Risk Everything (2007)(web.archive.org)
web.archive.org
Risk Everything (2007)
http://web.archive.org/web/20150311145210/https://gigaom.com/2007/08/07/risk-everything/
141 comments
There seem to be quite a lot of people who really need to believe that luck plays at best a minor role in (their) success for their sense of identity to remain intact, and who get incredibly defensive when this notion is challenged.
I guess in daily life it's a useful self-delusion. A mostly harmless belief that gets them through the day while being obviously false: if you're born in the middle class in a developed economy in the modern day, you're likely to be vastly more lucky than, say, 99% of all people who have ever existed so far.
I guess in daily life it's a useful self-delusion. A mostly harmless belief that gets them through the day while being obviously false: if you're born in the middle class in a developed economy in the modern day, you're likely to be vastly more lucky than, say, 99% of all people who have ever existed so far.
People always want to ascribe the smallest slice of pie in luck, so that they get praise for what they achieve. I broke friendships with people who insisted that it wasn't their country's job market that had more opportunities for self-taughts to start their career, but it was their hard work and free will that made them chase the opportunities, which is akin to saying it wasn't the door that was unlocked it was my legs that helped me walk to the door.
Also, I cannot get myself to imagine that the captain of the ship had a plan to have 40 people drifting in the chance that they find someone else to approach them for restocking, and if that's the kind of captain we want more of I'm out.
Also, I cannot get myself to imagine that the captain of the ship had a plan to have 40 people drifting in the chance that they find someone else to approach them for restocking, and if that's the kind of captain we want more of I'm out.
Yeah, even from his perspective it's survivorship bias. The sailboat captains that got jumped by a dinghy full of AK47 wielding pirates aren't around to write deluded articles.
Luck can present you an opportunity but it is still up to the individual to make most of it.
It’s easy to take this observation in literal terms. Most of the comments point to the danger of “risking everything (financially)” and of course there’s a potential stupidity in that.
Reframed as psychologically risking everything is perhaps a more resonant alternative view. What this means is the notion that “you’re all in”, all of you. That your entire being is at risk. Sports perhaps the easiest illustration, where your entire idea of person is at risk. That’s when the dopamine flies along with the adrenaline. It’s often why you see huge dysfunction in the hyper successful, because the drive is so strong. It’s why an outsized proportion of UK Prime Ministers for example had lost a parent young.
There’s a danger in narrowly framing risking everything. As the material provides far less of a drive than the psychological. It’s also much scarier to put your whole self at risk.
Elon getting as far as away possible (Mars) from his possibly quite mad father, is perhaps a much stronger incentive/drive than making a few more billion.
As to whether it’s desirable, well that’s surely another question altogether.
Reframed as psychologically risking everything is perhaps a more resonant alternative view. What this means is the notion that “you’re all in”, all of you. That your entire being is at risk. Sports perhaps the easiest illustration, where your entire idea of person is at risk. That’s when the dopamine flies along with the adrenaline. It’s often why you see huge dysfunction in the hyper successful, because the drive is so strong. It’s why an outsized proportion of UK Prime Ministers for example had lost a parent young.
There’s a danger in narrowly framing risking everything. As the material provides far less of a drive than the psychological. It’s also much scarier to put your whole self at risk.
Elon getting as far as away possible (Mars) from his possibly quite mad father, is perhaps a much stronger incentive/drive than making a few more billion.
As to whether it’s desirable, well that’s surely another question altogether.
If I properly understand, I agree.
A all-in attempt to reframe life based on self-awareness and what’s not right/what’s really wanted can be a rewarding experience when it’s properly hedged. I think doing it consistently in small and large ways is a good way to continually develop as a person as middle and old age set in. The world is a big place and I think the point gets missed if the track you’re born into is the track you die in. Attempting these track changes and ideally pulling them off is a great way to understand the power of personal agency and where self-identity comes from.
Hedging the risks of this generally means clear plans for financial stability during the change, and generally accepting and planning for the consequences of the change. It’s hard to <learn to code, move abroad, w/e> when you can’t pay rent.
I think people who wade into attempting this likely fail due to not being able to cover their hedges and an bit of bad luck. Or, they are just born into the wrong zip code and the real-life risks of a change are too much to overcome or they have very narrow paths with tough trade offs (joining the military or w/e).
