5 ms·

>"He didn’t understand the value of good, hard, honest work," his older brother, James, later bemoaned. "He thought those people were fools." I wouldn't call p

>"He didn’t understand the value of good, hard, honest work," his older brother, James, later bemoaned. "He thought those people were fools." I wouldn't call people like that fools, and pretty certainly the world would fall to pieces without them. That said, I don't think I can really blame anyone too much for not valuing good, hard, honest work in this world where many people are simply born rich and many others become rich by gaming the system and/or screwing people over.

smabie 7y ago
What is good, hard, honest work, exactly? I certainly work hard, but is it honest? I'm not sure. I certainly don't intentionally go around breaking all the rules I can, but I do try and use my brain to figure out every possible loophole and advantage I can. I don't think exploiting loopholes is dishonest, but I'm sure some would disagree. For example, when playing board or card games, I always try and discover some dominant, completely broken strategy that is definitely not in the "spirit" of the game. Some people have gotten very angry at me because of this, but isn't this how games are supposed to be played? The same applies to life, I think.
- yters 7y ago
  This seems pretty hard, or at least tedious. Much bigger time investment than a normal 9-5. "He began to spend every waking minute in front of a television, watching infomercials and game shows, in hopes of identifying some kind of opportunity to get rich quick."
- foobarian 7y ago
  Maybe this is a necessary evil in a day and age when a society is not all on the same page with respect to morals and values. It sure would be nice to have everyone proactively choose to act in a way that matches the "spirit" of the law or rules, and maybe this did used to happen in more homogeneous/authoritarian societies? But without that synchronization it seems to fall to the legislative bodies to codify as much as possible of the various moral behavior which is very hard in practice and easy to exploit. This is hard to discuss with precision because there is a lot of subjective judgment involved. Cutting lines is not against the law, so should you do it to avoid wasting time waiting? Occasionally a rightmost lane is in practice used mostly for right turns, but marked as both straight and turn. Majority of people seem to understand it's a jerk move to block that lane for the turning traffic, so it's usually empty, but every now and then some greedy SOB takes it to overtake the herd. Personally I find this kind of thing despicable and do what I can to prevent it. I'm sure there is some evolutionary biology connection to fairness and why we behave/feel this way.
  - dsfyu404ed 7y ago
    >It sure would be nice to have everyone proactively choose to act in a way that matches the "spirit" of the law or rules, and maybe this did used to happen in more homogeneous/authoritarian societies? Every society that I can think of that had that kind of homogeneity did it by marginalizing, often violently, the crap out of anyone who stepped out of line. No thank you.
  - greggyb 7y ago
    > It sure would be nice to have everyone proactively choose to act in a way that matches the "spirit" of the law or rules, and maybe this did used to happen in more homogeneous/authoritarian societies? But without that synchronization it seems to fall to the legislative bodies to codify as much as possible of the various moral behavior which is very hard in practice and easy to exploit. I suggest you read into the history of common law as it pertains to the history of legal practice in the UK and many of its former colonies. It is still strong today in both the US and the UK, though I am not familiar with other commonwealth nations. In a common law legal system, laws are discovered through trial rather than ordained by legislation. Precedent is built through case law. This is a system that is all about the "spirit" of the law.
  - josinalvo 7y ago
    > a way that matches the "spirit" of the law or rules, Rather, I'd say the spirit of some of the laws and rules. Most laws and rules are worthy, in that if everyone respects them, everyone is better off. They are positive sum. Those need to be followed. But arbitrary, explicitly defined games might be gamed at the same time.
- throw149102 7y ago
  >For example, when playing board or card games, I always try and discover some dominant, completely broken strategy that is definitely not in the "spirit" of the game. (...) isn't this how games are supposed to be played? IMHO, there are 2 necessary criterion on whether or not a game should be played in a certain manner: 1. Is it fun? 2. Will people continue to play with me if play this way? The first is obvious, don't do things that aren't fun. The second has to do with exhausting the people who might want to play with you - after all, if no one plays with you it's unlikely you'll be able to keep playing the game. I don't imagine these criterion are complete, however. A dog might want to "play" by chasing a cat, and the cat might continue to "play" if it fears for its life. This is not a thing I allow. There needs to be some criterion for consent, or for the game being "good" for all parties involved. In the case of card games, I've been very turned off of them before because of broken strategies. I'm not in principle against discovering new strategies that happen to be much stronger than intended ones, but if the game that comes out of that discovery is no longer fun, then I have no incentive to learn how to play the game.
  - alasdair_ 7y ago
    These two criteria are not sufficient when winning the games offer life-changing sums of money and prestige. A star NFL quarterback with a $100 million contract may well still play the game even if it's unfun and if people don't want to play with them. More generally, competitive games quite often degenerate into a "whatever is within the rules" mindset, and that's perfectly fine. Since this is top of mind right now, and since perhaps someone out there may have not read it yet, it's worth linking to David Sirlin's "Playing To Win" - http://www.sirlin.net/ptw http://www.sirlin.net/ptw - the book is about competitive fighting arcade games like Street Fighter but it covers many other games and the philosophy is enthralling.
