6 ms·

Key question: did Ironport succeed in spite of his family sacrifice, or because of it? It's not fair to recommend spending more time with the family without ad

by johnrob 13y ago

Key question: did Ironport succeed in spite of his family sacrifice, or because of it? It's not fair to recommend spending more time with the family without addressing what the consequences would have been.

npc 13y ago
No matter what, you're always going to be at a disadvantage to someone who is willing to sacrifice more than you, whether that be health or family or anything else. I liked the article but it completely danced around the obvious conclusion which is, "maintaining a healthy relationship with your family is going to cost you time and energy which is going to at least somewhat lessen your chances of success and you have to be okay with that." Edit: I've realized that my last sentence was somewhat ambiguous, I want to make it clear that I in no way support neglecting your family for a chance at economic success. When I said you have to be okay with it, I meant being okay with the risk of failing.
- michaelochurch 13y ago
  No matter what, you're always going to be at a disadvantage to someone who is willing to sacrifice more than you, whether that be health or family or anything else. Not always. If you're in a line of work where your own competence matters, sacrificing your health or family life will burn you. It doesn't take long. The relevant issue is that most white-collar workers (even programmers in many dysfunctional organizations) are private-sector social climbers by trade and practice, and competence matters a lot less than image for them. If appearance matters more than capability, extreme sacrifice can help you.
  - npc 13y ago
    >willing There was an important word there that you seemed to miss. I didn't say that he who sacrifices more will always win, but they do have more options available to them, so to speak. Please don't think I'm advocating sacrificing health and family in the name of success, far from it. I just don't like this post facto moralizing that glosses over the difficulty of choosing between working late on something that might be critical to the success of your enterprise and going home to see your wife and kids.
    - md224 13y ago
      I think this discussion highlights something very important about any Darwinian system, be it inter-species rivalry or free market competition: evolution has no higher ideals. Whatever is best at domination will dominate; whatever is best at spreading will spread. People put so much faith in evolutionary processes as if they believe that evolution honors some kind of Platonic ideal. Evolution is a cold process, and it does not give a shit about you or anything you hold dear, unless what you hold dear is conducive to dominance in the specific arena under discussion. Not to say natural selection is bad or good... I'm just pointing out that it's a value-neutral process, and I think it's a good idea to remember that, especially when we get the urge to derive norms of behavior from evolutionary evidence.
- xal 13y ago
  That's nonsense. There are 5 creative hours in the day if you are generous. Some companies are build so poorly that it takes staff 12 hours of being present to access those but that's the failing of these businesses and they will likely die. There are two solutions to the issue, avoid the issue and hire people crazy enough to put up with the hours or actually build a great company without the flaw. First one is way easier and seems to be working in places like NYC and Silicon Valley, it's really a pity.
Edmond 13y ago
Yep..hindsight is always 20/20 when looking through the rose-colored glasses of success. Hope this doesn't give wannabe-founders the impression that they can launch a startup, succeed, all while keeping home life healthy. When you launch a start-up with significant family commitments one of these outcomes is most likely : relationship and business both fail, one fails the other succeeds...if you have nice VC-cushion or you are already wealthy then of course you can have it both ways.
- michaelochurch 13y ago
  I don't know why you were downvoted. This is something I hate about rich people. You're not a better person because you can take 8 weeks off each year and therefore get to actually know your kids. You're just luckier. Enjoy being rich, go ahead, but don't pretend it actually makes you a better person. Making better choices isn't as meaningful when life hands you all good options and few bad ones. It's like the rich girl in college who drinks and sluts it in 43 countries before freshman year but insists that, because of her superior travel, she's somehow superior to the middle-class schlub who didn't leave New Hampshire until he went to college. Until you're 25 or so, being well-traveled is an accomplishment of the parents, not the person. (And after 25, no one really brags about it.)
  - ItendToDisagree 13y ago
    >enjoy being rich Or you could enjoy getting to know your kids. Its not really an either or sort of thing. You could not be rich and spend time with our kids. Unless of course you are willing to sacrifice that to try and become rich, thus closing the circle, trying to become the thing you talk about hating. Agreed that privilege begets privilege without effort. But I really do not think that getting to actually know your kids is something only the wealthy can do.

