14 ms·

> But the thought of "What would I do if I didn't have this job? I've got rent and food and car payments and bills, I'd be homeless and never work again!" works

by SubuSS 6y ago

> But the thought of "What would I do if I didn't have this job? I've got rent and food and car payments and bills, I'd be homeless and never work again!" works against this advice and so people compromise their principles or their morals or their willingness to do harm to others, because they are just doing what the boss told them to do and they really need this job. I will give an anecdote - take it for what you will: Once upon a time I was driving in India with my FIL. If you don't know about India, traffic is nuts. We were going down an one-way street and folks were still coming in the opposite direction :). I was raging as expected because it was so dangerous - my westernized sensibilities meant I was remarking how come these folks can't follow such simple rules! My FIL responded in a way that has stuck to me till date: You have a job in a multi-national company and have comfortably crossed the base level of Maslow's hierarchy. That guy who's coming in the wrong way, if he is late to his job, he doesn't eat today. Strong morals are sometime a privilege :)

andi999 6y ago
Do you mean Maxwell or Maslows hierachy? I dont buy the argument that poor people have to break the rules. Of course in India you have correlation a lot of poor people and a lot of people evading the rules, but does this imply causation? Probably the causation is in the other direction. I believe weak and corrupt enforcement (the latter beeing the worst) leads to this. If you know the police will fine you anyway no matter what you do, some probably stop following the rules and then it becomes a culture.
- SubuSS 6y ago
  Welp you're right: Maslow's. Re breaking rules: I think it is more of a spectrum. As you become richer, you become more able to follow the 'nicer' rules. Poor people generally don't go around murdering for example, but I did see a lot of relatively smaller rules broken. I am sure there is a very human mix of laziness, mob mentality, corruption that feed into it - but his meta point is still true: Some rules are meant for privileged people. Unless the party line is that 'you should be willing to die for your morals': There are very few who live by this and I admire them a lot. But I like a more practical approach to life - meaning the above anecdote consoles me.
  - andi999 6y ago
    Traffic rules are not for the privileged who can afford nice cars witj airbags and good medical care, the are more useful for the people who cant.
    - kops 6y ago
      Thankfully there is this virus going around and we can all see the correlation between the wealth of the people and their propensity to break rules.
      - andi999 6y ago
        What correlation do you observe? Where i am, it seems all rich and poor follow the rules (with some minor exceptions). I mean makes sense who wants to get sick?
        imheretolearn 6y ago
        > What correlation do you observe? Where i am, it seems all rich and poor follow the rules (with some minor exceptions). I mean makes sense who wants to get sick? https://twitter.com/sheela2010/status/1309053011168288769?s=20 https://twitter.com/sheela2010/status/1309053011168288769?s=... This shows how difficult it is for the common man to follow the rules. I am sure the rich people in Mumbai are following social distancing.
- analogist 6y ago
  Ah yes, enforcing the law, which, “in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.”
- MisterBastahrd 6y ago
  The rules are made by the rich for the benefit of the rich and applied in that manner. There's a reason a millionaire with a rape charge spends about a half hour at a police station and a poor person with the same charge won't see daylight until after his trial.
  - jariel 6y ago
    Traffic laws especially are absolutely made for everyone as are most laws and social rules. The parable is upside down: The man was almost assuredly 'not late for his job' (though possibly), he was probably just driving the wrong way because he could, because that's what everyone else does, and it's the 'de facto' rule. If he and everyone else actually followed traffic rules - then they would all be less likely to be late, they would all be probably somewhat wealthier, especially if they followed the other rules as well. "He took a bribe to feed his family" - maybe - but we need to stop taking bribes. I think there's a good bit in Sam's point about why PG and Jessica were able to do it, but it also has to be taken in context: they were starting from a place of exceptional place, arguably from 'privilege' (is how some people would describe it).
    - Judgmentality 6y ago
      > If he and everyone else actually followed traffic rules - then they would all be less likely to be late, they would all be probably somewhat wealthier, especially if they followed the other rules as well. How does obeying traffic laws make you wealthier? Unless you're just referring to the cost of the infraction (assuming you get cited).
      - andi999 6y ago
        By getting less involved in accidents.
      - jariel 6y ago
