3 ms·

In normal circumstances which applied to most public population, a 50/50 split of shares is fair. But Jeff Bezos doesn't belong to a normally distributed popul

In normal circumstances which applied to most public population, a 50/50 split of shares is fair. But Jeff Bezos doesn't belong to a normally distributed population, his is an outlier case statistically, with Amazon being an extremely important asset that not only affects their personal lives, but also has enormous impacts and responsibility to the public. Jeff Bezo's personality and leadership are crucial for the organization. You can't apply the same principles to his case vs. the majority of public. The key to being effective is the ability to recognize the differences in special circumstances, and knowing how to be flexible so you can adapt to those situations. I can tell it's not easy for most people. One of the biggest problems today is most people only perceive the world as either black or white, and there are no "in-between", or "grey-zones", or "outliers". But the real world in our lives has never worked like that. This viewpoint is producing a lot of narcissists and their "you are either with me or against me" attitude, which subsequently contributing to a lot of hatreds around us. Emotionally intelligent people are the ones who truly understand the meaning of the word "compromise", in order to produce a win-win result. That's what separates them from the rest.

dpark 8y ago
I don’t understand why you’re headed down tangents about narcissism and emotional intelligence, and I’m not going to bother engaging on all of that because it’s irrelevant and seems mostly about you asserting not-so-subtly that you’re smarter than everyone else. What I will say is that you shouldn’t speak in absolutes if that’s not a position you actually hold. You rambled about black and white while you ignored that you made a black and white statement initially, which is why I replied at all: ”I always believe in 50/50”. Replace “always” with “generally” and there wouldn’t be a conflict in what you wrote, and I wouldn’t have replied, and you likely wouldn’t have gotten downvotes (which I presume were for the inconsistency in your comment).
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- netwanderer3 8y ago
  When I mentioned of "emotional intelligence", I was referring to Mackenzie Bezos, for her willingness to compromise because she clearly understood how important Jeff's shares and voting rights were to Amazon. Not everyone could have seen or acted in such manner. This was why I said she did the right things. Your multiple attempts in replying, not only to my personal comment but also to others', indicated you were seeking a proper explanation for my "inconsistent viewpoints". That was what prompted me to address the issue of many people in today world who don't seem to possess the ability to pivot under special circumstances, only because they are just so rigid in holding to their previous beliefs, no matter it was right or wrong. The wording that I used, "always" which according to you should have been "generally", has its own purpose of further solidifying and emphasizing the importance of being able to recognize the right acts, no matter how strong our previous beliefs might have contradicted it. The downvotes on my comment are merely the perfect illustrations, and an accurate reflection of current public trend displayed by those who possess such incapability. Based on your last comment, I am not sure if you truly understood the benefits of such "inconsistent viewpoints", so I will leave you with a short link below. It also happens to be about Jeff Bezos the man himself: https://www.lifehack.org/articles/work/do-you-change-your-mind-a-lot-jeff-bezos-smart-people-always-change-their-minds.html https://www.lifehack.org/articles/work/do-you-change-your-mi...
  - dpark 8y ago
    > The wording that I used, "always" which according to you should have been "generally", has its own purpose of further solidifying and emphasizing the importance of being able to recognize the right acts, no matter how strong our previous beliefs might have contradicted it. The downvotes on my comment are merely the perfect illustrations, and an accurate reflection of current public trend displayed by those who possess such incapability. This is borderline word salad. Convoluted writing doesn’t make a weak point look strong. It does make you harder to understand, but maybe that’s your intent. You’re now trying to frame this as me holding you to some previous viewpoint that you’ve since renounced, but that’s not what happened. You expressed two contradictory viewpoints in a single sentence. At this point I’m assuming you just misspoke and are unwilling to admit even that small error, because the alternatives are that you literally don’t understand what “always” means or that you are unable to see the logical inconsistency between “always X” and “this time Not-X”. I think you should take another look at your own replies here, because while you talk about narcissism in others, you’re the one exhibiting an inability to acknowledge your own errors and a need to accuse those who point out your errors of lacking basic reasoning abilities.

dpark 8y ago

I don’t understand why you’re headed down tangents about narcissism and emotional intelligence, and I’m not going to bother engaging on all of that because it’s irrelevant and seems mostly about you asserting not-so-subtly that you’re smarter than everyone else. What I will say is that you shouldn’t speak in absolutes if that’s not a position you actually hold. You rambled about black and white while you ignored that you made a black and white statement initially, which is why I replied at all: ”I always believe in 50/50”. Replace “always” with “generally” and there wouldn’t be a conflict in what you wrote, and I wouldn’t have replied, and you likely wouldn’t have gotten downvotes (which I presume were for the inconsistency in your comment).

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
netwanderer3 8y ago
When I mentioned of "emotional intelligence", I was referring to Mackenzie Bezos, for her willingness to compromise because she clearly understood how important Jeff's shares and voting rights were to Amazon. Not everyone could have seen or acted in such manner. This was why I said she did the right things. Your multiple attempts in replying, not only to my personal comment but also to others', indicated you were seeking a proper explanation for my "inconsistent viewpoints". That was what prompted me to address the issue of many people in today world who don't seem to possess the ability to pivot under special circumstances, only because they are just so rigid in holding to their previous beliefs, no matter it was right or wrong. The wording that I used, "always" which according to you should have been "generally", has its own purpose of further solidifying and emphasizing the importance of being able to recognize the right acts, no matter how strong our previous beliefs might have contradicted it. The downvotes on my comment are merely the perfect illustrations, and an accurate reflection of current public trend displayed by those who possess such incapability. Based on your last comment, I am not sure if you truly understood the benefits of such "inconsistent viewpoints", so I will leave you with a short link below. It also happens to be about Jeff Bezos the man himself: https://www.lifehack.org/articles/work/do-you-change-your-mind-a-lot-jeff-bezos-smart-people-always-change-their-minds.html https://www.lifehack.org/articles/work/do-you-change-your-mi...
- dpark 8y ago
  > The wording that I used, "always" which according to you should have been "generally", has its own purpose of further solidifying and emphasizing the importance of being able to recognize the right acts, no matter how strong our previous beliefs might have contradicted it. The downvotes on my comment are merely the perfect illustrations, and an accurate reflection of current public trend displayed by those who possess such incapability. This is borderline word salad. Convoluted writing doesn’t make a weak point look strong. It does make you harder to understand, but maybe that’s your intent. You’re now trying to frame this as me holding you to some previous viewpoint that you’ve since renounced, but that’s not what happened. You expressed two contradictory viewpoints in a single sentence. At this point I’m assuming you just misspoke and are unwilling to admit even that small error, because the alternatives are that you literally don’t understand what “always” means or that you are unable to see the logical inconsistency between “always X” and “this time Not-X”. I think you should take another look at your own replies here, because while you talk about narcissism in others, you’re the one exhibiting an inability to acknowledge your own errors and a need to accuse those who point out your errors of lacking basic reasoning abilities.