3 ms·

>For some reason people seem to think that someone wanting to be around because of a person's fame or money is less pure than other reasons because it's not rea

by tsotha 14y ago

>For some reason people seem to think that someone wanting to be around because of a person's fame or money is less pure than other reasons because it's not real. There's a big difference between a person's intrinsic properties and his money. You like your friends; you like the rich guy's money. And when you're around someone for his money you're playing a part. It's a job. You're not going to tell him what you really think about anything. That's pathological.

larrys 14y ago
"You like your friends; you like the rich guy's money." Oh? So you think that there aren't a large number of rich people that are interesting and have achieved something which is the reason they are rich? And it would be great to spend some time with them? Steve Jobs was rich and had power and fame. So the only reason anyone would want to be around Steve is because of the money, the power and the fame? Or Larry Ellison? Or Warren Buffet? Or even Paul Graham? He's doing ok and I'm sure he would be interesting to be around even for people who have no interest in the startup scene and nothing to gain by knowing Paul. But even if someone was born into money for that matter then as a result of having money they also could be interesting and nice to be around for exactly that reason. Or at least entertaining (the Kennedy's come to mind..)
- tsotha 14y ago
  Sure. You can like a rich guy independent of his money. But if his money is the basis for the friendship it's not really a friendship, IMO.
- sliverstorm 14y ago
  the only reason anyone would want to be around Steve is because of the money, the power and the fame? You completely miss the point- it isn't that nobody could like Steve as a person. It's that, how can Steve tell who likes Steve and who just likes Steve's money?
  - PakG1 14y ago
    That test really only happens in truly-down-in-the-dumps or life-and-death situations.
    - mcguire 14y ago
      That would kinda be the point.
    - gcr 14y ago
      How so?
      - msellout 14y ago
        It's easier to demonstrate a counterfactual than to prove the theorem. Therefore the burden of proof should be on you to demonstrate the counterfactual.
        gcr 14y ago
        I don't think you're wrong, I'm just asking for some elaboration.
      - PakG1 14y ago
        Because it is during those periods when you need your friends the most and when it is most inconvenient/difficult for fake friends to come to your aid. It is naturally the most effective way to separate the wheat from the chaff, even though it may not be a nice process.
- wpietri 14y ago
  Are you being intentionally obtuse? You were talking about "wanting to be around because of a person's fame or money" being just another reason to be around. The "You like your friends; you like the rich guy's money" is just a way of restating your apparent original claim. So coming back and saying, well, Steve Jobs is interesting, is missing by a mile what you're responding to.
einhverfr 14y ago
Here's the thing though.... If there was more of a gift economy in these cases, the intrinsic properties would be something like generosity, fairness, and honor. You have a lot of money and have a reputation for these things, who is to say that isn't more real? The problem though is form. I am generous with my good fortune to you. What are you doing for me in return? It used to be that a gift demanded reciprocity (as would injury or misbehavior), and to be forgiven for not doing so was a bad thing and an insult to one's honor. Then Christianity came and we all got screwed over by this obligation to forgive. Interestingly we know from anthropology that money came about as a way to quantify debt, not the other way around. So perhaps this is only less real today because of how we account for our possessions and how we relate to our money, not because of any intrinsic issue with a relationship based on disparity of this sort. Interestingly Cicero brings up a similar point in his work on friendship. At a time where Roman society was very stratified and friendships were supposed to be between economic equals, he suggested that the best friendships would be made with people below one's social status, for the specific reason that they would be more loyal. Friendships in Rome were all about a gift economy (as they still are in many parts of the world today. I have a friend who studied with Edgar Polome for his PhD and said Polome used to use India as an example if this. He'd get a gift-- maybe a new wallet or something-- from someone one year and a request for help getting a job or a car or something else a few years later. And when he'd turn them down they'd be unhappy because it was not fulfilling his obligation for having accepted the gift. This is true all over Asia as my wife always reminds me never to accept a gift from someone unless I know what they want in return.)
- zerostar07 14y ago
  I think the examples you mention would fall into the sphere of "acquaintances" or "family friends" or "connections" or "not enemies" today (in the business or strategic sense). We are talking about actual close friends, comrades, (BFFs if u want) here.
  - einhverfr 14y ago
    I don't think that's all though. Case in point, read the Old English poem "The Wanderer" (ideally in Old English but if necessary in translation) and remember that the relationship the narrator is lamenting is this sort of relationship. The point is that gifts tie us together. As one person said, "obligations unite us, debts drive us apart." The idea that you give money and there is some sort of a moral obligation to reciprocate in some way (but not a quantified debt) creates the bond. The way gift economies work is that you give gifts out and therefore obtain communal esteem, and people reciprocate to get that esteem by giving you gifts.