        If everyone obeys the traffic laws, everyone saves time, every process in the country is more efficient, everyone is wealthier and safer. There are a ton of second order effects: + Considerably fewer accidents, meaning more efficient use of medical staff. + Considerably cheaper insurance (all things being equal) And tons of 3rd order effects: + A completely chaotic transportation system means it's probably difficult to transport a lot of things efficiently - and certain industrial systems may not be possible. + If people don't generally obey traffic rules, there are probably a ton of situations wherein driving would be literally too dangerous. The example is Germany: where they are very well socialized and follow the rules (even in auto making and quality) they can drive a zillion miles an hour on the highway, still relatively safely. You can't do that unless everyone plays the game. 'Intelligent Social Organization' is literally the foundation of civilization. It's not 'natural resources' that make us rich, it's our institutions, intergenerational intelligence and 'rules' of various kinds: social, legal, cultural upon which the former two artifacts depend. The irony of the parable is that the 'traffic cheater' may be doing something he 'needs to do' but it's that very activity which is limiting he and his own community's ability to be successful.
nwienert 6y ago
Every time I read something Paul writes, or articles like this one, all I can think of is: privilege. All this stuff about “do things you love” and “work as though you’ll never die”, or how they were successful because they thought so differently... What they did differently is they had a ton of money before they started it, and they decided to make a fun club for themselves. It’s a club for smart people of a certain bent, and the number one thing that made it work was that they established that brand (as the in-nerds) and had enough money to pull it off. The brand says you have to be really smart and nerdy, and willing to sacrifice money to prove you’re worth being in. People who can sacrifice a lot of time and money? Generally well connected, well educated, well off nerds like them. Of course it’s successful. By being the first to get that brand they set up a self-selecting system that brought them those people. Simple as that. And it only works in tech because not many other industries will gravitate towards a brand of (nerdy * altruistic). Sam is the epitome of smart kids club. He hasn’t really ever done anything impressive (in public, that I’ve seen) but he certainly talks the nerd talk. In every speech, interview and article I’ve read of his I come away thinking 98% of his success is just literally that he nerd-speaks so well and always makes sure to mention mental models or reference some paradigm, and always makes sure to triple-counterfactual himself. But when I look at what he’s actually saying, it’s never interesting. Like this article. I think it’s fundamentally not getting why YC worked, but because it’s so altruistic sounding and has a few counterfactuals, he gets a pass. It’s the first mover brand, exclusivity, required sacrifice, the club-like aspect that made it filter for already-going-to-be-successful people that made it work.
- iamcurious 6y ago
  I checked out your twitter, are you RT Altman ironically?
  - nwienert 6y ago
    I did like that one, I thought, hey, gotta give it to him. I think thats my one retweet of his ever, ironic timing.. I contain multitudes!
- defen 6y ago
brd529 6y ago
Erst kommt das Fressen, dann kommt die Moral!
manquer 6y ago
If a solider can put down his life for a principle, he can go hungry and loose his job too. While it true you are not in position to make that statement to him, it is no less true. We did not get independence by doing the convenient thing. thousands of years of caste based discrimination is not going to go away without people standing up and sacrificing. To abolish slavery, Lot of people lost lives and faced real pain to stand up to injustice, It is true in every fight for racial equality or women rights or anything else in each society. Social change does not happen by doing the easy thing. It is always a sacrifice to make our community a better place.
- webmaven 6y ago
  Generally speaking, a soldier lays down their life for their buddy, not for a higher principle.
sumedh 6y ago
> Strong morals are sometime a privilege :) In your example it has nothing to do with morals but everything to do with enforcement. If there was a traffic cop standing at the start of the one way street almost no one would have entered wrong way.
- andy_ppp 6y ago
  I was going to say there’s a lack of evidence for this but then I looked at what people earn in India vs similar countries here: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GNP.PCAP.PP.CD?most_recent_value_desc=true&year_high_desc=true https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GNP.PCAP.PP.CD?most_... It’s amazingly clear that the trend is poverty === bad driving.
  - sumedh 6y ago
    > I was going to say there’s a lack of evidence Just go to India, you will notice lot of people running the light, they dont do that if there is traffic cop. Nothing to do with poverty, since poor people cannot afford cars and motorbikes.
    - andy_ppp 6y ago
      I travelled in India for about 6 months. It’s always been my favourite country. Low wages would be a better term than poverty.
    - saalweachter 6y ago
      This is kind of orthogonal to the previous claim. Morality is what you do when no one is looking. If traffic laws are being enforced, it changes the calculus from "if I drive recklessly I can eat today" to "if I get caught driving recklessly and am fined I don't eat today or tomorrow".
      - sumedh 6y ago
        Good point.