by johnrob 13y ago

npc 13y ago

No matter what, you're always going to be at a disadvantage to someone who is willing to sacrifice more than you, whether that be health or family or anything else. I liked the article but it completely danced around the obvious conclusion which is, "maintaining a healthy relationship with your family is going to cost you time and energy which is going to at least somewhat lessen your chances of success and you have to be okay with that." Edit: I've realized that my last sentence was somewhat ambiguous, I want to make it clear that I in no way support neglecting your family for a chance at economic success. When I said you have to be okay with it, I meant being okay with the risk of failing.

michaelochurch 13y ago
No matter what, you're always going to be at a disadvantage to someone who is willing to sacrifice more than you, whether that be health or family or anything else. Not always. If you're in a line of work where your own competence matters, sacrificing your health or family life will burn you. It doesn't take long. The relevant issue is that most white-collar workers (even programmers in many dysfunctional organizations) are private-sector social climbers by trade and practice, and competence matters a lot less than image for them. If appearance matters more than capability, extreme sacrifice can help you.
- npc 13y ago
  >willing There was an important word there that you seemed to miss. I didn't say that he who sacrifices more will always win, but they do have more options available to them, so to speak. Please don't think I'm advocating sacrificing health and family in the name of success, far from it. I just don't like this post facto moralizing that glosses over the difficulty of choosing between working late on something that might be critical to the success of your enterprise and going home to see your wife and kids.
  - md224 13y ago
    I think this discussion highlights something very important about any Darwinian system, be it inter-species rivalry or free market competition: evolution has no higher ideals. Whatever is best at domination will dominate; whatever is best at spreading will spread. People put so much faith in evolutionary processes as if they believe that evolution honors some kind of Platonic ideal. Evolution is a cold process, and it does not give a shit about you or anything you hold dear, unless what you hold dear is conducive to dominance in the specific arena under discussion. Not to say natural selection is bad or good... I'm just pointing out that it's a value-neutral process, and I think it's a good idea to remember that, especially when we get the urge to derive norms of behavior from evolutionary evidence.
xal 13y ago
That's nonsense. There are 5 creative hours in the day if you are generous. Some companies are build so poorly that it takes staff 12 hours of being present to access those but that's the failing of these businesses and they will likely die. There are two solutions to the issue, avoid the issue and hire people crazy enough to put up with the hours or actually build a great company without the flaw. First one is way easier and seems to be working in places like NYC and Silicon Valley, it's really a pity.

Edmond 13y ago

Yep..hindsight is always 20/20 when looking through the rose-colored glasses of success. Hope this doesn't give wannabe-founders the impression that they can launch a startup, succeed, all while keeping home life healthy. When you launch a start-up with significant family commitments one of these outcomes is most likely : relationship and business both fail, one fails the other succeeds...if you have nice VC-cushion or you are already wealthy then of course you can have it both ways.

michaelochurch 13y ago
I don't know why you were downvoted. This is something I hate about rich people. You're not a better person because you can take 8 weeks off each year and therefore get to actually know your kids. You're just luckier. Enjoy being rich, go ahead, but don't pretend it actually makes you a better person. Making better choices isn't as meaningful when life hands you all good options and few bad ones. It's like the rich girl in college who drinks and sluts it in 43 countries before freshman year but insists that, because of her superior travel, she's somehow superior to the middle-class schlub who didn't leave New Hampshire until he went to college. Until you're 25 or so, being well-traveled is an accomplishment of the parents, not the person. (And after 25, no one really brags about it.)
- ItendToDisagree 13y ago
  >enjoy being rich Or you could enjoy getting to know your kids. Its not really an either or sort of thing. You could not be rich and spend time with our kids. Unless of course you are willing to sacrifice that to try and become rich, thus closing the circle, trying to become the thing you talk about hating. Agreed that privilege begets privilege without effort. But I really do not think that getting to actually know your kids is something only the wealthy can do.