So, all that said, putting your life orientation and self-identity at risk once in a while and expanding the territory is a good thing I think.
A all-in attempt to reframe life based on self-awareness and what’s not right/what’s really wanted can be a rewarding experience when it’s properly hedged. I think doing it consistently in small and large ways is a good way to continually develop as a person as middle and old age set in. The world is a big place and I think the point gets missed if the track you’re born into is the track you die in. Attempting these track changes and ideally pulling them off is a great way to understand the power of personal agency and where self-identity comes from.
Hedging the risks of this generally means clear plans for financial stability during the change, and generally accepting and planning for the consequences of the change. It’s hard to <learn to code, move abroad, w/e> when you can’t pay rent.
I think people who wade into attempting this likely fail due to not being able to cover their hedges and an bit of bad luck. Or, they are just born into the wrong zip code and the real-life risks of a change are too much to overcome or they have very narrow paths with tough trade offs (joining the military or w/e).
So, all that said, putting your life orientation and self-identity at risk once in a while and expanding the territory is a good thing I think.
"That your entire being is at risk."
What happens when you lose?
P.S. It's not a risk if you can't lose.
What happens when you lose?
P.S. It's not a risk if you can't lose.
I see a problem with risking everything that is if your goal is to either make it to the top or make it to the bottom, then risking it all is the way to go. Yet, that’s a poor long-term strategy. Eventually risk will realize and you’ll lose it all.
Your statement sort of assumes the worst case has negative infinity utility. Which, granted, is usually how economists model human behaviour, but perhaps not how humans behave in practise. (If death truly had negative infinity utility, it would overpower the benefit of everything and we couldn't do anything.)
I think it is more about the "risk of ruin" than infinities.
Here is the idea: you go in a casino with $1000, that's your self-imposed limit, you will not die if you lose it, but it means you will stop playing, and you will have no way to recover from your losses, time to go home. That's what ruin is.
And this is something you have to take into account. For example, imagine you find a game where you have 50% chance of losing your bet, and 50% of winning your bet +2%. You can bet up to $1000. In theory, you get the best expectancy ($10) if you play $1000, but since it is your limit, you actually have a 50% chance of losing it all with no other chance to play this profitable game again, the result is you can expect to leave the casino poorer. If instead, you start with smaller bets, slowly ramping up as you play, you will be able to take full advantage of the game indefinitely, and almost certainly end up richer.
Note that in a real casino, games have a house edge, so from a pure money perspective, ruin is not a bad thing because it prevents you from playing more negative expectancy games, and it will happen eventually. But since if like me, you just go there to have fun and consider the house edge to be the price of entertainment, then lowering the risk of ruin is actually the main goal.
Here is the idea: you go in a casino with $1000, that's your self-imposed limit, you will not die if you lose it, but it means you will stop playing, and you will have no way to recover from your losses, time to go home. That's what ruin is.
And this is something you have to take into account. For example, imagine you find a game where you have 50% chance of losing your bet, and 50% of winning your bet +2%. You can bet up to $1000. In theory, you get the best expectancy ($10) if you play $1000, but since it is your limit, you actually have a 50% chance of losing it all with no other chance to play this profitable game again, the result is you can expect to leave the casino poorer. If instead, you start with smaller bets, slowly ramping up as you play, you will be able to take full advantage of the game indefinitely, and almost certainly end up richer.
Note that in a real casino, games have a house edge, so from a pure money perspective, ruin is not a bad thing because it prevents you from playing more negative expectancy games, and it will happen eventually. But since if like me, you just go there to have fun and consider the house edge to be the price of entertainment, then lowering the risk of ruin is actually the main goal.
You are correct. For economic opportunity evaluations, it often superior to treat 0 as having negative infinite utility (e.g. ruin aversion). My comment was about more everyday situations where that is clearly not how people behave.
>(If death truly had negative infinity utility, it would overpower the benefit of everything and we couldn't do anything.)
It's true death has utility in an economic sense, as one needs not look further than the funeral/death care industry to find utility. But if we are talking about death of the self, the negative infinite utility claim seems more convincing than the non-negative-infinite one. In fact, negative infinite utility might be a near-perfect synonym for death.
And at the risk of sounding overly nihilistic, it may well overpower the benefit of everything/anything, again if we are specifically talking about the self.
