6 ms·

Compromise Creates Values

43 points by bkitano19 3y ago

magic_hamster 3y ago
There is something to be said about being obliviously spoiled, privileged or entitled, and also trying not being this way when you come into money. When I joined my second job in tech, it was a massive bump in almost every way, and immediately I noticed the people around me were drastically different than the colleagues I had in the previous place, a frivolous tiny start up. The new people had almost no appreciation for money; they moved about like nothing could really go wrong; and while they weren't mean, they were somewhat spoiled and detached from reality. I remember thinking to myself that no matter how much I make, I don't want to be like them in terms of character. I know people who were born into wealthy families and hearing their silly complaints about how some miniature detail is not 100% in their otherwise perfect and seemingly challenge-free lives was almost physically painful. However, it made me realize something too. Being happy and having substance does not directly correlate to how much money you have. Evidently, a lot of very rich people aren't particularly happy, and in this article, the author also found no meaning anywhere until they lost their job. It's the ability to appreciate whatever you have, your assets, your health, and strive to be a better person, have some goals to aspire to. When I catch myself getting upset about something completely meaningless, I try to remember this.
- darkerside 3y ago
  > some miniature detail is not 100% in their otherwise perfect and seemingly challenge-free lives You could look at this as spoiled, or you could see it as someone who has an eye for detail. I don't know the tone they used, but I can imagine this was more like a Seinfeldesque observation of life thana legitimate gripe. People with money can definitely live fulfilling and challenging lives. Arnold Schwarzenegger famously said that he works out in part because a tremendous physique cannot be bought, you must work for it every day, so it's a sign of character. You could say the same about musical or sports skill, handcrafted items, or the love of your friends and family.
  - TeMPOraL 3y ago
    > You could look at this as spoiled, or you could see it as someone who has an eye for detail. I don't know the tone they used, but I can imagine this was more like a Seinfeldesque observation of life thana legitimate gripe. I tend to look at it like this: humans have a certain base capacity for worrying - for noticing and suffering problems - that's independent of their situations and the nature of problems themselves. Solving problems and improving our lives doesn't reduce worrying, as much as changes the nature of it. The poor person sees the rich person complaining, and thinks to themselves those are all "first world problems", really nothing to be worked up about. But should said poor person work their way up and become wealthy, they may discover they're suddenly preoccupied by those same problems they used to dismiss as irrelevant. There's also something to be said for being in vs. out of a certain situations. As a young adult, there ware many weird things I saw older adults worry about - or perhaps make choices based on (what I thought were) weird ethical priorities. Couple years later, with a spouse and two small kids, I find myself worrying about those same weird things, and making similar ethical choices, which suddenly feel entirely justified once you're responsible for and worrying about the physical and mental well-being of a small human under your care. But yes, on top of that, there's also "having an eye for detail", varying degree of tolerance for minor annoyances, etc. - whole range, up to and including OCD.
    - JohnFen 3y ago
      > I tend to look at it like this: humans have a certain base capacity for worrying I heard someone say it this way once: everyone has a problem bucket. With some people, it holds a pint. With others, it holds a gallon. But whatever its size, it's always full.
      - TeMPOraL 3y ago
        Nice one, I'm saving it, thank you!
  - paulryanrogers 3y ago
    Humans may have some minimum preoccupation with things that could be better. What makes it harder for those at the bottom is they have so few options or ways to resolve those things, and the challenges they face of often objectively much more serious. So a rich person can consider poorer perspectives and be thankful or even motivated to help others. A poor person looking up often cannot help even if they could sympathize.
- JohnFen 3y ago
  > Being happy and having substance does not directly correlate to how much money you have. There is a correlation. There's an ideal income level that correlates with increased overall happiness. Less than that, or more than that, and people will be less happy. But I agree with your larger point. I've lived destitute, among others who were in grinding poverty, and I've lived privileged, among others with plenty of available money. I've never noticed that one group is really any happier than the other. Some of the happiest people I've met lived lives that most would think would be miserable, and some of the most miserable people I've met lived lives that most would consider golden. Happiness is about what's going on inside your mind, not so much about what's going on outside of it.
- snapplebobapple 3y ago
