>Perhaps Simon Sinek is right, but after reading the article, you are no closer to understanding why he thinks he's right than you were before.
What do you know, the top comment is a pseudo-intellectual tear down of an article, asking for evidence and proof, admitting that the original article wasn't even read to completion, but offering plenty of criticism.
>Perhaps Simon Sinek is right, but after reading the article, you are no closer to understanding why he thinks he's right than you were before.
Guess what? This is a book excerpt. Maybe if you want some answers and notes you can buy and read the book? Of course, that would require you to read and synthesize something for longer than 5 minutes, fighting the urge to show how smart you are by instantly going to an internet message board to ask for line-by-line bibliographical references.
The fact that this community holds itself in such esteem is hilarious. Reddit redux.
> What do you know, the top comment is a pseudo-intellectual tear down of an article, asking for evidence and proof, admitting that the original article wasn't even read to completion, but offering plenty of criticism.
What I said:
> I tried to read this all the way to the end but I wasn't quite able to do it in a single round.
So actually, yes, I did read it to completion. Some of the paragraphs I read, well, several times. I just gave in to the urge of angrily closing the browser tab once or twice, before I forced myself to go through the whole thing.
> Guess what? This is a book excerpt. Maybe if you want some answers and notes you can buy and read the book?
I don't see how this changes my criticism of the material. Do you mean to say that the book contains, say, a list of all the New Jersey accountants who noticed something weird about the patterns in which people pay taxes?
> Of course, that would require you to read and synthesize something for longer than 5 minutes, fighting the urge to show how smart you are by instantly going to an internet message board to ask for line-by-line bibliographical references.
This is fairly presumptuous of my ability to read, coming from someone who hasn't carefully read even the first line of my reply :-).
I mean you really can't get any worse than using something like this to support your point:
"A New Jersey-based accountant told me that he sees a clear difference between his older clients and his younger ones. “My older clients want to work within the confines of the tax code to do what is fair,” he explained. “They are willing to simply pay the tax they owe"
In court that is "hearsay" evidence. It's not even coming from someone who is an accountant who is writing the book but someone just talking to the accountant. For all we know the accountant said that at a party after having 3 drinks. Separately, from my experience with people of the older generation I have definitely not found that to be the case. Not to mention that even that would vary by ethnic group, geography and I'm sure many other factors.
Have an upvote. HN comments have long been a ghetto of a different kind. They're as constructive as YouTube comments, only instead of "ur a fagot", it's all "Not peer-reviewed, replicated, statistically rigorous science!"
I don't have a problem with opinions that are not based on peer-reviewed, replicated, statistically-rigorous science (not that there's any other kind of it). What I do have a problem with are opinions expressed as if they were scientific opinions, but are in fact thinly-veiled prejudices.
If someone claimed Jews are formed as thieves by their culture because he knows a guy from San Diego whose Jewish clients are always behind on their payment, he'd rightfully be labeled not only as racist, but also as stupid, and with good reason. I see no reason to treat someone who claims, as a proof that people born in a certain period of time are more egotistic than others, the fact that an accountant told him so, any differently. That's not only as insulting as racist pseudo-science, it's as idiotic as racist pseudoscience.
There is probably sufficient truth to find among those as well, perhaps, but in my opinion, it's intellectually lazy.
>lots of research indicates that the creative peak happens from 20-40 or so
Is that a social or physiological phenomenon?
I always assumed the great thinkers became less prolific as they voluntarily moved into other stages of life, like finding a mate and starting a family, and hence had less time to commit to intellectual pursuits.
>Adam Curtis is a prime example of what he is complaining about.
Adam Curtis has produced some of the best documentaries I've ever seen.
It's like people in this thread can't appreciate art for what it is. Or that some of the topics here have been determined in absolute, and aren't open to interpretation, philosophizing or opinion.
Malcolm Gladwell? Junk. Adam Curtis? Junk. Is nothing worth reading or watching unless it's an unstylized list of facts?
I don't know about you, but all I ask from my personal entertainment are "things to think about".
>but interest rates are currently so low that it's almost impossible to get escape velocity through low risk investments.
This period is not unique in this regard. Interest rate is always risk-related. There may been times of higher absolute rates on things like savings accounts, but the real returns and opportunity costs were similar.
What I'm saying is, there are plenty of investment opportunities; the stock market just rose almost 30% in 2013.
>but thanks to the IPO we will never have any insight into that. They have to make up numbers like that, or they lose money.
Do you really believe that private companies are more forth-coming with information than public companies? Do you read 10-Qs?
Being public makes a company accountable to shareholders for just such information. Withholding it, or worse fabricating it, isn't the status quo with a public company. It results in shareholder lawsuits.
Well, rapist is easy. But me and you may have very different ideas as what constitutes a "sexist". That's the crux of the problem; that's what causes men to walk on eggshells.
>it would be awesome if you gave women the benefit of the doubt because we're not all this way
Most people are not willing to risk their job to find out.
"Most people are not willing to risk their job to find out."
And that's the part that makes me sad about all of this. People are all about "Consider the woman's feelings here!" but no one wants to consider how men feel about it because they're "privileged."
>Just because we're in pg's house, it doesn't mean we have to treat him like a god
I'll be the first to agree with this, but I don't believe the guy owes anything to anyone. This idea that he should go out of his way to up-end an interview process to appease the writers of a hack-job and other whiners might be PC, but it's ludicrous.
My advice to PG: Leave it for the next person. If there is systematic sexism in tech incubators, that means there's economic profit to be made by targeting female founders. Someone else should hop to it!
The book is "When Genius Failed", and though it's been a a while since I've read it, I don't recall either of the Nobel Prize winners (nor Merriwhether, for that matter) participating in any "frat-like" behaviour.
Not everyone who works at a hedge fund comes from the cast of Boiler Room. Talk about painting people with the same brush...
I read the book, read the part about the way they carried on at Salomon Brothers, very frat like without the wild parties & shots. Nobody labelled the Hedge Fund industry as boiler room types, especially since i spent 4yrs in the industry on the stat arb side.
What do you know, the top comment is a pseudo-intellectual tear down of an article, asking for evidence and proof, admitting that the original article wasn't even read to completion, but offering plenty of criticism.
>Perhaps Simon Sinek is right, but after reading the article, you are no closer to understanding why he thinks he's right than you were before.
Guess what? This is a book excerpt. Maybe if you want some answers and notes you can buy and read the book? Of course, that would require you to read and synthesize something for longer than 5 minutes, fighting the urge to show how smart you are by instantly going to an internet message board to ask for line-by-line bibliographical references.
The fact that this community holds itself in such esteem is hilarious. Reddit redux.