by SubuSS 6y ago

andi999 6y ago

Do you mean Maxwell or Maslows hierachy? I dont buy the argument that poor people have to break the rules. Of course in India you have correlation a lot of poor people and a lot of people evading the rules, but does this imply causation? Probably the causation is in the other direction. I believe weak and corrupt enforcement (the latter beeing the worst) leads to this. If you know the police will fine you anyway no matter what you do, some probably stop following the rules and then it becomes a culture.

SubuSS 6y ago
Welp you're right: Maslow's. Re breaking rules: I think it is more of a spectrum. As you become richer, you become more able to follow the 'nicer' rules. Poor people generally don't go around murdering for example, but I did see a lot of relatively smaller rules broken. I am sure there is a very human mix of laziness, mob mentality, corruption that feed into it - but his meta point is still true: Some rules are meant for privileged people. Unless the party line is that 'you should be willing to die for your morals': There are very few who live by this and I admire them a lot. But I like a more practical approach to life - meaning the above anecdote consoles me.
- andi999 6y ago
  Traffic rules are not for the privileged who can afford nice cars witj airbags and good medical care, the are more useful for the people who cant.
  - kops 6y ago
    Thankfully there is this virus going around and we can all see the correlation between the wealth of the people and their propensity to break rules.
    - andi999 6y ago
      What correlation do you observe? Where i am, it seems all rich and poor follow the rules (with some minor exceptions). I mean makes sense who wants to get sick?
      - imheretolearn 6y ago
        > What correlation do you observe? Where i am, it seems all rich and poor follow the rules (with some minor exceptions). I mean makes sense who wants to get sick? https://twitter.com/sheela2010/status/1309053011168288769?s=20 https://twitter.com/sheela2010/status/1309053011168288769?s=... This shows how difficult it is for the common man to follow the rules. I am sure the rich people in Mumbai are following social distancing.
analogist 6y ago
Ah yes, enforcing the law, which, “in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.”
MisterBastahrd 6y ago
The rules are made by the rich for the benefit of the rich and applied in that manner. There's a reason a millionaire with a rape charge spends about a half hour at a police station and a poor person with the same charge won't see daylight until after his trial.
- jariel 6y ago
  Traffic laws especially are absolutely made for everyone as are most laws and social rules. The parable is upside down: The man was almost assuredly 'not late for his job' (though possibly), he was probably just driving the wrong way because he could, because that's what everyone else does, and it's the 'de facto' rule. If he and everyone else actually followed traffic rules - then they would all be less likely to be late, they would all be probably somewhat wealthier, especially if they followed the other rules as well. "He took a bribe to feed his family" - maybe - but we need to stop taking bribes. I think there's a good bit in Sam's point about why PG and Jessica were able to do it, but it also has to be taken in context: they were starting from a place of exceptional place, arguably from 'privilege' (is how some people would describe it).
  - Judgmentality 6y ago
    > If he and everyone else actually followed traffic rules - then they would all be less likely to be late, they would all be probably somewhat wealthier, especially if they followed the other rules as well. How does obeying traffic laws make you wealthier? Unless you're just referring to the cost of the infraction (assuming you get cited).
    - andi999 6y ago
      By getting less involved in accidents.
    - jariel 6y ago
      If everyone obeys the traffic laws, everyone saves time, every process in the country is more efficient, everyone is wealthier and safer. There are a ton of second order effects: + Considerably fewer accidents, meaning more efficient use of medical staff. + Considerably cheaper insurance (all things being equal) And tons of 3rd order effects: + A completely chaotic transportation system means it's probably difficult to transport a lot of things efficiently - and certain industrial systems may not be possible. + If people don't generally obey traffic rules, there are probably a ton of situations wherein driving would be literally too dangerous. The example is Germany: where they are very well socialized and follow the rules (even in auto making and quality) they can drive a zillion miles an hour on the highway, still relatively safely. You can't do that unless everyone plays the game. 'Intelligent Social Organization' is literally the foundation of civilization. It's not 'natural resources' that make us rich, it's our institutions, intergenerational intelligence and 'rules' of various kinds: social, legal, cultural upon which the former two artifacts depend. The irony of the parable is that the 'traffic cheater' may be doing something he 'needs to do' but it's that very activity which is limiting he and his own community's ability to be successful.