It's true death has utility in an economic sense, as one needs not look further than the funeral/death care industry to find utility. But if we are talking about death of the self, the negative infinite utility claim seems more convincing than the non-negative-infinite one. In fact, negative infinite utility might be a near-perfect synonym for death.
And at the risk of sounding overly nihilistic, it may well overpower the benefit of everything/anything, again if we are specifically talking about the self.
I am talking about death of the self.
When crossing the street, there's a tiny risk of death, but a fairly good chance of a somewhat desirable outcome (getting to the other side.) If you considered your death to have negative infinity utility, and the desirable outcome to have finite positive utility, then you would opt to not cross the street ever, because negative infinity times small probability plus positive finite number times large probability is still negative infinity in total.
Essentially, any time you're weighing up your options, and one of the outcomes has negative infinity utility with non-zero probability, then the outcome of that course of action also has negative infinity utility, the way these terms are usually defined.
Thus, given the behaviour of most people, they do not think of their death has having negative infinity utility.
When crossing the street, there's a tiny risk of death, but a fairly good chance of a somewhat desirable outcome (getting to the other side.) If you considered your death to have negative infinity utility, and the desirable outcome to have finite positive utility, then you would opt to not cross the street ever, because negative infinity times small probability plus positive finite number times large probability is still negative infinity in total.
Essentially, any time you're weighing up your options, and one of the outcomes has negative infinity utility with non-zero probability, then the outcome of that course of action also has negative infinity utility, the way these terms are usually defined.
Thus, given the behaviour of most people, they do not think of their death has having negative infinity utility.
>When crossing the street, there's a tiny risk of death, but a fairly good chance of a somewhat desirable outcome (getting to the other side.) If you considered your death to have negative infinity utility, and the desirable outcome to have finite positive utility, then you would opt to not cross the street ever,
Weighing probabilities is one thing, and assumes humans are capable of rationally weighing these outcomes (which isn't clear) but even then which part of our scientific understanding of death precludes death having negative infinite utility?
Still, this doesn't disprove death as negative infinite utility, as the risk of death also exists from _not_ crossing the street; one isn't preventing the risk of death by refusing to cross the street. In fact, staying permanently in one place, never crossing the street, and doing nothing indefinitely out of a fear of death, would simply guarantee one's death.
>and the desirable outcome to have finite positive utility
Extend the timescale and the desirable outcome leads to the same outcome as the "undesirable" one.
Weighing probabilities is one thing, and assumes humans are capable of rationally weighing these outcomes (which isn't clear) but even then which part of our scientific understanding of death precludes death having negative infinite utility?
Still, this doesn't disprove death as negative infinite utility, as the risk of death also exists from _not_ crossing the street; one isn't preventing the risk of death by refusing to cross the street. In fact, staying permanently in one place, never crossing the street, and doing nothing indefinitely out of a fear of death, would simply guarantee one's death.
>and the desirable outcome to have finite positive utility
Extend the timescale and the desirable outcome leads to the same outcome as the "undesirable" one.
[deleted]
Crossing the street ... is also a study in how rules change. A distractible American(-Brazilian) arriving in the UK will have a few heart-stopping moments when they look left, and on the verge stepping into the street, take that precautionary glance right and realize they did it wrong.
The "West" is possibly on the verge of some large rule changes.
The "West" is possibly on the verge of some large rule changes.
at some point the chance of dying not crossing the street and crossing the street are equal.
True negative infinities, even discounted, are still infinite, so not very useful as it makes all trajectories equal (negatively infinite).
I agree the characterization isn't very useful, as you point out - but that's the tricky thing with infinit(ies), isn't it? When discussing human behavior and introducing an infinity concept, the final result is the same for all people in all cases.
The obvious answer is that death isn’t a negatively infinite outcome. The fact that people prefer death to living (eg via suicide) is an example thereof.
It doesn't assume this. That's just the definition of "risking everything". If you loose, then you have nothing left and you are at the bottom.
Right, but really risking everything is almost impossible to do. Like if I took my life savings and put them on red, I'm still going to be fine because I'll outrace that loss in no time.
To really risk everything I have to burn bridges, damage my brain, and lose all my money.
In the end, you always have yourself. Except when you die. And then it doesn't matter.
Interestingly, though, I've always stopped for people on the side of the road to render aid and had many fun stories come from it but I almost never do when I have women in the car. I'm not entirely sure why but I don't.
