6 ms·

Now usually I don't do this, but: Who are you, jimmyvanhalen, to tell Paul Buchheit about "the most efficient way to spend capital", and how Marc Andreessen and

Now usually I don't do this, but: Who are you, jimmyvanhalen, to tell Paul Buchheit about "the most efficient way to spend capital", and how Marc Andreessen and Ben Horowitz should do their jobs? Since you apparently know so much about it, surely you top Paul's worth easily?

daenz 15y ago
appeal to accomplishment, appeal to poverty, appeal to wealth http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
- paul 15y ago
  Capitalism is a system for transferring money from those who are bad at allocating capital to those who are good at allocating capital. That's the magic of it. It also implies that people like Andreessen most likely have an above average understanding of how to allocate capital :)
  - daenz 15y ago
    Doesn't make it any less a logical fallacy. Andreessen partners could wipe their asses with $100 bills. If someone with less money tells them that's a poor use of money, would you tell him clearly Andreessen knows better because they have more money?
    - paul 15y ago
      If only this were a logic problem consisting of three boolean variables... But reality is complex, and so I do give some weight to authority. For example, if I had a question about evolution, I would automatically trust an answer from Dawkins more than one from Santorum, even if you think that's some kind of fallacy.
      - daenz 15y ago
        You are free to believe whatever you want, based on whatever criteria you want. But to argue that something is right or wrong because someone else has more money, has no weight. Re-read yesbabyyes comment. It makes no argument other than "who are you", "they are famous and accomplished" and "they are rich." It's a poor argument.
        paul 15y ago
        Typically the fact that someone has more money would not be relevant, except in this case it's a discussion of capital allocation and a person (Andreessen) who is making a lot of money by being very good at capital allocation. It's like claiming that Michael Phelps's 14 gold medals should carry no weight in a discussion of whether or not he's a good swimmer.
        daenz 15y ago
        > It's like claiming that Michael Phelps's 14 gold medals should carry no weight in a discussion of whether or not he's a good swimmer. Not really. It's like Michael Phelp's 14 gold medals should carry no weight in a discussion of whether or not his butterfly stroke has room for improvement. No one is arguing that Andreessan is not good at making money. If people were, then your analogy would be correct. People are arguing whether or not his money was put to efficient use in this specific instance (by donating to charity). Having 14 gold medals does not prove to anyone that your butterfly stoke technique could not be better. Nor does earning a lot of money prove that you always make good decisions with money. Take my $100 toilet paper example. Earning a lot of money through good investments does not make using $100 for toilet paper suddenly unassailable to criticism. Does this make sense?
        irahul 15y ago
        > Having 14 gold medals does not prove to anyone that your butterfly stoke technique could not be better. Having 14 gold medals means that though his butterfly stroke might or might not need improvement, a random punk on the internet doesn't have the authority to make a judgement call. > Nor does earning a lot of money prove that you always make good decisions with money. Take my $100 toilet paper example. Earning a lot of money through good investments does not make using $100 for toilet paper suddenly unassailable to criticism. Does this make sense? No it doesn't make sense. Your $100 for toilet paper example is pushing the boundaries of ridiculous which doesn't have anything to with the topic under discussion. People who haven't earned through investment preaching people who have made a fortune about efficient use of money, money which happens to be their personal money, is just sad.
    - astrofinch 15y ago
      And who was it that told you appeal to authority was a fallacy? Some authority on fallacies like Wikipedia, maybe? :D http://lesswrong.com/lw/aq2/fallacies_as_weak_bayesian_evidence/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/aq2/fallacies_as_weak_bayesian_evide... If a wealthy self-made person says something about how to make money, that's stronger Bayesian evidence for that actually being a good way to make money then if some random person says it.
- yesbabyyes 15y ago
  Thanks, daenz. That's what "usually I don't do this" was referring to -- which is a lazy cop out, I agree. Usually I don't do that, either. My bad. It may not make it better, but I think I did it because jimmyvanhalen's argument was, to me, so... Preposterous. As I understand him, he is basically arguing that if you feel that you have money to give to charity, you should give that to whomever gave you that money. I wonder what he feels about my, admittedly ridiculously small, donations to charity. Am I, too, wrong to give? Should I lower my fees and "give" that money to my clients instead?
  - daenz 15y ago
    Yeah, it's a difficult subject. People are passionate about money. But kudos for owning up to your post... I made a ad hominem awhile back and someone was kind enough to point it out, thought I'd pass around the favor :)
    - yesbabyyes 15y ago
      I take it you think one should donate to charity anonymously, but humblebrags are ok? ;) I just wanted to add that I actually think wealth and investment accomplishments are somewhat relevant in this discussion, regarding your comment on fallacies. Especially given jimmyvanhalen's very strong opinions on what "a VCs job" is, what a16z "should" do, and his confused ending statement on that what they did would be fine by him if they did... Exactly what they are doing. Don't you agree?
      - daenz 15y ago
        I wasn't bragging. I was trying to relate...I made an ad hominem attack and was called out on it. I don't really have an opinion on the actual thing being discussed though, other than my comments back and forth with "paul"
        yesbabyyes 15y ago
        I don't really have an opinion on the actual thing being discussed though, other than my comments back and forth with "paul" I.e., trolling. Yeah, I know.

