3 ms·

I usually evaluate people based on how they behave by their own stated values and codes. It's been a good rule. What's been amazing to me is how skin-deep the

I usually evaluate people based on how they behave by their own stated values and codes. It's been a good rule. What's been amazing to me is how skin-deep the stated values across the tech industry were. Virtually every executive is behaving in ways they would fire their employees for just a few months ago. The executives have no moral compass as human beings. I believed this to be the case before, since the people I've interacted with who rose that high did so by being psychopaths, but what's amazing is how on display it is. I don't mind the before or the after so much as the very, very transparent about-face.

Analemma_ 2y ago
It's more-or-less impossible to become a sufficiently-senior executive at a sufficiently-large company without being a psychopath. You should have a baseline assumption that all executives at large corporations have no values whatsoever beyond doing what benefits them personally, you'll be a lot less surprised at their behavior if you do.
- MrMcCall 2y ago
  What about large tech funding orgs? ;-)
  - frognumber 2y ago
    Depends on how they got there. It's in the selection process. Anything with competition about 1000:1 leads to cheating and psychopathic behavior. Anything below 1:4 doesn't. Iterated 1:4 does again.
- frognumber 2y ago
  That's generally my assumption, but with some exceptions. What selects for psychopaths is the process of climbing the corporate ladder. However, there are ways to get to the top of the corporate ladder without climbing it. For example, Larry and Sergei didn't seem like psychopaths. Neither did Omar Bose. Many other founders aren't. Ditto for most processes with extreme selective pressures (e.g. most senator, PoTUS, many elite academics, elite law firm partner, etc.). People win by optimizing to the process. People with ethics, or who don't cheat, don't win. There are exceptions, but they're in the minority. For example, if you are an extreme genius or stumble on a major breakthrough, in science, and don't have it stolen by a psychopath. You got downvoted, so I'll provide two references: * Power by Pfeffer * Dictator's Handbook by Bruce Bueno de Mesquita Very different takes, but same general conclusion. Both are respected academics at Stanford and NYU, respectively, with de Mesquita being far more respected, and an excellent read. Power is a bit less so
ThrowawayR2 2y ago
> "What's been amazing to me is how skin-deep the stated values across the tech industry were." The whole "Don't be evil" brouhaha several years ago didn't clue people in? It was marketing fluff from the beginning but it should have been obvious even to the most oblivious that it was marketing fluff by the time it was removed.
- frognumber 2y ago
  It wasn't marketing fluff at the beginning. Young Google was a uniquely ethical organization. I think the problem has been how you sustain that culture. That's a deep problem. Checks-and-balances are hard, and Google had none. Ergo, it went from good to evil.

Analemma_ 2y ago

It's more-or-less impossible to become a sufficiently-senior executive at a sufficiently-large company without being a psychopath. You should have a baseline assumption that all executives at large corporations have no values whatsoever beyond doing what benefits them personally, you'll be a lot less surprised at their behavior if you do.

MrMcCall 2y ago
What about large tech funding orgs? ;-)
- frognumber 2y ago
  Depends on how they got there. It's in the selection process. Anything with competition about 1000:1 leads to cheating and psychopathic behavior. Anything below 1:4 doesn't. Iterated 1:4 does again.
frognumber 2y ago
That's generally my assumption, but with some exceptions. What selects for psychopaths is the process of climbing the corporate ladder. However, there are ways to get to the top of the corporate ladder without climbing it. For example, Larry and Sergei didn't seem like psychopaths. Neither did Omar Bose. Many other founders aren't. Ditto for most processes with extreme selective pressures (e.g. most senator, PoTUS, many elite academics, elite law firm partner, etc.). People win by optimizing to the process. People with ethics, or who don't cheat, don't win. There are exceptions, but they're in the minority. For example, if you are an extreme genius or stumble on a major breakthrough, in science, and don't have it stolen by a psychopath. You got downvoted, so I'll provide two references: * Power by Pfeffer * Dictator's Handbook by Bruce Bueno de Mesquita Very different takes, but same general conclusion. Both are respected academics at Stanford and NYU, respectively, with de Mesquita being far more respected, and an excellent read. Power is a bit less so

ThrowawayR2 2y ago

> "What's been amazing to me is how skin-deep the stated values across the tech industry were." The whole "Don't be evil" brouhaha several years ago didn't clue people in? It was marketing fluff from the beginning but it should have been obvious even to the most oblivious that it was marketing fluff by the time it was removed.

frognumber 2y ago
It wasn't marketing fluff at the beginning. Young Google was a uniquely ethical organization. I think the problem has been how you sustain that culture. That's a deep problem. Checks-and-balances are hard, and Google had none. Ergo, it went from good to evil.