  I am not able to read the article (blocked for newly registered domain at work) but I think you took an incomplete understanding of humanity from your story. It's not that the rich guys had silly things they were unhappy about, it's that the nature of human unhappiness is fractal across many domains, including wealth. You think the things they were unhappy about were silly because they solved all the problems you ascribe value to (because you experience(d) them directly at your wealth level), probably by throwing money at it and they have found new things at their higher wealth level to repeat the pattern of human unhappiness. I do agree that your last paragraph is the antidote to this fractal pattern of unhappiness though.
smallerfish 3y ago
I have 6 dogs and also have to leave the country every 3 months to keep my tourist visa current. Having a really good (and, fortunately, affordable) dog boarder is the answer to this. Not sure that really changes his point; only that sometimes there is a C when you are looking at choices A & B.
StopTheWorld 3y ago
Congratulations, another member of the professional-managerial class has rediscovered existentialism.
- scotty79 3y ago
  It sounds nothing like existentialism.
  - StopTheWorld 3y ago
    I'll ask ChatGPT 4 Q: 'Does the idea that "given that all decisions are a form of action, and that votes, when made conscientiously, represent our values, then every choice is a reaffirmation of our values" sound nothing like existentialism?' A: 'The idea that you proposed does indeed align with some aspects of existentialist philosophy, which emphasizes the individual, the subjective, and the importance of personal freedom and choice. Existentialism posits that life has no inherent meaning, and it's up to each individual to create their own purpose or essence. This philosophy emphasizes the act of decision-making and the consequences that come with it. In this light, your statement that "all decisions are a form of action" and that these choices reflect our values is consistent with the existentialist view that we create meaning through our actions and choices. Moreover, the existentialist emphasis on authenticity—living in accordance with one's true self and values—also resonates with the idea that conscientious voting is a reaffirmation of our values.'
    - scotty79 3y ago
      In philosophy everything can be anything else if you muddy the waters enough. Concept of choices as actions reaffirming values doesn't sound like existentialism, if only because it's simple and clearly stated while existentialism has things like that to say about choices: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/existentialism/#AnxiChoi https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/existentialism/#AnxiChoi
aiunboxed 3y ago
I guess what you mentioned is the story of most of the people who have tech money :)
mindvirus 3y ago
I don't think compromise itself is a reaffirmation of our values. Compromise often erodes values. Disagreement prioritizes values. I think generally we have the same values. Honesty, transparency, integrity, expediency, travel, etc. However what we don't share is priority of them. To the author's point, do you value having pets more than you value freedom to travel? Reasonable people could disagree. And there is compromise to be had, but if you're not careful you can get the worst of both worlds by trying to split the difference.
- kardianos 3y ago
  I think the author's point is that reality has limits. Sometimes you can have your cake and eat it too, but often, a person must choose only one of many things they value. I believe the author's point is that the necessity of choice demonstrates what they really value. Utopia is no place. Reality is limited. Choose wisely.
  - mindvirus 3y ago
    Totally, but the bad compromise that I think many people find themselves in is regretting having pets because they can't travel, and regretting not traveling because they have pets. Whereas good compromise could be deciding not to have pets but volunteering at the local animal shelter (for example).
- gspencley 3y ago
  There are different meanings of the word "compromise." Integrity can be "compromised", be it physical integrity (the structural support of the building was compromised and so it collapsed) or moral integrity (their values were compromised and they did a bad thing). But compromise can also be a concession in pursuit of a value. My wife and I want to go see a movie. I want to see a horror and she wants to see a romcom. So we compromise and see something that was not a first choice for either of us but that we're both happy with since the superior value being sought was spending time together. The specific movie was a secondary value. In this second context case I disagree that compromise CREATES value, but after I read the blog I realized that the author didn't even mean what the title literally says. The author is saying that it is difficult for someone to have NO values (in a literal sense this would have to be a very depressed individual who is contemplating suicide since they do not even value their own life). But that some people move through life mindlessly and aimlessly, oblivious to what they value. So much so that they do not consciously value anything. And so once such an individual is "forced" to make compromises then the recognition of values is then forced. I suppose the author's thesis is that forcing a recognition of values could lead to the adoption of values previously unconsidered.
svilen_dobrev 3y ago
software is made of decisions. or... scratch that. software is just reflection of life... Life is made of decisions. Anything else is not life, but mere existing.
apienx 3y ago
I think most normative ethicists would take issue with this proposition. Our values dictate our choices. Compromises (and limited-choice situations) test our values. From a deontological perspective, compromise destroys values. From a consequentialist perspective, compromise doesn't have any effect on the values as the consequence is the higher value. From a virtue ethics' perspective, values are character traits virtually decoupled from habits and other choices.
