3 ms·

> the idea that an entire industry full of people are immune to incentives is an especially pants-on-head stupid model of the world This is true of nearly ever

> the idea that an entire industry full of people are immune to incentives is an especially pants-on-head stupid model of the world This is true of nearly every industry, though. Our real estate agent (who was otherwise pretty good) insisted that he was a fiduciary to us and would seek the best financial deal for us, but his advice on our bid was "I don't think that'll be enough to get the job done", and then we were the high bid. I'm a Google engineer, and from my perception, my job is to give people free services that they want, despite HN's perception of my employer. Investors will say that they "get paid for allocating capital and making the economy more efficient", lawyers are here to "help people enforce the rights granted to them by law", salesmen "make people aware of products that they really want to buy anyway", etc. Of possible interest: https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/10/02/different-worlds/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/10/02/different-worlds/ People's perceptions really do differ, and people see through their values and emotions. When people hold a self-perception of what they do that is wildly at odds with what you think they do, it's often because folks who actively believe they are doing bad for the world are often so bitter that nobody wants to be around them.

wutbrodo 6y ago
> This is true of nearly every industry, though. Yes, I think this is implied by the portion of my comment that you quoted. The claim that _any_ industry is immune to incentives is what I describe as "pants-on-head stupid". I've also read every Scott post shortly after its posting for probably the past 8 years, but I appreciate the share!
wutbrodo 6y ago
Sorry for the double-reply, but I realize I didn't address the meat of your comment. > When people hold a self-perception of what they do that is wildly at odds with what you think they do, it's often because folks who actively believe they are doing bad for the world are often so bitter that nobody wants to be around them. I don't agree with this, at least as applied to my comment. There's a wide, wide gulf of reasonableness between "what I do is unhelpfuly and unworthy" and "everyone in my industry is an omnibenevolent, maximally-selfless angel". I'm quite proud of the work I do without thinking this, and as I mentioned in my previous comment, if my sister had a possibly-irrational but not totally-unreasonable greater pride in her work, I wouldn't blame her at all. But doctors who consider themselves a separate moral species from human beings aren't just egomaniacs, they're _dangerous_ (as I said, my sister luckily grew out of this a little bit).
- nostrademons 6y ago
  I think that people vary greatly in terms of their "set point" for how much they believe people in general are benevolent. HN is filled with skeptics and critics; our set point is pretty low. Most of the rest of the world considers that to be an unreasonable downer: if you go into a typical party saying "The AMA is a tax-exempt hedge fund and licensing corporation", best case you'll get smiles and nods and worst case you won't be invited back. I don't know your sister, and you can judge a lot better than I whether her beliefs in the benevolence of her profession are "reasonable". I'm saying that it's pretty common for people to hold a positive emotional view of their work in particular and the world in general, because, well, positive emotions feel more positive.

wutbrodo 6y ago

> This is true of nearly every industry, though. Yes, I think this is implied by the portion of my comment that you quoted. The claim that _any_ industry is immune to incentives is what I describe as "pants-on-head stupid". I've also read every Scott post shortly after its posting for probably the past 8 years, but I appreciate the share!

wutbrodo 6y ago

Sorry for the double-reply, but I realize I didn't address the meat of your comment. > When people hold a self-perception of what they do that is wildly at odds with what you think they do, it's often because folks who actively believe they are doing bad for the world are often so bitter that nobody wants to be around them. I don't agree with this, at least as applied to my comment. There's a wide, wide gulf of reasonableness between "what I do is unhelpfuly and unworthy" and "everyone in my industry is an omnibenevolent, maximally-selfless angel". I'm quite proud of the work I do without thinking this, and as I mentioned in my previous comment, if my sister had a possibly-irrational but not totally-unreasonable greater pride in her work, I wouldn't blame her at all. But doctors who consider themselves a separate moral species from human beings aren't just egomaniacs, they're _dangerous_ (as I said, my sister luckily grew out of this a little bit).

nostrademons 6y ago
I think that people vary greatly in terms of their "set point" for how much they believe people in general are benevolent. HN is filled with skeptics and critics; our set point is pretty low. Most of the rest of the world considers that to be an unreasonable downer: if you go into a typical party saying "The AMA is a tax-exempt hedge fund and licensing corporation", best case you'll get smiles and nods and worst case you won't be invited back. I don't know your sister, and you can judge a lot better than I whether her beliefs in the benevolence of her profession are "reasonable". I'm saying that it's pretty common for people to hold a positive emotional view of their work in particular and the world in general, because, well, positive emotions feel more positive.