[ImPostingOnHN]

Maybe in yours?

Someone can want a thing, even very badly, without wanting to put in the work for it.

Conversely, someone can work very hard for something they do not want.

The linkage between wanting a thing and wanting to do the work to get it is not absolute, or necessary there at all.

[s3r3nity]

Did they stop teaching "actions speak louder than words" in schools, or something?

[dylan604]

"Someone can want a thing, even very badly, without wanting to put in the work for it."

Pretty much the impetus behind a lot of theft. Sure, there's thieving because people can't afford food, but that's all theft. There's theft because they are addicts and don't want to sober up long enough to earn money, so they still things. There's others that can't afford something so rather than saving for it, they just take it.

[dpoloncsak]

Is 'the work' not reflected in 'consequences' in terms of theft?

I'm not sure how to convey this idea properly...Can't you view the repercussions of theft (Legal action, distrust, etc) as 'work' being put in? Sure, it's a different kind of work, but while I have a lack of motivation to want to work to buy a Lambo as I find them not worth the value, I also have a lack of motivation to steal a Lambo as I find it not worth the consequences.

[dylan604]

In normal society, people earn money within the legal confines of the society they are in. If you're a thief and trying to skirt that normal "earning of money", which is what normal people equate to "work", your work is scheming a plan to obtain the item without getting caught and possibly how to fence the item for money if you're not just using the item directly.

Equating "work" as the repercussions is looking at things in strange way. That's just punishment for "working" outside of the legal confines of society.

[ImPostingOnHN]

I understand what you are saying but nonetheless struggle to view the possibility of maybe getting caught and then maybe getting punished, as "work". It (the abstract concept of something possibly happening) fits into none of the definitions of "work" I have heard. Moreover, many crimes are committed without the perpetrator even thinking of the consequences.

Consider an alternative viewpoint: rather than contorting the definition of "work" in such a way and convincing everyone to accept the new definition, we might instead be content saying "someone can want a thing, even very badly, without wanting to put in the work for it."

[dpoloncsak]

Oh, I'm with you mate, I'm not trying to die on a hill over here re-defining 'work'. I was just looking from a more esoteric view, "Do you count the risk of consequences as potential effort" I think is at least more proper phrasing.

[DANmode]

“Effort” is a great wordchoice.

[ImPostingOnHN]

Did they start teaching that all idioms are always true without nuance in schools, or something?

[danso]

> Someone can want a thing, even very badly, without wanting to put in the work for it.

Generally, such highly-motivated people end up being thieves and grifters

[CryptoBanker]

There’s a difference between being interested in getting good at something and being good at something

[ImPostingOnHN]

Exactly. Just because you're not good at something doesn't mean you don't want to be.

[timacles]

Wanting and being interested are not things in physical reality. We are also talking about an organization and not some aspiring teenager.

If someone wants something , the only measure of their interest and desire is how much resources and time they allocate to it. We’re not measuring Sam Altmans deepest desires and fantasies here

[darthoctopus]

wanting to be good at something is not exactly the same as being interested in getting good at something, which carries the additional, nuanced, connotation of investment (or willingness to invest) towards this goal.

e.g. many people want to live an active healthy lifestyle, but fewer are actually interested in doing so.

[ImPostingOnHN]

> wanting to be good at something is not exactly the same as being interested in getting good at something

Are you sure? I've never heard of that difference. To be sure, I checked the definitions for each, and could find no such distinction. Maybe you could provide me with better sources than the ones I found?