- scotty79 3y ago
  > Compromises (and limited-choice situations) test our values. Testing values strengthens them. People dig into their positions when they are challenged. That's why it's so hard to convince anybody to anything. When values are not challenged they fade.
NKosmatos 3y ago
Is is customary to comment on a submission without upvoting it? That's how I feel about this one... No disrespect and no offence meant, but I'll never understand all these privileged people who have a lot of money, and subsequently free time, and still feel this way about their lives. How come it's always poor, lower/mid class people who don't have enough money that always complain about not being able to do things (hobbies, interests, desires...) and always the rich, upper class people who complain that they don't have an interest in anything since they can have everything :-/
- golemotron 3y ago
  If it happens to you, you'll know what it's like. That is what is like with all life situations. They are mystery until they happen to you. You don't know what cancer is like or the death of a loved one is like until those things happen to you, and you don't know what the boredom of abundance is like until you have it either. On the latter, the important thing to get is that much more of what motivates us survival driven than most people realize. When survival is sort of guaranteed, a lot of motivation can dry up along with a lot of the juice of life.
  - NKosmatos 3y ago
    That's very well put and I fully agree with what you describe on the majority of the situations (i.e birth of a child, loss of a pet, other important thing in life...), but I'm a bit confused on how this nicely written "boredom of abundance" can create problems on people. Oh well, that's probably because I don't have enough money (and time) to do all the things I want to do :-)
    - golemotron 3y ago
      I'd wish that for you but it might not make you happy. That's the paradox.
  - onos 3y ago
    A silly example: when I was young I loved the game civ. In some games I would occasionally actually succeed at defeating all competition. But the game wouldn’t end cause you could try to go to another solar system or something still. But it was much less fun once the competition was over.
carapace 3y ago
There's a simple algorithm, based on this idea, for eliciting your hierarchy of values. IIRC it goes something like this: - - - - Imagine a mundane task of medium importance, e.g. brushing your teeth or doing the dishes. Now imagine something comes up that interrupts that task, and it's important enough to make you stop doing the previous task and attend to the new thing. Repeat previous step. - - - - I'm skipping over all the details, of course, but the point is that if you do it right you wind up with a ranked or graded list of values, motives for action.
- nathan_compton 3y ago
  Nothing short of a threat to my life, the life of my kid, or my partner (or another person) would make me stop brushing my teeth. Maybe someone offering me a million dollars to stop right there and then. Certainly no mundane event. Brushing teeth is important. [EDIT]: Ok, the exercise is working now. I take it back.
scotty79 3y ago
It's funny how much weight people put on money. And how they think abundance of money means solving all of their problems and removes all challenge from life. You are decaying organic matter soon to be corpse trying to interact with similar doomed entities who constantly mess up their lives just like you do yours. And you think money solves anything but the most rudimentary crap? Your parents are still gonna die, somebody will still get cancer. Even if you have all the money you wish you still have the same crap jelly in the box on top of your neck that will make you suffer and same ugly mug in front of it that will make people run away. You barely solved anything. Not to mention you might want at some point to co-live with some other unfortunate soul and finding a lasting match is a challenge that rarely ever anyone succeeds at and money there can be as much of an obstacle as it is an asset.
debacle 3y ago
Most people, even smart people, live a life devoid of self reflection. You don't have values if you don't live intentionally, and the majority of people make decisions on a very short timescale, and without truly considering opportunity costs. Even among those that live within an adopted moral framwork (e.g. religion, stoicism, etc), I haven't found people to be particularly well thought out.
tikkun 3y ago
Related: Company/personal values that don't involve a trade-off are not values Strategies that don't involve a trade-off are not strategies A good test is to ask yourself - if this statement was inverted, would it still be plausible? For example, "hire the best" doesn't make much sense as a value, because it doesn't describe a trade off and the opposite doesn't make sense as a value. Move fast and break things is a reasonable value. Just as move slow and aim for perfection is a reasonable value. And "build great products by spending more time on R&D than everyone else" is closer to a reasonable strategy, because it can be semi-inverted ("build great products by spending minimal time on R&D but launching as many as possible to see what works") and because it involves a trade-off.
- frogulis 3y ago
  I'm sure I've heard this idea labelled as "anti-values" before but I can't find the post now. At any rate, I strongly agree with the idea. Values and strategies that don't have a trade-off are not really picking a side and therefore can't help us in times of indecision.

