'm so full of apathy and cynicism that I'll just feed the machine while the machine pays me. I've got mouths to feed and my employees like how I still play the hero now and then. Heck, they even think I'm Batman, not Two Face. But every now and then, I'll backstab Batman, because look at what I am now. I'm not Harvey Dent anymore, I'm Two Face. But don't say that I'm not doing my job. Companies get the people they deserve, they rarely get the people they need. Andrew Yang is trying to be Harvey Dent.
- whytaka 8y ago
  This was a delightful read.
  - sam_lowry_ 8y ago
    I recongize so many people and situations at once in this little essay.

doctorpangloss 8y ago

No, I think my whole point is that I'm talking about people who got good grades as kids versus people who got bad grades as kids. Your grades say as much about your intelligence as you think it does. My point about video game developers is that there are plenty of people who are really smart but got bad grades, so they got different opportunities but turned out really successful. But if you got bad grades, you're pretty much guaranteed to not be working at Google. It's about a difference of opportunities, and how it relates to personal stories (like this candidate's), and how your opportunities / personal stories can affect your ability to lead.

lawrenceyan 8y ago
Okay I see your point. You believe that “good grades” people, or people that have a led a relatively linear / easy path to success due to being naturally talented at navigating the existing systems that permeate today’s society, lack the understanding for how to properly lead the people in society who don’t integrate as well into these existing systems. Is this an accurate understanding of what you’re trying to say?
- doctorpangloss 8y ago
  > relatively linear / easy path to success due to being naturally talented I don't really believe that. > lack the understanding for how to properly lead the people in society who don’t integrate as well into these existing systems. Not really about that either. Looking at things the way you do is a very "good grades" point of view. When I was talking about "bad grades" people problems as government problems, I meant like being a beneficiary of a social assistance program like SNAP. The only person Andrew Yang regularly interacts with on SNAP is his kids' nanny. He's never lived that life, never received government assistance, practically no one in "good grades" society has during their adult life. The nanny didn't fail to integrate into "existing systems." She doesn't lack "natural talent." An idea of "good grades" society is systemizing comparisons like that, that one person is better than another at something, whereas government leadership is fundamentally about one person-one vote and preserving the commons.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

__ralston3 8y ago

Yea “good grades” people / “bad grades” (as I read it, and was intended) is clearly not meant as a play on intelligence

PakG1 8y ago

I get this. If you've ever done software consulting for horribly backwards industries or companies, I think it's clear what he means. It's easy to look from the outside and see obvious and clear solutions. Why don't they fix that problem? Why do they still do that? You gather your requirements, make your solution, and hand it over. Of course, it's never that simple. There is a ton of historical gunk in their processes that people are too busy to fix, and they're busy tearing their hair out just to keep the ship running. Not even agile can save your software solution, it was doomed from the start. Soon enough, you're making spaghetti code to adapt to the spaghetti processes. It's so horrible that it's obvious why no sane or superstar-talented person wants to work there. It's not worth the pain and effort, it makes way more sense to work for a company that has a lot of things figured out. Ah, Netflix, where they publicly brag on their website about their culture and having dream teams full of superstars. Heck, Netflix pays way better too. So the company gets the employees they deserve, not the employees they need. That isn't to say that Batman isn't worthy of respect. Batman saves the company over and over again every day. But they really needed Harvey Dent. Unfortunately, whenever a Harvey Dent goes to work for that company finally, he either dies a hero and has to leave, or he lives long enough to become the villain that just perpetuates the monstrosity and makes it worse. Hey, he's getting his paycheque, whatever, who cares anymore. The company is still alive and paying me. Before, I was so idealistic. Then I was biding my time while looking for a better opportunity at another company. Now I'm so full of apathy and cynicism that I'll just feed the machine while the machine pays me. I've got mouths to feed and my employees like how I still play the hero now and then. Heck, they even think I'm Batman, not Two Face. But every now and then, I'll backstab Batman, because look at what I am now. I'm not Harvey Dent anymore, I'm Two Face. But don't say that I'm not doing my job. Companies get the people they deserve, they rarely get the people they need. Andrew Yang is trying to be Harvey Dent.

whytaka 8y ago
This was a delightful read.
- sam_lowry_ 8y ago
  I recongize so many people and situations at once in this little essay.