- mikekchar 7y ago
  > I don't think exploiting loopholes is dishonest What is "dishonest"? It's a word. That's all; just a word. The meaning it has is based solely on the context in which you use it. There is not an ontological reality for the meanings of words. It means what you want it to mean. We could argue what is and what is not dishonest. We could go back to the etymology of the word. We could see how it came to be. We could see how most people have used it. We could argue what meaning would be least surprising for most people. But in the end, when you utter the word "dishonest", you have a meaning in mind and, for you, the word has that meaning. In fact, this is just the same as every other game you play. It's just a loophole. It's an advantage you can hold over others. You spoke. It is your meaning. I can misinterpret what you said, but it is forever my fault for not understanding your meaning. I can argue until the cows come home that I don't think it should mean what you want it to mean, but it's useless because the sentence you spoke is meaningless unless it has the meaning you intended it to have. Most of your post is a tautology - I do not think it is "wrong" because I do not define "wrong" as being this. Discussion is not necessary. > but I'm sure some would disagree And this is where life gets interesting. "Some would disagree". Isn't that how games are supposed to be played? With others? Isn't the goal of a game to enhance everyone's well being, not just one "winner". Aren't the rules there to coax the maximum possible extraction of fun for all involved? Wouldn't be an extreme debasement of this concept if we abused the intent of the rules simply because we could? You can do what you want, but don't be surprised if I have more fun than you even if I don't "win" ;-)
  - bryanrasmussen 7y ago
    >There is not an ontological reality for the meanings of words. It means what you want it to mean. Obviously there is a possible range of meaning for a word for a culture at any point in time, but there is in the end a limit to what the word dishonest can mean in our present context. This is why I do not expect to get served a cheddar and jalapeno omelet when I walk into a funeral home and order a dishonest.
    - mikekchar 7y ago
      What I was perhaps clumsily saying is that no matter what argument I make to say that I think exploiting loopholes is dishonest, there will be an argument based on a different definition of the word that will refute my argument. Any min-maxer worth their salt will surely use that approach and so no meaningful dialog is possible on that front.
- mkesper 7y ago
  Games should be played so everyone playing has fun. These angry people were right and you were fooling yourself. Think of it as a short-term pleasure instead of long-time winning friends.
frogpelt 7y ago
1. What do you consider "rich"? 2. Do you honestly not know of anyone who has gotten rich by good, hard, honest work? EDIT: Let me rephrase question 2: Do you honestly feel that most "rich" people got that way by being dishonest or gaming the system?
- strken 7y ago
  I don't know of anyone who got rich by good, honest, hard work without also getting insanely lucky. I know of people who got insanely lucky without being good or honest.
  - frogpelt 7y ago
    Ok, you didn't define "rich" or "insanely lucky" so there's probably no point in a discussion about it. But there are people all over the United States who have started their own businesses doing very basic things like plumbing, electrical, HVAC, or software consulting who have made enough money to retire any time they want, travel, own a house and a lake house, etc. I consider that rich and I don't consider it lucky or dishonest in most cases. If you think rich is $50 million or more then yes you start getting into some very rare air. And those people probably have benefited from several things going their way that were not entirely in their control.
    - wccrawford 7y ago
      I don't think most people consider that "rich". They consider that "upper middle class" or even possibly "upper class", depending on lifestyle. But "rich" indicates a lot more money and a lifestyle above those. My father came from a family that couldn't afford to put any of their children through college. They wore hand-me-down clothes and barely got by. Through his own hard work, he learned engineering and management and had a family with none of the problems above. That's definitely 'success' in my definition, but I wouldn't call us "rich". My wife and I are both software devs, and we make good money. But I still wouldn't call us "rich". Definitely successful, though. I guess one could argue that there was luck along the way, but not "insane luck" because I can't point it out. There were no lotteries or inheritances involved. My point is that unless those business owners managed to have multi-million-dollar bank accounts, I don't think they were rich, just successful. I think the number of people who do manage that, without being blatantly dishonest, is pretty small. Not non-existent, just pretty small.
cryptica 7y ago
True, I think the mindset that "hard, honest work is for fools" has become self-fulfilling. People have become so intensely focused on becoming rich that the mechanisms for getting money have become completely divorced from value creation behaviors which money was supposed to encourage. Detaching money from the gold standard was the straw that broke the camel's back IMO; it systemized deception. If the financial system is deceptive at its foundation, all the ventures which succeed within it are going to be of a deceptive nature as well. Value creation is on its death bed. In our complex, unfair and unequal system, most winners are tricksters, cheaters or just born into it (in which case their parents were probably cheaters/tricksters). I think it's only getting worse over time.