by tsotha 14y ago

larrys 14y ago

"You like your friends; you like the rich guy's money." Oh? So you think that there aren't a large number of rich people that are interesting and have achieved something which is the reason they are rich? And it would be great to spend some time with them? Steve Jobs was rich and had power and fame. So the only reason anyone would want to be around Steve is because of the money, the power and the fame? Or Larry Ellison? Or Warren Buffet? Or even Paul Graham? He's doing ok and I'm sure he would be interesting to be around even for people who have no interest in the startup scene and nothing to gain by knowing Paul. But even if someone was born into money for that matter then as a result of having money they also could be interesting and nice to be around for exactly that reason. Or at least entertaining (the Kennedy's come to mind..)

tsotha 14y ago
Sure. You can like a rich guy independent of his money. But if his money is the basis for the friendship it's not really a friendship, IMO.
sliverstorm 14y ago
the only reason anyone would want to be around Steve is because of the money, the power and the fame? You completely miss the point- it isn't that nobody could like Steve as a person. It's that, how can Steve tell who likes Steve and who just likes Steve's money?
- PakG1 14y ago
  That test really only happens in truly-down-in-the-dumps or life-and-death situations.
  - mcguire 14y ago
    That would kinda be the point.
  - gcr 14y ago
    How so?
    - msellout 14y ago
      It's easier to demonstrate a counterfactual than to prove the theorem. Therefore the burden of proof should be on you to demonstrate the counterfactual.
      - gcr 14y ago
        I don't think you're wrong, I'm just asking for some elaboration.
    - PakG1 14y ago
      Because it is during those periods when you need your friends the most and when it is most inconvenient/difficult for fake friends to come to your aid. It is naturally the most effective way to separate the wheat from the chaff, even though it may not be a nice process.
wpietri 14y ago
Are you being intentionally obtuse? You were talking about "wanting to be around because of a person's fame or money" being just another reason to be around. The "You like your friends; you like the rich guy's money" is just a way of restating your apparent original claim. So coming back and saying, well, Steve Jobs is interesting, is missing by a mile what you're responding to.

einhverfr 14y ago

Here's the thing though.... If there was more of a gift economy in these cases, the intrinsic properties would be something like generosity, fairness, and honor. You have a lot of money and have a reputation for these things, who is to say that isn't more real? The problem though is form. I am generous with my good fortune to you. What are you doing for me in return? It used to be that a gift demanded reciprocity (as would injury or misbehavior), and to be forgiven for not doing so was a bad thing and an insult to one's honor. Then Christianity came and we all got screwed over by this obligation to forgive. Interestingly we know from anthropology that money came about as a way to quantify debt, not the other way around. So perhaps this is only less real today because of how we account for our possessions and how we relate to our money, not because of any intrinsic issue with a relationship based on disparity of this sort. Interestingly Cicero brings up a similar point in his work on friendship. At a time where Roman society was very stratified and friendships were supposed to be between economic equals, he suggested that the best friendships would be made with people below one's social status, for the specific reason that they would be more loyal. Friendships in Rome were all about a gift economy (as they still are in many parts of the world today. I have a friend who studied with Edgar Polome for his PhD and said Polome used to use India as an example if this. He'd get a gift-- maybe a new wallet or something-- from someone one year and a request for help getting a job or a car or something else a few years later. And when he'd turn them down they'd be unhappy because it was not fulfilling his obligation for having accepted the gift. This is true all over Asia as my wife always reminds me never to accept a gift from someone unless I know what they want in return.)

zerostar07 14y ago
I think the examples you mention would fall into the sphere of "acquaintances" or "family friends" or "connections" or "not enemies" today (in the business or strategic sense). We are talking about actual close friends, comrades, (BFFs if u want) here.
- einhverfr 14y ago
  I don't think that's all though. Case in point, read the Old English poem "The Wanderer" (ideally in Old English but if necessary in translation) and remember that the relationship the narrator is lamenting is this sort of relationship. The point is that gifts tie us together. As one person said, "obligations unite us, debts drive us apart." The idea that you give money and there is some sort of a moral obligation to reciprocate in some way (but not a quantified debt) creates the bond. The way gift economies work is that you give gifts out and therefore obtain communal esteem, and people reciprocate to get that esteem by giving you gifts.