6 ms·

It's one of these days where I have to double-check I'm not on a hn-themed the onion. "CEO of data privacy company Onerep.com founded dozens of people-search f

It's one of these days where I have to double-check I'm not on a hn-themed the onion. "CEO of data privacy company Onerep.com founded dozens of people-search firms" "Harvard concluded that a dishonesty expert committed misconduct" And depending on the general mood I'm in this is kinda a downer sometimes, like apparently only assholes make it in this world because you cannot compete with others if you have a conscience and they don't. Sorry for this tangent but it's just one of these days somehow. The McDonald's outage at least was good for a quick laugh when I read the "unexpected world's health day" comment.

vsnf 3y ago
> you cannot compete with others if you have a conscience and they don't. This is self evidently true, though. A conscience is a constraint on behavior. People without this constraint can accomplish more things. Of course, they may end up suffering for their actions, but it's a surefire way to short-term success, and not unlikely to lead to long-term success as well.
- trashtester 3y ago
  > This is self evidently true, though. I absolutely disagree. Conscience, empathy, shame and similar emotions/instincts that encourage pro-social behavior would only have developed if it lead to higher reproductive fitness for those who had them compared to those who didn't. For instance, only a very small percentage of people are psychopaths. If we look at the average life outcome for psychopaths, we discover that while some of them may be super-successful, we also find a lot of them as social outcasts or in prison. And if they live in areas like law enforcements, they're also more likely to get killed. I would say the reason should be obvious. People without these guardrails on behavior may get away with anti-social behavior for a time, but eventually people figure them out. This leads to all sorts of active and passive punishment, ranging from difficulty making friends or holding on to a job all the way to life in prison or execution. SOME people may negate the downsides by acting in a super-rational way. But this only works for people who are both highly intelligent and who also have very good impulse control. But for most people, having at least moderate levels of pro-social instincts/emotions will be just as beneficial for themselves as for the people around them.
  - hackerlight 3y ago
    Genetic fitness != financial success. Moreover, ancestral environment != modern environment. Not saying you're wrong, but it's not a straightforward application of evolutionary thinking.
    - trashtester 3y ago
      I was interpreting "this world" a bit more widely than just the work environment in high level Academia. There are certainly environments where anti-social behavior can be optimal. But there are also a LOT of environments where pro-social environments are rewarded. Includig, but not restricted to, within families. Anyway, you're right that we're not living in our ancestral environment. But I don't think we're in a world that actually rewards anti-social behavior less (EDIT) than much of our evolutionary history. Rather, I think cynical outlooks like that of the OP actually appears for reasons such as: 1) People who are themselves anti-social who either actually think that everyone else are the same, or at least try to normalize such tendencies. 2) People who, during early development, had a very naîve world view and then when faced with reality, became so disillusioned that they went to the other extreme. I think the vast majority of people on earth today still live in environments where some amount of compassion, conscience and empathy are useful traits (for themselves). However, in a lot of cases, it can also be useful to have the ability to turn such emotions on or off depending on the context. Once we start to think of some other group of people (or individuals) as either a mortal enemy or a kind of prey, a lot of us can reach such an off-switch when dealing with them.
  - everforward 3y ago