The only exception was years ago on the Road to Hana where it was after dark on the South East side of the island and we came upon a family with a busted tyre. But I think on the mainland, probably not.
So maybe there's more to loss than oneself. I think I'd eat total death myself over harm to those I am responsible for.
To really risk everything I have to burn bridges, damage my brain, and lose all my money.
In the end, you always have yourself. Except when you die. And then it doesn't matter.
Interestingly, though, I've always stopped for people on the side of the road to render aid and had many fun stories come from it but I almost never do when I have women in the car. I'm not entirely sure why but I don't.
The only exception was years ago on the Road to Hana where it was after dark on the South East side of the island and we came upon a family with a busted tyre. But I think on the mainland, probably not.
So maybe there's more to loss than oneself. I think I'd eat total death myself over harm to those I am responsible for.
When I think about taking alternative cost into account you loose more than "just money", you loose all the opportunities that could show up after a week or month later, or until you build savings back.
You always have yourself but consider also how much impact in psyche it might have, will you really have "yourself" after blowing all the savings? It could trigger regret (especially if some opportunity shows up after savings are gone) and could spiral down into depression. It is easy to say "I am strong, I would handle it" before something bad happens.
You always have yourself but consider also how much impact in psyche it might have, will you really have "yourself" after blowing all the savings? It could trigger regret (especially if some opportunity shows up after savings are gone) and could spiral down into depression. It is easy to say "I am strong, I would handle it" before something bad happens.
A fair point. Fortunately, I have tested myself well on this front, both by losing lots of money on leveraged investments and by having multi hundred thousand medical bills and at least my position on money clearly has abundance mentality.
I think the opportunity cost thing is a meaningful thing, but I doubt it'll really hurt since I have significant amounts of money I can draw on through my network.
I think the opportunity cost thing is a meaningful thing, but I doubt it'll really hurt since I have significant amounts of money I can draw on through my network.
Thanks for this interesting perspective!
Can you tell me please what you mean by "infinity utility" here?
But eventually every one of use will lose it all; we are all mortals.
So shouldn't we try to maximize happiness while we are alive? Risking it all could make sense if it leads to lots of happiness if it works out.
It reminds me of the saying, 'better to live one year as a lion than ten years as a sheep'
Risking everything every time is most certainly not the way to maximize aggregate happiness.
Is it? Sheep can live pretty chill and content lives. I'd take ten as a sheep over one as a lion.
If maximizing expected happiness is the goal then aiming for something achievable with low risk, e.g. stable middle class life, is probably a better strategy than risking everything on a moonshot.
Perhaps more realistic is to approximately Kelly-bet your way through life.
Exactly what I had in mind. Just to make my point more understandable: if I own an apartment and I pursue my dream and sell it so that I can invest it in my startup, that’s risking it all. Does such strategy have a positive outcome in the long run (even if by outcome we only mean happiness however it’s measured)? I doubt that.
Bringing down risk taking to a simple “risk it all” is a trivia that is maybe inspiring but naive.
What’s worse, those kinds of strategies are appealing to people mostly because of survivorship bias: one hears inspiring stories from those who risked it all and made it to the top but rarely from those who loosed it all (those don’t sell too well).
Bringing down risk taking to a simple “risk it all” is a trivia that is maybe inspiring but naive.
What’s worse, those kinds of strategies are appealing to people mostly because of survivorship bias: one hears inspiring stories from those who risked it all and made it to the top but rarely from those who loosed it all (those don’t sell too well).
That said, I think the point made by others that your non-tangible assets (education, knowledge, personal network) should be included in your capital when considering your bet size is a valid one.
Losing your apartment isn't really an absorbing state if you can still take a salaried job, re-accumulate, and then continue to make further bets.
Losing your apartment isn't really an absorbing state if you can still take a salaried job, re-accumulate, and then continue to make further bets.
I can't believe this story ended with a bunch of slogans fit for big corp motivational posters.
This was a story of depravity, desperation, starvation and the horrible choices one has to make when they feel that the only choices left all lead to likely death.
To draw career or enterpreneurship inspiration from it just seems... wrong...
This was a story of depravity, desperation, starvation and the horrible choices one has to make when they feel that the only choices left all lead to likely death.
To draw career or enterpreneurship inspiration from it just seems... wrong...
