4 ms·

It seems to me that the passage you quote could as well have been offered to support my point as to contradict it. Though as long as we have it here, it's pret

by pg 15y ago

It seems to me that the passage you quote could as well have been offered to support my point as to contradict it. Though as long as we have it here, it's pretty self-refuting that she treats all "cloud based enterprise solutions" as being effectively identical. That would be like someone writing an article a few decades ago and treating all startups making silicon chips as effectively identical.

arctangent 15y ago
I think you're right. I've never worked in a startup but my understanding is that their purpose is to discover profitable business models, not to put the world to rights. If your tofu-cupcake-locations-sharing app takes off and lots of people use it then you've found a way to add value to people's lives and make yourself some dollars. That's what capitalism is all about, right? I'm fortunate enough to have graduated from a very good university and I can tell you that the majority of people I knew there didn't leave and dedicate their lives to an altruistic quest to improve the world. Lots of them left to be bankers and consultants, whereas only a few went into academia. There's always a tradeoff between how selfless you're prepared to be and how much money you need to take home to cover your own needs. There's nothing wrong with making money so long as you're not stealing it. And let's not forget that the more money you have the more money you're able to give away to good causes.
- rockarage 15y ago
  I agree with most of what you said, but I think you are trying to assert that academia is altruistic ? Academia is not altruistic. The Universities are in the billion dollar education business. They are just labeled non-profit yet they make hundred of millions collectively in TV contracts but none of that is used to help the poor communities and families many of their athletes come from. They are no better than bankers and consultants, or entrepreneurs trying to make a buck.
  - arctangent 15y ago
    I was suggesting that individuals who choose an academic life over a more profit-seeking life are making a more altruistic decision. I agree with you that collections of academics (i.e. universities) often act in predatory ways - this is true of any sufficiently large group of people with a common interest: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crowd_psychology http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crowd_psychology
    - anamax 15y ago
      > I was suggesting that individuals who choose an academic life over a more profit-seeking life are making a more altruistic decision. "Altruism is the renunciation of the self, and an exclusive concern for the welfare of others." (Wikipedia.) Not so fast. Never confuse non-monetary rewards for no rewards.
      - thaumaturgy 15y ago
        Altruists International offers a slightly more nuanced definition than that single line from Wikipedia. I don't think pedantry here will fundamentally change his argument.
        anamax 15y ago
        > I don't think pedantry here will fundamentally change his argument. I'm not trying to change his argument - I'm pointing out that he's wrong. Academics make less money but that doesn't imply that they're not working for things that they value. The fact that someone makes a potentially less lucrative choice does not make them altruistic. It usually just means that they're trading money for something else that they want. You wouldn't assume that buying a car is altruistic, so why would you assume that making an employment choice that gets me something I want in return for less money is altruistic? (Yes, buying a car can be altruistic.)
        thaumaturgy 15y ago
        I think you misunderstand altruism. And no, he's not wrong. Since altruism is itself a value, it's erroneous to say that altruism requires a person to not work for things they value. So, whether or not academics are working for things they value has nothing to do with altruism. Altruism is primarily about whether your motivations are driven by the welfare of others, or by the welfare of yourself. If you are motivated by the welfare of others -- if, as Bertrand Russell once said, once you find yourself thinking about human suffering, you find it difficult to think about anything else, and if you then decide to work on alleviating the suffering of others -- then you are acting altruistically. Someone who makes the conscious decision between a lucrative career and a career in academia, and chooses academia in order to advance the field of their choice, even though they expect to make less money for themselves, is making an altruistic decision. Your original reply said, "Never confuse non-monetary rewards for no rewards." That has nothing to do with altruism. It doesn't matter if a person is receiving a "non-monetary reward", in the form of a sense of fulfillment, or in satisfaction. If a person chooses to do something which will benefit others, and not themselves, they are acting altruistically. Now, I happen to think that a person can be selfish and still be altruistic, because of the non-monetary rewards you're alluding to. I am self-interested in improving the lives of the people around me, so, although my actions are altruistic, it still benefits me in a sense. But, that's not a very popular way of looking at it; by definition, when people talk about "benefits" and "costs" associated with altruism, they're talking about things like money or physical health. So, again: if your actions cost you money and benefit others, then you are acting altruistically. I would say that choosing a life of academia fits that rather nicely. By the way, you and I have gone 'round about this subject not all that long ago (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2695906 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2695906). Your "envy driven versus greed driven" argument is still one of the most peculiar things I've ever heard in this subject, so I don't expect you to agree with what I'm saying.
jobu 15y ago
She seems to have combined a few separate gripes into one large rant. The main issue (as I read it) was that the "YC system" has attracted people that are only there for a quick exit and a pile of cash. She wants more of those brilliant graduates of Stanford, Harvard and Yale to make the world a better place instead of cloning Groupon for a fast buck. It would be nice, but it's probably a bit too idealistic for the real world.
- robryan 15y ago
  Actually a lot of these people making a fast buck are moving on to the big companies with a stack of experience behind them where they are doing things that effect a lot of people.
- gammarator 15y ago
  Looking at the choices my peers made, a substantial proportion of Harvard/Stanford/Yale grads will opt for the most foolproof, lucrative career available. It used to be investment banking, consulting, or law school, but with those industries under pressure their seems to be a turn towards rolling the die in an entrepreneurial setting. I certainly don't think most students these days consider an elite education carries an obligation to make the world a better place.
jdp23 15y ago
I guess I don't understand your meaning that "she's not clear in her own mind." I took it as you saying that she doesn't really know what she thinks. Did you mean that you thought her argument was intellectually inconsistent ... or something else?