smabie 7y ago

What is good, hard, honest work, exactly? I certainly work hard, but is it honest? I'm not sure. I certainly don't intentionally go around breaking all the rules I can, but I do try and use my brain to figure out every possible loophole and advantage I can. I don't think exploiting loopholes is dishonest, but I'm sure some would disagree. For example, when playing board or card games, I always try and discover some dominant, completely broken strategy that is definitely not in the "spirit" of the game. Some people have gotten very angry at me because of this, but isn't this how games are supposed to be played? The same applies to life, I think.

yters 7y ago
This seems pretty hard, or at least tedious. Much bigger time investment than a normal 9-5. "He began to spend every waking minute in front of a television, watching infomercials and game shows, in hopes of identifying some kind of opportunity to get rich quick."
foobarian 7y ago
Maybe this is a necessary evil in a day and age when a society is not all on the same page with respect to morals and values. It sure would be nice to have everyone proactively choose to act in a way that matches the "spirit" of the law or rules, and maybe this did used to happen in more homogeneous/authoritarian societies? But without that synchronization it seems to fall to the legislative bodies to codify as much as possible of the various moral behavior which is very hard in practice and easy to exploit. This is hard to discuss with precision because there is a lot of subjective judgment involved. Cutting lines is not against the law, so should you do it to avoid wasting time waiting? Occasionally a rightmost lane is in practice used mostly for right turns, but marked as both straight and turn. Majority of people seem to understand it's a jerk move to block that lane for the turning traffic, so it's usually empty, but every now and then some greedy SOB takes it to overtake the herd. Personally I find this kind of thing despicable and do what I can to prevent it. I'm sure there is some evolutionary biology connection to fairness and why we behave/feel this way.
- dsfyu404ed 7y ago
  >It sure would be nice to have everyone proactively choose to act in a way that matches the "spirit" of the law or rules, and maybe this did used to happen in more homogeneous/authoritarian societies? Every society that I can think of that had that kind of homogeneity did it by marginalizing, often violently, the crap out of anyone who stepped out of line. No thank you.
- greggyb 7y ago
  > It sure would be nice to have everyone proactively choose to act in a way that matches the "spirit" of the law or rules, and maybe this did used to happen in more homogeneous/authoritarian societies? But without that synchronization it seems to fall to the legislative bodies to codify as much as possible of the various moral behavior which is very hard in practice and easy to exploit. I suggest you read into the history of common law as it pertains to the history of legal practice in the UK and many of its former colonies. It is still strong today in both the US and the UK, though I am not familiar with other commonwealth nations. In a common law legal system, laws are discovered through trial rather than ordained by legislation. Precedent is built through case law. This is a system that is all about the "spirit" of the law.
- josinalvo 7y ago
  > a way that matches the "spirit" of the law or rules, Rather, I'd say the spirit of some of the laws and rules. Most laws and rules are worthy, in that if everyone respects them, everyone is better off. They are positive sum. Those need to be followed. But arbitrary, explicitly defined games might be gamed at the same time.
throw149102 7y ago
>For example, when playing board or card games, I always try and discover some dominant, completely broken strategy that is definitely not in the "spirit" of the game. (...) isn't this how games are supposed to be played? IMHO, there are 2 necessary criterion on whether or not a game should be played in a certain manner: 1. Is it fun? 2. Will people continue to play with me if play this way? The first is obvious, don't do things that aren't fun. The second has to do with exhausting the people who might want to play with you - after all, if no one plays with you it's unlikely you'll be able to keep playing the game. I don't imagine these criterion are complete, however. A dog might want to "play" by chasing a cat, and the cat might continue to "play" if it fears for its life. This is not a thing I allow. There needs to be some criterion for consent, or for the game being "good" for all parties involved. In the case of card games, I've been very turned off of them before because of broken strategies. I'm not in principle against discovering new strategies that happen to be much stronger than intended ones, but if the game that comes out of that discovery is no longer fun, then I have no incentive to learn how to play the game.
- alasdair_ 7y ago
  These two criteria are not sufficient when winning the games offer life-changing sums of money and prestige. A star NFL quarterback with a $100 million contract may well still play the game even if it's unfun and if people don't want to play with them. More generally, competitive games quite often degenerate into a "whatever is within the rules" mindset, and that's perfectly fine. Since this is top of mind right now, and since perhaps someone out there may have not read it yet, it's worth linking to David Sirlin's "Playing To Win" - http://www.sirlin.net/ptw http://www.sirlin.net/ptw - the book is about competitive fighting arcade games like Street Fighter but it covers many other games and the philosophy is enthralling.
mikekchar 7y ago
> I don't think exploiting loopholes is dishonest What is "dishonest"? It's a word. That's all; just a word. The meaning it has is based solely on the context in which you use it. There is not an ontological reality for the meanings of words. It means what you want it to mean. We could argue what is and what is not dishonest. We could go back to the etymology of the word. We could see how it came to be. We could see how most people have used it. We could argue what meaning would be least surprising for most people. But in the end, when you utter the word "dishonest", you have a meaning in mind and, for you, the word has that meaning. In fact, this is just the same as every other game you play. It's just a loophole. It's an advantage you can hold over others. You spoke. It is your meaning. I can misinterpret what you said, but it is forever my fault for not understanding your meaning. I can argue until the cows come home that I don't think it should mean what you want it to mean, but it's useless because the sentence you spoke is meaningless unless it has the meaning you intended it to have. Most of your post is a tautology - I do not think it is "wrong" because I do not define "wrong" as being this. Discussion is not necessary. > but I'm sure some would disagree And this is where life gets interesting. "Some would disagree". Isn't that how games are supposed to be played? With others? Isn't the goal of a game to enhance everyone's well being, not just one "winner". Aren't the rules there to coax the maximum possible extraction of fun for all involved? Wouldn't be an extreme debasement of this concept if we abused the intent of the rules simply because we could? You can do what you want, but don't be surprised if I have more fun than you even if I don't "win" ;-)
- bryanrasmussen 7y ago
  >There is not an ontological reality for the meanings of words. It means what you want it to mean. Obviously there is a possible range of meaning for a word for a culture at any point in time, but there is in the end a limit to what the word dishonest can mean in our present context. This is why I do not expect to get served a cheddar and jalapeno omelet when I walk into a funeral home and order a dishonest.
  - mikekchar 7y ago
    What I was perhaps clumsily saying is that no matter what argument I make to say that I think exploiting loopholes is dishonest, there will be an argument based on a different definition of the word that will refute my argument. Any min-maxer worth their salt will surely use that approach and so no meaningful dialog is possible on that front.
mkesper 7y ago
Games should be played so everyone playing has fun. These angry people were right and you were fooling yourself. Think of it as a short-term pleasure instead of long-time winning friends.

