3 ms·

“The best index to a person’s character is (a) how he treats people who can’t do him any good, and (b) how he treats people who can’t fight back.” — Abigail va

by jonmc12 18y ago

“The best index to a person’s character is (a) how he treats people who can’t do him any good, and (b) how he treats people who can’t fight back.” — Abigail van Buren (Pauline Esther Friedman), American newspaper advice columnist (1918-2002) One of my favorite quotes on character. Think of it this way - if you meet the typical VC and they don't think you can make them money, what will they do? Offer you intros? advice? help? feedback? no.. they will stop communicating with you as quickly as possible because they are really busy and have to look at more deals that help make them a higher return on their fund. In this example, the forces of the free market are directly in contrast to this definition of character.

newt0311 18y ago
Assuming that ignoring another is a morally bankrupt action. I would argue that that is far too extreme.
DanielBMarkham 18y ago
So if I understand you, everybody in the world should spend special time with you or they're morally bankrupt? I think you've twisted your definition of reality a bit. Obviously, even in a world full of wonderful saints everybody can't spend hours with everybody else. The math just doesn't work out. So the act of limiting one's time with someone else cannot be immoral or bad -- in fact, it would seem to be a defining good quality. The reference you quote could only be applied in those cases where you're already spending time with each other: a restaurant, a bellhop, in an elevator, etc. You took a wonderful quote and made it into something it was never meant to be.
- jonmc12 18y ago
  I don't think my point came across as intended, and was probably not the best example either. Just to be clear.. I ignore homeless people all the time and do not see it as a reflection on my character. Most people that you meet with the ability to help you with your venture will do so - they will give you feedback, make intros, etc - often without the need for anything explicit in return. Its human nature, and what I would consider a norm for moral character. I think most people would say that given the resources, they would help anyone they could - everyone has a need for basic altruism. However, when you introduce the need to capitalize on this same activity, it requires a change in behavior. My point was that, the same guy who would help you out for no reason as a norm, the minute he starts doing the same thing for money he does not have the luxury to help you in the same way any more. Now he has to make a business out of it and be efficient. That is what I was trying to illustrate. This ability to be altruistic inherently declines when you have to take on the same role to make profit. The ability to treat someone well 1) 'who can do you no good' or 2) 'who can not fight back' changes when the bottom line is profit. It does change the nature of our character, and I think that is inherent to the nature of succeeding in a free market.

by jonmc12 18y ago

newt0311 18y ago

Assuming that ignoring another is a morally bankrupt action. I would argue that that is far too extreme.

DanielBMarkham 18y ago

So if I understand you, everybody in the world should spend special time with you or they're morally bankrupt? I think you've twisted your definition of reality a bit. Obviously, even in a world full of wonderful saints everybody can't spend hours with everybody else. The math just doesn't work out. So the act of limiting one's time with someone else cannot be immoral or bad -- in fact, it would seem to be a defining good quality. The reference you quote could only be applied in those cases where you're already spending time with each other: a restaurant, a bellhop, in an elevator, etc. You took a wonderful quote and made it into something it was never meant to be.

jonmc12 18y ago
I don't think my point came across as intended, and was probably not the best example either. Just to be clear.. I ignore homeless people all the time and do not see it as a reflection on my character. Most people that you meet with the ability to help you with your venture will do so - they will give you feedback, make intros, etc - often without the need for anything explicit in return. Its human nature, and what I would consider a norm for moral character. I think most people would say that given the resources, they would help anyone they could - everyone has a need for basic altruism. However, when you introduce the need to capitalize on this same activity, it requires a change in behavior. My point was that, the same guy who would help you out for no reason as a norm, the minute he starts doing the same thing for money he does not have the luxury to help you in the same way any more. Now he has to make a business out of it and be efficient. That is what I was trying to illustrate. This ability to be altruistic inherently declines when you have to take on the same role to make profit. The ability to treat someone well 1) 'who can do you no good' or 2) 'who can not fight back' changes when the bottom line is profit. It does change the nature of our character, and I think that is inherent to the nature of succeeding in a free market.