43 points by bkitano19 3y ago

There is something to be said about being obliviously spoiled, privileged or entitled, and also trying not being this way when you come into money. When I joined my second job in tech, it was a massive bump in almost every way, and immediately I noticed the people around me were drastically different than the colleagues I had in the previous place, a frivolous tiny start up. The new people had almost no appreciation for money; they moved about like nothing could really go wrong; and while they weren't mean, they were somewhat spoiled and detached from reality. I remember thinking to myself that no matter how much I make, I don't want to be like them in terms of character. I know people who were born into wealthy families and hearing their silly complaints about how some miniature detail is not 100% in their otherwise perfect and seemingly challenge-free lives was almost physically painful. However, it made me realize something too. Being happy and having substance does not directly correlate to how much money you have. Evidently, a lot of very rich people aren't particularly happy, and in this article, the author also found no meaning anywhere until they lost their job. It's the ability to appreciate whatever you have, your assets, your health, and strive to be a better person, have some goals to aspire to. When I catch myself getting upset about something completely meaningless, I try to remember this.

darkerside 3y ago
> some miniature detail is not 100% in their otherwise perfect and seemingly challenge-free lives You could look at this as spoiled, or you could see it as someone who has an eye for detail. I don't know the tone they used, but I can imagine this was more like a Seinfeldesque observation of life thana legitimate gripe. People with money can definitely live fulfilling and challenging lives. Arnold Schwarzenegger famously said that he works out in part because a tremendous physique cannot be bought, you must work for it every day, so it's a sign of character. You could say the same about musical or sports skill, handcrafted items, or the love of your friends and family.
- TeMPOraL 3y ago
  > You could look at this as spoiled, or you could see it as someone who has an eye for detail. I don't know the tone they used, but I can imagine this was more like a Seinfeldesque observation of life thana legitimate gripe. I tend to look at it like this: humans have a certain base capacity for worrying - for noticing and suffering problems - that's independent of their situations and the nature of problems themselves. Solving problems and improving our lives doesn't reduce worrying, as much as changes the nature of it. The poor person sees the rich person complaining, and thinks to themselves those are all "first world problems", really nothing to be worked up about. But should said poor person work their way up and become wealthy, they may discover they're suddenly preoccupied by those same problems they used to dismiss as irrelevant. There's also something to be said for being in vs. out of a certain situations. As a young adult, there ware many weird things I saw older adults worry about - or perhaps make choices based on (what I thought were) weird ethical priorities. Couple years later, with a spouse and two small kids, I find myself worrying about those same weird things, and making similar ethical choices, which suddenly feel entirely justified once you're responsible for and worrying about the physical and mental well-being of a small human under your care. But yes, on top of that, there's also "having an eye for detail", varying degree of tolerance for minor annoyances, etc. - whole range, up to and including OCD.
  - JohnFen 3y ago
    > I tend to look at it like this: humans have a certain base capacity for worrying I heard someone say it this way once: everyone has a problem bucket. With some people, it holds a pint. With others, it holds a gallon. But whatever its size, it's always full.
    - TeMPOraL 3y ago
      Nice one, I'm saving it, thank you!
- paulryanrogers 3y ago
  Humans may have some minimum preoccupation with things that could be better. What makes it harder for those at the bottom is they have so few options or ways to resolve those things, and the challenges they face of often objectively much more serious. So a rich person can consider poorer perspectives and be thankful or even motivated to help others. A poor person looking up often cannot help even if they could sympathize.
JohnFen 3y ago
> Being happy and having substance does not directly correlate to how much money you have. There is a correlation. There's an ideal income level that correlates with increased overall happiness. Less than that, or more than that, and people will be less happy. But I agree with your larger point. I've lived destitute, among others who were in grinding poverty, and I've lived privileged, among others with plenty of available money. I've never noticed that one group is really any happier than the other. Some of the happiest people I've met lived lives that most would think would be miserable, and some of the most miserable people I've met lived lives that most would consider golden. Happiness is about what's going on inside your mind, not so much about what's going on outside of it.
snapplebobapple 3y ago
I am not able to read the article (blocked for newly registered domain at work) but I think you took an incomplete understanding of humanity from your story. It's not that the rich guys had silly things they were unhappy about, it's that the nature of human unhappiness is fractal across many domains, including wealth. You think the things they were unhappy about were silly because they solved all the problems you ascribe value to (because you experience(d) them directly at your wealth level), probably by throwing money at it and they have found new things at their higher wealth level to repeat the pattern of human unhappiness. I do agree that your last paragraph is the antidote to this fractal pattern of unhappiness though.

smallerfish 3y ago

I have 6 dogs and also have to leave the country every 3 months to keep my tourist visa current. Having a really good (and, fortunately, affordable) dog boarder is the answer to this. Not sure that really changes his point; only that sometimes there is a C when you are looking at choices A & B.