nwienert 6y ago

Every time I read something Paul writes, or articles like this one, all I can think of is: privilege. All this stuff about “do things you love” and “work as though you’ll never die”, or how they were successful because they thought so differently... What they did differently is they had a ton of money before they started it, and they decided to make a fun club for themselves. It’s a club for smart people of a certain bent, and the number one thing that made it work was that they established that brand (as the in-nerds) and had enough money to pull it off. The brand says you have to be really smart and nerdy, and willing to sacrifice money to prove you’re worth being in. People who can sacrifice a lot of time and money? Generally well connected, well educated, well off nerds like them. Of course it’s successful. By being the first to get that brand they set up a self-selecting system that brought them those people. Simple as that. And it only works in tech because not many other industries will gravitate towards a brand of (nerdy * altruistic). Sam is the epitome of smart kids club. He hasn’t really ever done anything impressive (in public, that I’ve seen) but he certainly talks the nerd talk. In every speech, interview and article I’ve read of his I come away thinking 98% of his success is just literally that he nerd-speaks so well and always makes sure to mention mental models or reference some paradigm, and always makes sure to triple-counterfactual himself. But when I look at what he’s actually saying, it’s never interesting. Like this article. I think it’s fundamentally not getting why YC worked, but because it’s so altruistic sounding and has a few counterfactuals, he gets a pass. It’s the first mover brand, exclusivity, required sacrifice, the club-like aspect that made it filter for already-going-to-be-successful people that made it work.

iamcurious 6y ago
I checked out your twitter, are you RT Altman ironically?
- nwienert 6y ago
  I did like that one, I thought, hey, gotta give it to him. I think thats my one retweet of his ever, ironic timing.. I contain multitudes!
defen 6y ago

brd529 6y ago

Erst kommt das Fressen, dann kommt die Moral!

manquer 6y ago

If a solider can put down his life for a principle, he can go hungry and loose his job too. While it true you are not in position to make that statement to him, it is no less true. We did not get independence by doing the convenient thing. thousands of years of caste based discrimination is not going to go away without people standing up and sacrificing. To abolish slavery, Lot of people lost lives and faced real pain to stand up to injustice, It is true in every fight for racial equality or women rights or anything else in each society. Social change does not happen by doing the easy thing. It is always a sacrifice to make our community a better place.

webmaven 6y ago
Generally speaking, a soldier lays down their life for their buddy, not for a higher principle.

sumedh 6y ago

> Strong morals are sometime a privilege :) In your example it has nothing to do with morals but everything to do with enforcement. If there was a traffic cop standing at the start of the one way street almost no one would have entered wrong way.

andy_ppp 6y ago
I was going to say there’s a lack of evidence for this but then I looked at what people earn in India vs similar countries here: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GNP.PCAP.PP.CD?most_recent_value_desc=true&year_high_desc=true https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GNP.PCAP.PP.CD?most_... It’s amazingly clear that the trend is poverty === bad driving.
- sumedh 6y ago
  > I was going to say there’s a lack of evidence Just go to India, you will notice lot of people running the light, they dont do that if there is traffic cop. Nothing to do with poverty, since poor people cannot afford cars and motorbikes.
  - andy_ppp 6y ago
    I travelled in India for about 6 months. It’s always been my favourite country. Low wages would be a better term than poverty.
  - saalweachter 6y ago
    This is kind of orthogonal to the previous claim. Morality is what you do when no one is looking. If traffic laws are being enforced, it changes the calculus from "if I drive recklessly I can eat today" to "if I get caught driving recklessly and am fined I don't eat today or tomorrow".
    - sumedh 6y ago
      Good point.