    > Conscience, empathy, shame and similar emotions/instincts that encourage pro-social behavior would only have developed if it lead to higher reproductive fitness for those who had them compared to those who didn't. It's a classic prisoners dilemma. In aggregate, the best option is cooperation. For an individual, the best option is betrayal in a society where everyone else follows the rules. Betrayers can't become dominant because the worst option for both the individual and society is everyone being a betrayer. It ruins social cohesion, so there's no synergies to reap rewards from.
- randysalami 3y ago
  A constraint can lead to more power e.g. the power of abstractions in code. On a more grounded note, having a constraint (a creed or code that limits you) can be a visible signal to others that you’re worth following. With these bonds strengthened by self-imposed constraint, you can accomplish more together than you could alone but unfettered by limitation (debatable). This is a theme in many movies and stories where the main character’s restraint inspires others to great deeds and gives them the resolve to do the unthinkable (Star Wars). Of course, a person with no conscience can always feign this restraint… (Palpatine)
- mistrial9 3y ago
  congratulations - a completely self-centered analysis amidst a world of systems of systems
- javajosh 3y ago
  >This is self evidently true, though. I think you mean "this is intuitively true" because, like so many intuitive conclusions, it is wrong. Looking at animal behavior, it's intuitively true that organisms will only win if they are selfish, and yet selfless behavior has evolved in countless species. Another intuitive truth is that when you have a powerful species of predator that can kill prey at will, that they will decimate the prey population and end up dying off from lack of food. Yet most ecosystems can and do support both predators and prey in equilibrium. In business, it's intuitively true that it would be stupid to make another fast-food hamburger business in the presence of McDonalds - yet Carl's Junior/Hardees did very well doing just that. Counter-examples abound to the intuitive conclusion. One of the best habits you can form is the habit of questioning your intuition.
orzig 3y ago
Adding a little bit of optimism: there are many decent people in all of these fields. They might not as often make the news (initially for extraordinary “achievements“ then for downfalls), but it is entirely possible to “make it in this world“ (supporting a family, taking the occasional vacation, retiring at age 65) while being honest.
itsoktocry 3y ago
>like apparently only assholes make it in this world because you cannot compete with others if you have a conscience and they don't. Sorry for this tangent but it's just one of these days somehow. We are surrounded by psychopaths. We have politicians willing to sell out to foreign countries for what isn't even massive wealth. We have government workers "working from home" on side gigs on government contracts[1]. And these are examples of "nice" ones that don't involve wars. It's crazy. [0] https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/us-senator-robert-menendez-his-wife-and-three-new-jersey-businessmen-charged-bribery https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/us-senator-robert-menen... [1]https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/auditor-general-fired-employees-with-government-contracts https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/auditor-general-fired...
vundercind 3y ago
This and other factors are why n-gate’s HN article descriptions were so good. Most of the time they were basically more accurate and honest than the actual articles or most posts on this site, while also being concise. Cynical? Yeah, but… accurate.
ninju 3y ago
For further details on the "data privacy company Onerep.com" discovery https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39709089 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39709089
20after4 3y ago
> like apparently only assholes make it in this world because you cannot compete with others if you have a conscience and they don't. I think this is the key fact of life that it took me far too long to realize. They say that "cheaters never win and winners never cheat" but it's actually pretty much the opposite of that.
BurningFrog 3y ago
This is true in some fields and not at all in others.