StopTheWorld 3y ago

Congratulations, another member of the professional-managerial class has rediscovered existentialism.

scotty79 3y ago
It sounds nothing like existentialism.
- StopTheWorld 3y ago
  I'll ask ChatGPT 4 Q: 'Does the idea that "given that all decisions are a form of action, and that votes, when made conscientiously, represent our values, then every choice is a reaffirmation of our values" sound nothing like existentialism?' A: 'The idea that you proposed does indeed align with some aspects of existentialist philosophy, which emphasizes the individual, the subjective, and the importance of personal freedom and choice. Existentialism posits that life has no inherent meaning, and it's up to each individual to create their own purpose or essence. This philosophy emphasizes the act of decision-making and the consequences that come with it. In this light, your statement that "all decisions are a form of action" and that these choices reflect our values is consistent with the existentialist view that we create meaning through our actions and choices. Moreover, the existentialist emphasis on authenticity—living in accordance with one's true self and values—also resonates with the idea that conscientious voting is a reaffirmation of our values.'
  - scotty79 3y ago
    In philosophy everything can be anything else if you muddy the waters enough. Concept of choices as actions reaffirming values doesn't sound like existentialism, if only because it's simple and clearly stated while existentialism has things like that to say about choices: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/existentialism/#AnxiChoi https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/existentialism/#AnxiChoi

aiunboxed 3y ago

I guess what you mentioned is the story of most of the people who have tech money :)

mindvirus 3y ago

I don't think compromise itself is a reaffirmation of our values. Compromise often erodes values. Disagreement prioritizes values. I think generally we have the same values. Honesty, transparency, integrity, expediency, travel, etc. However what we don't share is priority of them. To the author's point, do you value having pets more than you value freedom to travel? Reasonable people could disagree. And there is compromise to be had, but if you're not careful you can get the worst of both worlds by trying to split the difference.

kardianos 3y ago
I think the author's point is that reality has limits. Sometimes you can have your cake and eat it too, but often, a person must choose only one of many things they value. I believe the author's point is that the necessity of choice demonstrates what they really value. Utopia is no place. Reality is limited. Choose wisely.
- mindvirus 3y ago
  Totally, but the bad compromise that I think many people find themselves in is regretting having pets because they can't travel, and regretting not traveling because they have pets. Whereas good compromise could be deciding not to have pets but volunteering at the local animal shelter (for example).
gspencley 3y ago
There are different meanings of the word "compromise." Integrity can be "compromised", be it physical integrity (the structural support of the building was compromised and so it collapsed) or moral integrity (their values were compromised and they did a bad thing). But compromise can also be a concession in pursuit of a value. My wife and I want to go see a movie. I want to see a horror and she wants to see a romcom. So we compromise and see something that was not a first choice for either of us but that we're both happy with since the superior value being sought was spending time together. The specific movie was a secondary value. In this second context case I disagree that compromise CREATES value, but after I read the blog I realized that the author didn't even mean what the title literally says. The author is saying that it is difficult for someone to have NO values (in a literal sense this would have to be a very depressed individual who is contemplating suicide since they do not even value their own life). But that some people move through life mindlessly and aimlessly, oblivious to what they value. So much so that they do not consciously value anything. And so once such an individual is "forced" to make compromises then the recognition of values is then forced. I suppose the author's thesis is that forcing a recognition of values could lead to the adoption of values previously unconsidered.

svilen_dobrev 3y ago

software is made of decisions. or... scratch that. software is just reflection of life... Life is made of decisions. Anything else is not life, but mere existing.

apienx 3y ago

I think most normative ethicists would take issue with this proposition. Our values dictate our choices. Compromises (and limited-choice situations) test our values. From a deontological perspective, compromise destroys values. From a consequentialist perspective, compromise doesn't have any effect on the values as the consequence is the higher value. From a virtue ethics' perspective, values are character traits virtually decoupled from habits and other choices.

scotty79 3y ago
> Compromises (and limited-choice situations) test our values. Testing values strengthens them. People dig into their positions when they are challenged. That's why it's so hard to convince anybody to anything. When values are not challenged they fade.

