[smokel]

> I certainly didn't judge them because they are just playing the game.

Please do judge them for being parasitical. They might seem successful by certain measures, like the amount of money they make, but I for one simply dislike it when people only think about themselves.

As a society, we should be more cautious about narcissism and similar behaviors. Also, in the long run, this kind of behaviour makes them an annoying person at parties.

[danielmarkbruce]

There is an implication that passionate weirdos are good by nature. You either add value in the world or you don't. A passionate, strange actor or musician who continues trying to "make it" who isn't good enough to be entertaining is a parasite and/or narcissist. A plumber who is doing the job purely for money is a value add (assuming they aren't ripping people off) - and they are playing the game - the money for work game.

[smokel]

I'm not a plumber, but I think the analogy would require the plumber to be strategical about every job they take on. Within a few months, our plumber would only be plumbing for millionaires, installing golden faucets at extreme price points. I would then stop befriending said plumber.

[danielmarkbruce]

You have a friend who is a plumber, and he figures a way to serve customers with money at high price points with an honest service, and you kick him to the curb?

[smokel]

Extreme price points, not honest service. It's all fairly hypothetical. I don 't know exactly where you'd like the discussion to go. In reality things are always more complicated. I just think that it is a generally a good idea to call out people on anti-social behavior. When, where and how to exactly do that differs in every situation.

[idiotsecant]

This take is simply wrong in a way that I would normally just sigh and move on, but it's such a privileged HN typical pov that I feel like I need to address it. If a plumber did plumbing specifically because someone needed it and he would be paid, would you call them a narcissist? If a gardener built a garden how their customer wanted would you call them a narcissist? Most of the world doesn't get to float around in a sea of VC money doing whatever feels good. They find a need, address it, and get to live another day. Productively addressing what other people need and making money from it isn't narcissism, it's productivity.

[lkey]

You are comparing a skilled trade that commands ~100k annual compensation to positions that have recently commanded 100 million dollars in compensation upon signing, no immediate productivity required, as this talent denial is considered strategic.

You consider the person who expects eventual ethical behavior from people that have 'won' capitalism (never have to labour again) to be privileged.

[bradleyjg]

but I for one simply dislike it when people only think about themselves

The key word there is only. Nothing in the post you suggested only. You have one vignette about one facet of this guy’s life.

I really dislike the resurgence in Puritanism.

[smokel]

Please don't read too much into this single word. The comment above mentioned "nearly every ounce of energy they expended on research was strategic", and I was keeping that in mind while writing my remark.

Please read my sibling comment where I expand a bit on what I meant to say.

[what-the-grump]

But this is in itself selfish right?

You dislike them because they don’t benefit you indirectly by benefiting society at large.

The incentive structure is wrong, incentivizing things that benefit society would be the solution not judging those that exist in the current system by pretending altruism is somehow not part of the same game.

[smokel]

I agree that the system itself is dysfunctional, and I understand the argument that individuals are shaped or even constrained by it. However, in this case, we are talking about people who are both exceptionally intelligent and materially secure. I think it's reasonable to expect such individuals to feel some moral responsibility to use their abilities for broader good.

As for whether that expectation is "selfish" on my part, I think that question has been debated for centuries in ethics, and I'm quite comfortable landing on the side that says not all disapproval is self-interest. In my own case, I'm not benefiting much either :)

[what-the-grump]

I just don't think so, these exceptionally intelligent people are masters at pattern recognition, logic, hyper-focus, task completion in a field. Every single thing will tell them don't go against the flow, don't stick your neck out, don't be a hero, don't take on risk. Or you will end up nailed to a cross.

To me this is an insane position to take or to expect from anyone, its some just world fallacy thing perpetuated by too much Hollywood.

I am going to flip the script for a minute. I am a killer, driver, pilot, mechanic one the best ones out there, I beat the game, I won. So let me just stop and change the world, for what?

[godelski]

  > Every single thing will tell them don't go against the flow, don't stick your neck out, don't be a hero, don't take on risk. Or you will end up nailed to a cross.

Except the situation is more like monkeys and a ladder. The ones "nailing them to the cross" are the same ones in those positions. This is the same logic as "life was tough for me, so life should be tough for you." It's idiotic!

  > So let me just stop and change the world, for what?

This is some real "fuck you, I got mine" attitude. Pulling the ladder up behind you.

We have a long history in science of seeing that sticking your neck out, taking risks, and being different are successful tools to progressing science[0]. Why? Because you can't make paradigm shifts by maintaining the current paradigm. We've also seen that this behavior is frequently combated by established players. Why? Because of the same attitude, ego.

So we've created this weird system where we tell people to think different and then punish them for doing so. Yeah, people are upset about it. I find that unsurprising. So yeah, fuck you, stop pulling the ladder up behind you. You're talking as if they just leave the ladder alone, but these are the same people who end up reviewing papers, grants, and are thus the gatekeepers of progress. Their success gives them control of the ladders and they make the rules.

[0] Galileo, Darwin, Gauss, Kepler, Einstein, and Turing are not the only members of this large club. Even more recently we have Karikó who ended up getting the 2023 Nobel prize in Medicine and Akerlof, Spence, Stiglitz who got the 2001 Nobel prize in economics for their rejected work. This seems to even be more common among Nobel laureates!

[Eisenstein]

There is a difference between being selfish in the sense that you want others to contribute back to the society that we are all part of, and being selfish in the sense that you want to compete for exclusive rewards.

You can call this difference whatever you want, don't pretend that they are morally or effectively equivalent.

[esafak]

Reciprocal altruism, and inclusive fitness.

[kakacik]

Selfish for the long term future and prosperity of mankind? Thats some good selfishness all right.