by pg 15y ago

arctangent 15y ago

I think you're right. I've never worked in a startup but my understanding is that their purpose is to discover profitable business models, not to put the world to rights. If your tofu-cupcake-locations-sharing app takes off and lots of people use it then you've found a way to add value to people's lives and make yourself some dollars. That's what capitalism is all about, right? I'm fortunate enough to have graduated from a very good university and I can tell you that the majority of people I knew there didn't leave and dedicate their lives to an altruistic quest to improve the world. Lots of them left to be bankers and consultants, whereas only a few went into academia. There's always a tradeoff between how selfless you're prepared to be and how much money you need to take home to cover your own needs. There's nothing wrong with making money so long as you're not stealing it. And let's not forget that the more money you have the more money you're able to give away to good causes.

rockarage 15y ago
I agree with most of what you said, but I think you are trying to assert that academia is altruistic ? Academia is not altruistic. The Universities are in the billion dollar education business. They are just labeled non-profit yet they make hundred of millions collectively in TV contracts but none of that is used to help the poor communities and families many of their athletes come from. They are no better than bankers and consultants, or entrepreneurs trying to make a buck.
- arctangent 15y ago
  I was suggesting that individuals who choose an academic life over a more profit-seeking life are making a more altruistic decision. I agree with you that collections of academics (i.e. universities) often act in predatory ways - this is true of any sufficiently large group of people with a common interest: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crowd_psychology http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crowd_psychology
  - anamax 15y ago
    > I was suggesting that individuals who choose an academic life over a more profit-seeking life are making a more altruistic decision. "Altruism is the renunciation of the self, and an exclusive concern for the welfare of others." (Wikipedia.) Not so fast. Never confuse non-monetary rewards for no rewards.
    - thaumaturgy 15y ago
      Altruists International offers a slightly more nuanced definition than that single line from Wikipedia. I don't think pedantry here will fundamentally change his argument.
      - anamax 15y ago
        > I don't think pedantry here will fundamentally change his argument. I'm not trying to change his argument - I'm pointing out that he's wrong. Academics make less money but that doesn't imply that they're not working for things that they value. The fact that someone makes a potentially less lucrative choice does not make them altruistic. It usually just means that they're trading money for something else that they want. You wouldn't assume that buying a car is altruistic, so why would you assume that making an employment choice that gets me something I want in return for less money is altruistic? (Yes, buying a car can be altruistic.)
        thaumaturgy 15y ago
        I think you misunderstand altruism. And no, he's not wrong. Since altruism is itself a value, it's erroneous to say that altruism requires a person to not work for things they value. So, whether or not academics are working for things they value has nothing to do with altruism. Altruism is primarily about whether your motivations are driven by the welfare of others, or by the welfare of yourself. If you are motivated by the welfare of others -- if, as Bertrand Russell once said, once you find yourself thinking about human suffering, you find it difficult to think about anything else, and if you then decide to work on alleviating the suffering of others -- then you are acting altruistically. Someone who makes the conscious decision between a lucrative career and a career in academia, and chooses academia in order to advance the field of their choice, even though they expect to make less money for themselves, is making an altruistic decision. Your original reply said, "Never confuse non-monetary rewards for no rewards." That has nothing to do with altruism. It doesn't matter if a person is receiving a "non-monetary reward", in the form of a sense of fulfillment, or in satisfaction. If a person chooses to do something which will benefit others, and not themselves, they are acting altruistically. Now, I happen to think that a person can be selfish and still be altruistic, because of the non-monetary rewards you're alluding to. I am self-interested in improving the lives of the people around me, so, although my actions are altruistic, it still benefits me in a sense. But, that's not a very popular way of looking at it; by definition, when people talk about "benefits" and "costs" associated with altruism, they're talking about things like money or physical health. So, again: if your actions cost you money and benefit others, then you are acting altruistically. I would say that choosing a life of academia fits that rather nicely. By the way, you and I have gone 'round about this subject not all that long ago (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2695906 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2695906). Your "envy driven versus greed driven" argument is still one of the most peculiar things I've ever heard in this subject, so I don't expect you to agree with what I'm saying.

jobu 15y ago

She seems to have combined a few separate gripes into one large rant. The main issue (as I read it) was that the "YC system" has attracted people that are only there for a quick exit and a pile of cash. She wants more of those brilliant graduates of Stanford, Harvard and Yale to make the world a better place instead of cloning Groupon for a fast buck. It would be nice, but it's probably a bit too idealistic for the real world.

robryan 15y ago
Actually a lot of these people making a fast buck are moving on to the big companies with a stack of experience behind them where they are doing things that effect a lot of people.
gammarator 15y ago
Looking at the choices my peers made, a substantial proportion of Harvard/Stanford/Yale grads will opt for the most foolproof, lucrative career available. It used to be investment banking, consulting, or law school, but with those industries under pressure their seems to be a turn towards rolling the die in an entrepreneurial setting. I certainly don't think most students these days consider an elite education carries an obligation to make the world a better place.

jdp23 15y ago

I guess I don't understand your meaning that "she's not clear in her own mind." I took it as you saying that she doesn't really know what she thinks. Did you mean that you thought her argument was intellectually inconsistent ... or something else?