5 ms·

"like" or "hate" are words for people and petty personal conflicts. It's counterproductive to take business conflicts personally. PG removed Sam Altman silentl

by nabla9 3y ago

"like" or "hate" are words for people and petty personal conflicts. It's counterproductive to take business conflicts personally. PG removed Sam Altman silently without harming his future. There is no reason to be enemies after the issue is solved. There may be deals to be made again.

ChuckMcM 3y ago
> It's counterproductive to take business conflicts personally. 100% agree with this, but it is productive to understand what was behind a business conflict. Personal like or dislike can change which alternative of a choice of equal alternatives, someone might make. As Tony Soprano would say, "It's just business."
- hitekker 3y ago
  Your comments are great but your audience is inexperienced. Most of our experience is largely in pointless, online arguments and few serious real-life struggles. The latter scares the hell out of us so we run from the conflict and from our feelings. Then we say we "didn't take it personally" to cover up the cowardice.
  - hef19898 3y ago
    If that is the case for you, consider yourself lucky. And for once, this comment isn't containing even trace amounts of sarcasm.
- rramadass 3y ago
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38388714 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38388714
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
koolba 3y ago
> PG removed Sam Altman silently without harming his future. When police departments do that to overly aggressive cops, it’s generally considered a bad thing.
- catlover76 3y ago
  There are different sets of concerns governing police accountability, transparency, etc., from those governing various different types of corporations, and rightly so.
  - cbsmith 3y ago
    It makes sense. It's not like corporations have responsibilities that can have life & death impacts on people, or that can radically transform the lives of people who don't even work there. Oh wait...
    - catlover76 3y ago
      The glibness of this superficial comparison doesn't change the fact that anyone who actually thought seriously about crafting laws to deal with both of those would find themselves dealing with very different scenarios, both from a practical and moral/philosophical perspective. But of course, if one just wants to say snide things on the internet, yeah they're simply the same in every major respect, why bother thinking that hard about it.
      - cbsmith 3y ago
        > The glibness of this superficial comparison doesn't change the fact that anyone who actually thought seriously about crafting laws to deal with both of those would find themselves dealing with very different scenarios, both from a practical and moral/philosophical perspective. Yes. There aren't a lot of rogue cops in a position to put billion dollar holes in the economy. Few of them are in positions to influence medical decisions for millions of patients. While a rogue cop might be able to influence parole board decisions for thousands of criminals, it'd be terribly difficult to impact millions. Yes, in theory, the police have a unique monopoly on the use of violence in society, which leads to unique challenges and scenarios. However, the potential problems that stem from removing someone from a responsibility without impacting their future have nothing to do with said monopoly, as demonstrated empirically with teachers, religious leaders, doctors, politicians, and yes, business leaders. In specific cases, it might be the right thing to do, but if you think about it, the potential problems from systemic application of this practice can lead to terrible outcomes that are proportional to the amount of responsibility, not the nature of it. ...but why bother thinking that hard about it?
socketcluster 3y ago
It comes down to alignment of interests and alignment of values. I think previous comment is right in suggesting that people's interests and values may not be clear at that level. People often hide them to appeal more broadly. The more you reveal about yourself, the fewer people you will appeal to because very few people share your exact values. People tend to like people who share some obvious common values and they assume that the values that are unspoken are also a match. In reality, it's rarely so. As people learn more about the world and themselves, they begin to realize that some values that they didn't consider before are very important and they may be shocked to find that certain people they used to like do not share those values which they took for granted.
rramadass 3y ago
> It's counterproductive to take business conflicts personally. All conflicts are Personal. It is only when you weigh your response and its consequences to short-term and long-term goals that you start spouting niceties like "It's not Personal; it's just Business". It is a question of balancing emotions vs. rational strategy/tactics; sometimes it suits the circumstances and sometimes it doesn't. Kautilya/Sun-Tzu/Clausewitz are relevant here.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

by nabla9 3y ago

ChuckMcM 3y ago

> It's counterproductive to take business conflicts personally. 100% agree with this, but it is productive to understand what was behind a business conflict. Personal like or dislike can change which alternative of a choice of equal alternatives, someone might make. As Tony Soprano would say, "It's just business."

hitekker 3y ago
Your comments are great but your audience is inexperienced. Most of our experience is largely in pointless, online arguments and few serious real-life struggles. The latter scares the hell out of us so we run from the conflict and from our feelings. Then we say we "didn't take it personally" to cover up the cowardice.
- hef19898 3y ago
  If that is the case for you, consider yourself lucky. And for once, this comment isn't containing even trace amounts of sarcasm.
rramadass 3y ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38388714 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38388714
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

koolba 3y ago

> PG removed Sam Altman silently without harming his future. When police departments do that to overly aggressive cops, it’s generally considered a bad thing.

catlover76 3y ago
There are different sets of concerns governing police accountability, transparency, etc., from those governing various different types of corporations, and rightly so.
- cbsmith 3y ago
  It makes sense. It's not like corporations have responsibilities that can have life & death impacts on people, or that can radically transform the lives of people who don't even work there. Oh wait...
  - catlover76 3y ago
    The glibness of this superficial comparison doesn't change the fact that anyone who actually thought seriously about crafting laws to deal with both of those would find themselves dealing with very different scenarios, both from a practical and moral/philosophical perspective. But of course, if one just wants to say snide things on the internet, yeah they're simply the same in every major respect, why bother thinking that hard about it.
    - cbsmith 3y ago
      > The glibness of this superficial comparison doesn't change the fact that anyone who actually thought seriously about crafting laws to deal with both of those would find themselves dealing with very different scenarios, both from a practical and moral/philosophical perspective. Yes. There aren't a lot of rogue cops in a position to put billion dollar holes in the economy. Few of them are in positions to influence medical decisions for millions of patients. While a rogue cop might be able to influence parole board decisions for thousands of criminals, it'd be terribly difficult to impact millions. Yes, in theory, the police have a unique monopoly on the use of violence in society, which leads to unique challenges and scenarios. However, the potential problems that stem from removing someone from a responsibility without impacting their future have nothing to do with said monopoly, as demonstrated empirically with teachers, religious leaders, doctors, politicians, and yes, business leaders. In specific cases, it might be the right thing to do, but if you think about it, the potential problems from systemic application of this practice can lead to terrible outcomes that are proportional to the amount of responsibility, not the nature of it. ...but why bother thinking that hard about it?

socketcluster 3y ago

It comes down to alignment of interests and alignment of values. I think previous comment is right in suggesting that people's interests and values may not be clear at that level. People often hide them to appeal more broadly. The more you reveal about yourself, the fewer people you will appeal to because very few people share your exact values. People tend to like people who share some obvious common values and they assume that the values that are unspoken are also a match. In reality, it's rarely so. As people learn more about the world and themselves, they begin to realize that some values that they didn't consider before are very important and they may be shocked to find that certain people they used to like do not share those values which they took for granted.

rramadass 3y ago

> It's counterproductive to take business conflicts personally. All conflicts are Personal. It is only when you weigh your response and its consequences to short-term and long-term goals that you start spouting niceties like "It's not Personal; it's just Business". It is a question of balancing emotions vs. rational strategy/tactics; sometimes it suits the circumstances and sometimes it doesn't. Kautilya/Sun-Tzu/Clausewitz are relevant here.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]