daenz 15y ago

appeal to accomplishment, appeal to poverty, appeal to wealth http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

paul 15y ago
Capitalism is a system for transferring money from those who are bad at allocating capital to those who are good at allocating capital. That's the magic of it. It also implies that people like Andreessen most likely have an above average understanding of how to allocate capital :)
- daenz 15y ago
  Doesn't make it any less a logical fallacy. Andreessen partners could wipe their asses with $100 bills. If someone with less money tells them that's a poor use of money, would you tell him clearly Andreessen knows better because they have more money?
  - paul 15y ago
    If only this were a logic problem consisting of three boolean variables... But reality is complex, and so I do give some weight to authority. For example, if I had a question about evolution, I would automatically trust an answer from Dawkins more than one from Santorum, even if you think that's some kind of fallacy.
    - daenz 15y ago
      You are free to believe whatever you want, based on whatever criteria you want. But to argue that something is right or wrong because someone else has more money, has no weight. Re-read yesbabyyes comment. It makes no argument other than "who are you", "they are famous and accomplished" and "they are rich." It's a poor argument.
      - paul 15y ago
        Typically the fact that someone has more money would not be relevant, except in this case it's a discussion of capital allocation and a person (Andreessen) who is making a lot of money by being very good at capital allocation. It's like claiming that Michael Phelps's 14 gold medals should carry no weight in a discussion of whether or not he's a good swimmer.
        daenz 15y ago
        > It's like claiming that Michael Phelps's 14 gold medals should carry no weight in a discussion of whether or not he's a good swimmer. Not really. It's like Michael Phelp's 14 gold medals should carry no weight in a discussion of whether or not his butterfly stroke has room for improvement. No one is arguing that Andreessan is not good at making money. If people were, then your analogy would be correct. People are arguing whether or not his money was put to efficient use in this specific instance (by donating to charity). Having 14 gold medals does not prove to anyone that your butterfly stoke technique could not be better. Nor does earning a lot of money prove that you always make good decisions with money. Take my $100 toilet paper example. Earning a lot of money through good investments does not make using $100 for toilet paper suddenly unassailable to criticism. Does this make sense?
        irahul 15y ago
        > Having 14 gold medals does not prove to anyone that your butterfly stoke technique could not be better. Having 14 gold medals means that though his butterfly stroke might or might not need improvement, a random punk on the internet doesn't have the authority to make a judgement call. > Nor does earning a lot of money prove that you always make good decisions with money. Take my $100 toilet paper example. Earning a lot of money through good investments does not make using $100 for toilet paper suddenly unassailable to criticism. Does this make sense? No it doesn't make sense. Your $100 for toilet paper example is pushing the boundaries of ridiculous which doesn't have anything to with the topic under discussion. People who haven't earned through investment preaching people who have made a fortune about efficient use of money, money which happens to be their personal money, is just sad.
  - astrofinch 15y ago
    And who was it that told you appeal to authority was a fallacy? Some authority on fallacies like Wikipedia, maybe? :D http://lesswrong.com/lw/aq2/fallacies_as_weak_bayesian_evidence/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/aq2/fallacies_as_weak_bayesian_evide... If a wealthy self-made person says something about how to make money, that's stronger Bayesian evidence for that actually being a good way to make money then if some random person says it.
yesbabyyes 15y ago
Thanks, daenz. That's what "usually I don't do this" was referring to -- which is a lazy cop out, I agree. Usually I don't do that, either. My bad. It may not make it better, but I think I did it because jimmyvanhalen's argument was, to me, so... Preposterous. As I understand him, he is basically arguing that if you feel that you have money to give to charity, you should give that to whomever gave you that money. I wonder what he feels about my, admittedly ridiculously small, donations to charity. Am I, too, wrong to give? Should I lower my fees and "give" that money to my clients instead?
- daenz 15y ago
  Yeah, it's a difficult subject. People are passionate about money. But kudos for owning up to your post... I made a ad hominem awhile back and someone was kind enough to point it out, thought I'd pass around the favor :)
  - yesbabyyes 15y ago
    I take it you think one should donate to charity anonymously, but humblebrags are ok? ;) I just wanted to add that I actually think wealth and investment accomplishments are somewhat relevant in this discussion, regarding your comment on fallacies. Especially given jimmyvanhalen's very strong opinions on what "a VCs job" is, what a16z "should" do, and his confused ending statement on that what they did would be fine by him if they did... Exactly what they are doing. Don't you agree?
    - daenz 15y ago
      I wasn't bragging. I was trying to relate...I made an ad hominem attack and was called out on it. I don't really have an opinion on the actual thing being discussed though, other than my comments back and forth with "paul"
      - yesbabyyes 15y ago
        I don't really have an opinion on the actual thing being discussed though, other than my comments back and forth with "paul" I.e., trolling. Yeah, I know.