NKosmatos 3y ago

Is is customary to comment on a submission without upvoting it? That's how I feel about this one... No disrespect and no offence meant, but I'll never understand all these privileged people who have a lot of money, and subsequently free time, and still feel this way about their lives. How come it's always poor, lower/mid class people who don't have enough money that always complain about not being able to do things (hobbies, interests, desires...) and always the rich, upper class people who complain that they don't have an interest in anything since they can have everything :-/

golemotron 3y ago
If it happens to you, you'll know what it's like. That is what is like with all life situations. They are mystery until they happen to you. You don't know what cancer is like or the death of a loved one is like until those things happen to you, and you don't know what the boredom of abundance is like until you have it either. On the latter, the important thing to get is that much more of what motivates us survival driven than most people realize. When survival is sort of guaranteed, a lot of motivation can dry up along with a lot of the juice of life.
- NKosmatos 3y ago
  That's very well put and I fully agree with what you describe on the majority of the situations (i.e birth of a child, loss of a pet, other important thing in life...), but I'm a bit confused on how this nicely written "boredom of abundance" can create problems on people. Oh well, that's probably because I don't have enough money (and time) to do all the things I want to do :-)
  - golemotron 3y ago
    I'd wish that for you but it might not make you happy. That's the paradox.
- onos 3y ago
  A silly example: when I was young I loved the game civ. In some games I would occasionally actually succeed at defeating all competition. But the game wouldn’t end cause you could try to go to another solar system or something still. But it was much less fun once the competition was over.

carapace 3y ago

There's a simple algorithm, based on this idea, for eliciting your hierarchy of values. IIRC it goes something like this: - - - - Imagine a mundane task of medium importance, e.g. brushing your teeth or doing the dishes. Now imagine something comes up that interrupts that task, and it's important enough to make you stop doing the previous task and attend to the new thing. Repeat previous step. - - - - I'm skipping over all the details, of course, but the point is that if you do it right you wind up with a ranked or graded list of values, motives for action.

nathan_compton 3y ago
Nothing short of a threat to my life, the life of my kid, or my partner (or another person) would make me stop brushing my teeth. Maybe someone offering me a million dollars to stop right there and then. Certainly no mundane event. Brushing teeth is important. [EDIT]: Ok, the exercise is working now. I take it back.

scotty79 3y ago

It's funny how much weight people put on money. And how they think abundance of money means solving all of their problems and removes all challenge from life. You are decaying organic matter soon to be corpse trying to interact with similar doomed entities who constantly mess up their lives just like you do yours. And you think money solves anything but the most rudimentary crap? Your parents are still gonna die, somebody will still get cancer. Even if you have all the money you wish you still have the same crap jelly in the box on top of your neck that will make you suffer and same ugly mug in front of it that will make people run away. You barely solved anything. Not to mention you might want at some point to co-live with some other unfortunate soul and finding a lasting match is a challenge that rarely ever anyone succeeds at and money there can be as much of an obstacle as it is an asset.

debacle 3y ago

Most people, even smart people, live a life devoid of self reflection. You don't have values if you don't live intentionally, and the majority of people make decisions on a very short timescale, and without truly considering opportunity costs. Even among those that live within an adopted moral framwork (e.g. religion, stoicism, etc), I haven't found people to be particularly well thought out.

tikkun 3y ago

Related: Company/personal values that don't involve a trade-off are not values Strategies that don't involve a trade-off are not strategies A good test is to ask yourself - if this statement was inverted, would it still be plausible? For example, "hire the best" doesn't make much sense as a value, because it doesn't describe a trade off and the opposite doesn't make sense as a value. Move fast and break things is a reasonable value. Just as move slow and aim for perfection is a reasonable value. And "build great products by spending more time on R&D than everyone else" is closer to a reasonable strategy, because it can be semi-inverted ("build great products by spending minimal time on R&D but launching as many as possible to see what works") and because it involves a trade-off.

frogulis 3y ago
I'm sure I've heard this idea labelled as "anti-values" before but I can't find the post now. At any rate, I strongly agree with the idea. Values and strategies that don't have a trade-off are not really picking a side and therefore can't help us in times of indecision.