I really like that the author helped them and it sounded odd to me to read "The prevailing wisdom for this seafaring situation is “Don’t Stop.”", before I realised that in different countries there are different threats. Sailing mainly in the Baltics, there is the opposing rule of having the duty to help people in distress at sea.
I'm not sure I fully understand the "learning" part, isn't this a bit of survivor bias, especially the boldness part? Risking all your money in a society with a safety net is different to me than risking your own life on high sea, mainly w/o knowing in what situation you bring yourself. There is a huge group who's story can't be told anymore. However, maybe I'm already too lazy and unwilling to take risks.
I'm not sure I fully understand the "learning" part, isn't this a bit of survivor bias, especially the boldness part? Risking all your money in a society with a safety net is different to me than risking your own life on high sea, mainly w/o knowing in what situation you bring yourself. There is a huge group who's story can't be told anymore. However, maybe I'm already too lazy and unwilling to take risks.
Most successful entrepreneurs have a safety margin and take calculated risks while starting new ventures. Seldom do the "Hail Mary" ventures end up in success, because the odds are stacked against them (yes, there are outliers).
What the author is alluding to that, while entrepreneurs like her think they are risking everything while starting a venture, their struggles are lesser compared to the people in the boat and similar others.
What the author is alluding to that, while entrepreneurs like her think they are risking everything while starting a venture, their struggles are lesser compared to the people in the boat and similar others.
"prevailing wisdom" and legal rules can be quite different.
> there is the opposing rule of having the duty to help people in distress at sea.
That's all I've ever heard as well. Perhaps the amount of pirates/refugees/drug-runners in those waters around Belize has turned that on its head?
That's all I've ever heard as well. Perhaps the amount of pirates/refugees/drug-runners in those waters around Belize has turned that on its head?
This is a dichotomy that appears across sailing cultures and territories, certainly not unique to Belize or the modern era. The law/rule is made because a) it is often extremely risky to stop and help a stranded vessel for the same reason b) the stranded vessel has little recourse if no one stops to help. If no one helps, the vessel may be doomed. But if you help and the vessel turns out to be pirates (or just so desperate the sailors turn into pirates to save themselves), then you become the stranded one. The solution some governing organizations take is to remove the choice and mandate sailors subject to its jurisdiction stop and help. This is beneficial on a community scale even if potentially fatal in any individual instance. Of course the challenge remains of if we are all alone at sea, how will anyone know back home we didn't stop?
A reminder that this story plays out dozens of times every day in the Mediterranean right now.
42,549 irregular border crossings were reported in July 2022 on the Central Mediterranean route [1]. The number of those who drowned will never be known.
Many of these Africans who dare to cross the sea have already travelled for weeks or months and survived the Sahara. They are not celebrated as risktakers, though. Unlike this article, nobody sings odes to the boldness, inventiveness, motivation, honor and leadership qualities of the African migrant. Maybe they should.
[1] https://frontex.europa.eu/media-centre/news/news-release/eu-...
42,549 irregular border crossings were reported in July 2022 on the Central Mediterranean route [1]. The number of those who drowned will never be known.
Many of these Africans who dare to cross the sea have already travelled for weeks or months and survived the Sahara. They are not celebrated as risktakers, though. Unlike this article, nobody sings odes to the boldness, inventiveness, motivation, honor and leadership qualities of the African migrant. Maybe they should.
[1] https://frontex.europa.eu/media-centre/news/news-release/eu-...
> Unlike this article, nobody sings odes to the boldness, inventiveness, motivation, honor and leadership qualities of the African migrant. Maybe they should.
It's a bit odd that choice of traits to ascribe to economic migrants, which could be better describe the African entrepreneurs who chose to stay and improve their home community.
It's a bit odd that choice of traits to ascribe to economic migrants, which could be better describe the African entrepreneurs who chose to stay and improve their home community.
It's only odd because we project our own biases and values onto them: one is a criminal as far as the western law systems are concerned, another is an entrepreneurial foreigner.
But in reality, both are bold, inventive and motivated. The difference is just the capital - financial, social and educational - each one holds, those who have nothing are simply willing to accept riskier propositions.
Don't for a moment think you you can bootstrap a business in a corrupt African state using nothing but your hands and back, with no education, no connections and no money. Even if you are insanely productive and entrepreneurial, without greasing the right hands you will be picked clean by criminal rings, protection rackets, unscrupulous competitors etc. It's hard for a westerner to relate to a life where rule of law is spotty and tends to cover only major crimes.