frogpelt 7y ago

1. What do you consider "rich"? 2. Do you honestly not know of anyone who has gotten rich by good, hard, honest work? EDIT: Let me rephrase question 2: Do you honestly feel that most "rich" people got that way by being dishonest or gaming the system?

strken 7y ago
I don't know of anyone who got rich by good, honest, hard work without also getting insanely lucky. I know of people who got insanely lucky without being good or honest.
- frogpelt 7y ago
  Ok, you didn't define "rich" or "insanely lucky" so there's probably no point in a discussion about it. But there are people all over the United States who have started their own businesses doing very basic things like plumbing, electrical, HVAC, or software consulting who have made enough money to retire any time they want, travel, own a house and a lake house, etc. I consider that rich and I don't consider it lucky or dishonest in most cases. If you think rich is $50 million or more then yes you start getting into some very rare air. And those people probably have benefited from several things going their way that were not entirely in their control.
  - wccrawford 7y ago
    I don't think most people consider that "rich". They consider that "upper middle class" or even possibly "upper class", depending on lifestyle. But "rich" indicates a lot more money and a lifestyle above those. My father came from a family that couldn't afford to put any of their children through college. They wore hand-me-down clothes and barely got by. Through his own hard work, he learned engineering and management and had a family with none of the problems above. That's definitely 'success' in my definition, but I wouldn't call us "rich". My wife and I are both software devs, and we make good money. But I still wouldn't call us "rich". Definitely successful, though. I guess one could argue that there was luck along the way, but not "insane luck" because I can't point it out. There were no lotteries or inheritances involved. My point is that unless those business owners managed to have multi-million-dollar bank accounts, I don't think they were rich, just successful. I think the number of people who do manage that, without being blatantly dishonest, is pretty small. Not non-existent, just pretty small.

cryptica 7y ago

True, I think the mindset that "hard, honest work is for fools" has become self-fulfilling. People have become so intensely focused on becoming rich that the mechanisms for getting money have become completely divorced from value creation behaviors which money was supposed to encourage. Detaching money from the gold standard was the straw that broke the camel's back IMO; it systemized deception. If the financial system is deceptive at its foundation, all the ventures which succeed within it are going to be of a deceptive nature as well. Value creation is on its death bed. In our complex, unfair and unequal system, most winners are tricksters, cheaters or just born into it (in which case their parents were probably cheaters/tricksters). I think it's only getting worse over time.