3 ms·

Saying you're right about which referrals matter (which I don't accept, but I'll play along): you're presuming that not only are these people playing the same g

Saying you're right about which referrals matter (which I don't accept, but I'll play along): you're presuming that not only are these people playing the same game but they're willing to help along someone else who they know has no interests but their own at heart. Why? Why would they want to help you along? They burn capital referring you, they burn even more when you make a mess of things. When you leave a burning husk behind everywhere you go your own network of people who trust you is minimal, so you're not an asset to have around them. Why would they want to help you instead of finding people to con who can actually be an asset to them? In this entirely self-centered world you've put together, what's in it for them?

lmm 2y ago
> you're presuming that not only are these people playing the same game but they're willing to help along someone else who they know has no interests but their own at heart. Referring people for no other reason than that you know them works great, since it will implicitly happen in reverse too. See e.g. the Freemasons. > They burn capital referring you? They burn capital referring you, they burn even more when you make a mess of things. They burn capital if hiring you seems like a failure, they win if it seems like a success. That means your incentives are aligned. No-one gets dinged for hiring someone who implemented a couple of buzzwords, left after a couple of years for a higher position elsewhere (or got promoted into management), and then the project they were on failed a few years further down the line for unrelated reasons. Quite the opposite.