But in reality, both are bold, inventive and motivated. The difference is just the capital - financial, social and educational - each one holds, those who have nothing are simply willing to accept riskier propositions.
Don't for a moment think you you can bootstrap a business in a corrupt African state using nothing but your hands and back, with no education, no connections and no money. Even if you are insanely productive and entrepreneurial, without greasing the right hands you will be picked clean by criminal rings, protection rackets, unscrupulous competitors etc. It's hard for a westerner to relate to a life where rule of law is spotty and tends to cover only major crimes.
Does the same apply to the Cubans in the "Risk Everything" story? Should they have stayed to improve their community?
>Unlike this article, nobody sings odes to the boldness, inventiveness, motivation, honor and leadership qualities of the African migrant. Maybe they should.
No, they shouldn't. Smuggling migrants into Europe is a business these days. The professional smugglers get paid and can provide transportation at every step of the journey. The most cynical step in this process is creating deliberate distress at sea in order to be picked up by people with "white saviour" mentality who knew in advance in which area the distress would happen and then transport those people from the Libyan coast all the way to Italy or Spain to drop them off there and now make the migrants Europe's problem[1].
[1] https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/far-right-italian-leade...
No, they shouldn't. Smuggling migrants into Europe is a business these days. The professional smugglers get paid and can provide transportation at every step of the journey. The most cynical step in this process is creating deliberate distress at sea in order to be picked up by people with "white saviour" mentality who knew in advance in which area the distress would happen and then transport those people from the Libyan coast all the way to Italy or Spain to drop them off there and now make the migrants Europe's problem[1].
[1] https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/far-right-italian-leade...
Not only that, but stopping migrants is also a business model in itself; Europe is paying billions to stop migrants, see e.g. https://www.dw.com/en/how-the-eu-spent-billions-to-halt-migr...
I'm sure a lot of NGOs do.
Do they? Faced with the prevalent right-wing rhetoric where a not uncommon position is that African migrants either deserve to drown or at least should be kept in camps somewhere far away, their Western defenders tend to adopt a defensive posture that focuses on basic human rights but also easily patronizes the migrants.
The "Risk Everything" story glorifies a young Cuban boat refugee's leadership qualities. I certainly can't remember ever reading an article like that about an African refugee written by an European. It's somehow easier for us to see the best of humanity in someone from Cuba than in someone from Niger, even when they both suffered under dictatorship and took extraordinary steps to escape.
The "Risk Everything" story glorifies a young Cuban boat refugee's leadership qualities. I certainly can't remember ever reading an article like that about an African refugee written by an European. It's somehow easier for us to see the best of humanity in someone from Cuba than in someone from Niger, even when they both suffered under dictatorship and took extraordinary steps to escape.
I had to do this when young... I was homeless, rough sleeping. Honestly... it's a terrible piece of advice.
Those risking everything have no other choice.
If you're reading this person's blog post, if you're on HN... you probably have a choice, and you probably aren't "risking everything". I cannot imagine anyone on here actually choosing to potentially have nothing at all, no network, no funds, no assets, no nothing... and I do not believe the author of the article would either.
I am reminded (again) of this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15659076
> Entrepreneurship is like one of those carnival games where you throw darts or something.
> Middle class kids can afford one throw. Most miss. A few hit the target and get a small prize. A very few hit the center bullseye and get a bigger prize. Rags to riches! The American Dream lives on.
> Rich kids can afford many throws. If they want to, they can try over and over and over again until they hit something and feel good about themselves. Some keep going until they hit the center bullseye, then they give speeches or write blog posts about "meritocracy" and the salutary effects of hard work.
> Poor kids aren't visiting the carnival. They're the ones working it.
Only the privileged get to choose what to risk... and that risk isn't as real as when there was no choice. Those who know that would never choose it.
Those risking everything have no other choice.
If you're reading this person's blog post, if you're on HN... you probably have a choice, and you probably aren't "risking everything". I cannot imagine anyone on here actually choosing to potentially have nothing at all, no network, no funds, no assets, no nothing... and I do not believe the author of the article would either.
I am reminded (again) of this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15659076
> Entrepreneurship is like one of those carnival games where you throw darts or something.