vsnf 3y ago

> you cannot compete with others if you have a conscience and they don't. This is self evidently true, though. A conscience is a constraint on behavior. People without this constraint can accomplish more things. Of course, they may end up suffering for their actions, but it's a surefire way to short-term success, and not unlikely to lead to long-term success as well.

trashtester 3y ago
> This is self evidently true, though. I absolutely disagree. Conscience, empathy, shame and similar emotions/instincts that encourage pro-social behavior would only have developed if it lead to higher reproductive fitness for those who had them compared to those who didn't. For instance, only a very small percentage of people are psychopaths. If we look at the average life outcome for psychopaths, we discover that while some of them may be super-successful, we also find a lot of them as social outcasts or in prison. And if they live in areas like law enforcements, they're also more likely to get killed. I would say the reason should be obvious. People without these guardrails on behavior may get away with anti-social behavior for a time, but eventually people figure them out. This leads to all sorts of active and passive punishment, ranging from difficulty making friends or holding on to a job all the way to life in prison or execution. SOME people may negate the downsides by acting in a super-rational way. But this only works for people who are both highly intelligent and who also have very good impulse control. But for most people, having at least moderate levels of pro-social instincts/emotions will be just as beneficial for themselves as for the people around them.
- hackerlight 3y ago
  Genetic fitness != financial success. Moreover, ancestral environment != modern environment. Not saying you're wrong, but it's not a straightforward application of evolutionary thinking.
  - trashtester 3y ago
    I was interpreting "this world" a bit more widely than just the work environment in high level Academia. There are certainly environments where anti-social behavior can be optimal. But there are also a LOT of environments where pro-social environments are rewarded. Includig, but not restricted to, within families. Anyway, you're right that we're not living in our ancestral environment. But I don't think we're in a world that actually rewards anti-social behavior less (EDIT) than much of our evolutionary history. Rather, I think cynical outlooks like that of the OP actually appears for reasons such as: 1) People who are themselves anti-social who either actually think that everyone else are the same, or at least try to normalize such tendencies. 2) People who, during early development, had a very naîve world view and then when faced with reality, became so disillusioned that they went to the other extreme. I think the vast majority of people on earth today still live in environments where some amount of compassion, conscience and empathy are useful traits (for themselves). However, in a lot of cases, it can also be useful to have the ability to turn such emotions on or off depending on the context. Once we start to think of some other group of people (or individuals) as either a mortal enemy or a kind of prey, a lot of us can reach such an off-switch when dealing with them.
- everforward 3y ago
  > Conscience, empathy, shame and similar emotions/instincts that encourage pro-social behavior would only have developed if it lead to higher reproductive fitness for those who had them compared to those who didn't. It's a classic prisoners dilemma. In aggregate, the best option is cooperation. For an individual, the best option is betrayal in a society where everyone else follows the rules. Betrayers can't become dominant because the worst option for both the individual and society is everyone being a betrayer. It ruins social cohesion, so there's no synergies to reap rewards from.
randysalami 3y ago
A constraint can lead to more power e.g. the power of abstractions in code. On a more grounded note, having a constraint (a creed or code that limits you) can be a visible signal to others that you’re worth following. With these bonds strengthened by self-imposed constraint, you can accomplish more together than you could alone but unfettered by limitation (debatable). This is a theme in many movies and stories where the main character’s restraint inspires others to great deeds and gives them the resolve to do the unthinkable (Star Wars). Of course, a person with no conscience can always feign this restraint… (Palpatine)
mistrial9 3y ago
congratulations - a completely self-centered analysis amidst a world of systems of systems
javajosh 3y ago
>This is self evidently true, though. I think you mean "this is intuitively true" because, like so many intuitive conclusions, it is wrong. Looking at animal behavior, it's intuitively true that organisms will only win if they are selfish, and yet selfless behavior has evolved in countless species. Another intuitive truth is that when you have a powerful species of predator that can kill prey at will, that they will decimate the prey population and end up dying off from lack of food. Yet most ecosystems can and do support both predators and prey in equilibrium. In business, it's intuitively true that it would be stupid to make another fast-food hamburger business in the presence of McDonalds - yet Carl's Junior/Hardees did very well doing just that. Counter-examples abound to the intuitive conclusion. One of the best habits you can form is the habit of questioning your intuition.

orzig 3y ago

Adding a little bit of optimism: there are many decent people in all of these fields. They might not as often make the news (initially for extraordinary “achievements“ then for downfalls), but it is entirely possible to “make it in this world“ (supporting a family, taking the occasional vacation, retiring at age 65) while being honest.

itsoktocry 3y ago

>like apparently only assholes make it in this world because you cannot compete with others if you have a conscience and they don't. Sorry for this tangent but it's just one of these days somehow. We are surrounded by psychopaths. We have politicians willing to sell out to foreign countries for what isn't even massive wealth. We have government workers "working from home" on side gigs on government contracts[1]. And these are examples of "nice" ones that don't involve wars. It's crazy. [0] https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/us-senator-robert-menendez-his-wife-and-three-new-jersey-businessmen-charged-bribery https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/us-senator-robert-menen... [1]https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/auditor-general-fired-employees-with-government-contracts https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/auditor-general-fired...

vundercind 3y ago

This and other factors are why n-gate’s HN article descriptions were so good. Most of the time they were basically more accurate and honest than the actual articles or most posts on this site, while also being concise. Cynical? Yeah, but… accurate.

ninju 3y ago

For further details on the "data privacy company Onerep.com" discovery https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39709089 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39709089

20after4 3y ago

> like apparently only assholes make it in this world because you cannot compete with others if you have a conscience and they don't. I think this is the key fact of life that it took me far too long to realize. They say that "cheaters never win and winners never cheat" but it's actually pretty much the opposite of that.

BurningFrog 3y ago

This is true in some fields and not at all in others.