[YossarianFrPrez]

Reactions to this are a bit curious. It's a satirical comment on how (presumably) initially well-intentioned younger founder-types get swept up in / by perverse incentives. The implication is that younger people who are still figuring out who they are and coming into their own may be more susceptible to these kinds of incentive traps.

The first section that showcases the fraud that has been committed is something I have no problem with, just as I have no issue with web3isgoinggreat.com. The "at risk" section is based on a mathematical/algorithmic joke. This is explained by the "methodology" section below it, which makes it clear that the equation used to calculate "risk" here is not entirely unlike the Drake equation for the probability of extra-terrestrial life.[1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation

[estearum]

Eh, I think selection effects are more prevalent than an earnest good faith actor who got swept up into perverse incentives.

Forbes 30u30 is a clarion call for the most ambitiously Machiavellian among us.

They’re not subject to any different incentives than the rest of us. But they’d certainly have a higher rate of sociopaths and more garden variety Machiavellis than genpop.

[jacquesm]

That + AH or SB. Those are the kiss of death, especially when combined for the 30u30.

[sillysaurusx]

I was curious to pin down the definition of Machiavellian:

> Manipulation & Deceit: Using charm, lies, and calculated moves to influence others.

> Lack of Empathy: A cold, detached, and unemotional demeanor that disregards the feelings of others.

> Strategic Long-Term Planning: Unlike impulsive psychopaths, high-Machs are patient, planning, and can delay gratification to ensure success.

> Cynical Worldview: Believing that people are inherently weak, untrustworthy, and that "the ends justify the means".

> Low Affect: Possessing limited emotional experience, often leading to a detached, "puppet-master" role rather than seeking the spotlight.

The only traits that seem bad are the lying and lack of empathy. The rest seem neutral (low emotional experience is something we hackers tend to identify with), sensible (random people tend to be untrustworthy), or admirable (delayed gratification).

Using charm and calculated moves to influence others isn’t a bad thing. It’s the basis of flattery.

I wish there was a positive version of Machiavellian which cut the lies and lack of empathy. Those are genuinely bad.

[fc417fc802]

> Using charm and calculated moves to influence others isn’t a bad thing. It’s the basis of flattery.

Flattery doesn't have to be calculated.

As to calculated moves, distinct things can fit the same labels. Intent, context, and execution are all important.

[lostmsu]

I would argue that flattery without calculation is just poorly calculated flattery.

Same applies to many other traits in the list. Low achievements people lie right and left just as well. Are cynical when convenient, yada yada.

Basically, the list says that these 30s are just like an average Joe, but smart. Which should be a surprise to no one.

[estearum]

No, because smart people realize they are playing an iterated game and that behaving in a way that people identify as Machiavellian is actually suboptimal in the long run.

So they're smart enough to be calculated and stupid enough not to be so calculated that they look untrustworthy.

[lostmsu]

> No, because smart people realize they are playing an iterated game and that behaving in a way that people identify as Machiavellian is actually suboptimal in the long run.

Even if you are right coincidentally (which I wouldn't be so sure about), that's still poor argument assuming you realize your belief in what optimal strategy is what it is - just an educated guess.

[fc417fc802]

They're only the same thing if you ignore intent.

Not everyone lies or is cynical when convenient. Skill, rate of success, and personal ethics are all orthogonal concepts.

Above all, intent matters. I do not treat someone who I perceive to be manipulative the same as I would other people.

[lostmsu]

> all orthogonal concepts

That's my point exactly. I just also assume the % of liars in 30s is the same as in general population by default.

[storus]

30u30 are an artifact of networking not directly Machiavellianism/sociopathy; pals promote them (often as children of their pals) to the list.

[estearum]

You don't think Machiavellianism would be overrepresented in a group selected in this way?

[storus]

Indirectly; U30 are typically propelled by their parents who might be well-connected Machiavellian or sociopathic.

[estearum]

So in other words you'd expect Machiavellianism and sociopathy to be overrepresented in 30u30

[rdevilla]

It can be very difficult to say no to these incentives when they are presented.

[nickvec]

Committing fraud is never justified.

[rdevilla]

Nobody said that it was.

[refulgentis]

I think it’s because it’s slightly obvious it was vibe(coded && written).

Starts looking like low effort libel, punching down, more than some clever joke x a statistics exercise

Put another way: the Drake equation, this ain’t.

[afavour]

Punching down? To companies worth twenties of billions of dollars?

The impulse to label everything a “startup” and thus a smolbean little guy is fascinating.

[refulgentis]

Maybe you missed the bottom section? There's plenty of comments taking umbrage at it.

Alternatively, you think it's okay to make up stuff about young people because they got a seed round. That's stock-human behavior but it's not rational or kind.

[afavour]

I was specifically thinking of Cursor when I said “companies with twenty billion dollar valuations”.

My point, as I think was clear, was that criticising the founders of billion dollar companies via satire is not “punching down” by any means. Nor is it libel. You are throwing words around without meaning.

(and “young people”, there we go with the smolbean stuff again. If they’re too young to face criticism then they’re too young to be CEOs of billion dollar companies. You can’t have it both ways)

[refulgentis]

"Punching down" was about the watchlist section, not Cursor. You brought up Cursor, I didn't, and only after the fact.

"There we go with the smolbean stuff again": I never said that or anything like it. You're putting an argument in my mouth and then swatting it down. Twice now.

"If they're too young for criticism they're too young to be CEOs of billion dollar companies. You can't have it both ways." Scroll the watchlist. Most of those people aren't running billion dollar companies. That's the whole point. I definitely agree not all CEOs are good people and I generally agree the irrational argument all CEOs no matter of age are more likely to be net-destructive to society. That's the most extreme version of what you're saying, and we likely agree on it.

So we agree the conduct towards Cursor, and whatever other companies you want to name, is fair game. The only question is whether that extends to literally everyone on the list. I don't think it does. That's it.

[DetroitThrow]

You misunderstand what "punching down" or "libel" mean.

[Blackthorn]

Punching down??? These people are silicon valley founders.