> Middle class kids can afford one throw. Most miss. A few hit the target and get a small prize. A very few hit the center bullseye and get a bigger prize. Rags to riches! The American Dream lives on.
> Rich kids can afford many throws. If they want to, they can try over and over and over again until they hit something and feel good about themselves. Some keep going until they hit the center bullseye, then they give speeches or write blog posts about "meritocracy" and the salutary effects of hard work.
> Poor kids aren't visiting the carnival. They're the ones working it.
Only the privileged get to choose what to risk... and that risk isn't as real as when there was no choice. Those who know that would never choose it.
I guess one lesson is that for a lot people what seems like "risking everything" isn't really risking everything at all, you will in fact probably still be fine (and not homeless rough sleeping) even if you "lose".
This isn't the way the advice was framed, and I think you are right that it should be -- but the reframed advice can still be good -- I don't know about for startups, I think most startups are BS, and the comparison of someone "risking everything" to survive (a refugee) to an entrepeneur is frankly kind of offensive....
But for life anyway. Take a sober look at what you will really be losing if you lose. Is it in fact mostly about your self-image, and not about your material safety? Is it more inconvenience (even supreme inconvenience) than existential threat? Then take the risk for something you really want, for sure.
Those who actually risk everything, like, their lives (say, refugees in boats) do so because the alternative is existentially intolerable. The comparison to entrepeneurs is just... not actually ok. The better advice for those not facing existential threats to their humanity is probably more like... you aren't actually risking everything, you are nothing like these people, you'll be ok either way, so go for it. Which is actually pretty different than OP, yeah...
This isn't the way the advice was framed, and I think you are right that it should be -- but the reframed advice can still be good -- I don't know about for startups, I think most startups are BS, and the comparison of someone "risking everything" to survive (a refugee) to an entrepeneur is frankly kind of offensive....
But for life anyway. Take a sober look at what you will really be losing if you lose. Is it in fact mostly about your self-image, and not about your material safety? Is it more inconvenience (even supreme inconvenience) than existential threat? Then take the risk for something you really want, for sure.
Those who actually risk everything, like, their lives (say, refugees in boats) do so because the alternative is existentially intolerable. The comparison to entrepeneurs is just... not actually ok. The better advice for those not facing existential threats to their humanity is probably more like... you aren't actually risking everything, you are nothing like these people, you'll be ok either way, so go for it. Which is actually pretty different than OP, yeah...
> Those who actually risk everything, like, their lives (say, refugees in boats) do so because the alternative is existentially intolerable. The comparison to entrepeneurs is just... not actually ok.
This is a great summary of the problems with this analogy, thank you. It's always annoyed me when people excuse the bad behavior of landlords and bosses exploiting low-income people with "well, they took a huge financial risk buying that building or starting that business!" Sure they did, but it was a risk to their ability to buy fancy organic steaks, not to their ability to continue breathing oxygen - and if it an unprofitable business investment _was_ going to put them on the street, then they should just go get a job like everyone else. The risks taken by landlord and tenant, by boss and laborer, are not comparable.
This is a great summary of the problems with this analogy, thank you. It's always annoyed me when people excuse the bad behavior of landlords and bosses exploiting low-income people with "well, they took a huge financial risk buying that building or starting that business!" Sure they did, but it was a risk to their ability to buy fancy organic steaks, not to their ability to continue breathing oxygen - and if it an unprofitable business investment _was_ going to put them on the street, then they should just go get a job like everyone else. The risks taken by landlord and tenant, by boss and laborer, are not comparable.
Thanks. I mean, not just a risk to their ability to buy fancy steaks, it may be (depending on their other options) a risk to their ability to access healthcare or pay for their kids college or go on vacations or retire someday. Things ain't great for the working class in USA!
But yeah, I agree with you. They are risking the challenges of having as hard a life as... their tenants or workers already have! At worst! (Then the risks of a refugee on a boat are another category yet again).
But yeah, I agree with you. They are risking the challenges of having as hard a life as... their tenants or workers already have! At worst! (Then the risks of a refugee on a boat are another category yet again).
Yes but the answer to that should come from social security net and not from mechanisms that ruin the entrepreneur. That is the job of a good policymaker.
> The comparison to entrepeneurs is just... not actually ok.
True but I assume the author understands that difference , maybe he is riding a different wave just that both are looking at endless fall to the abyss.
True but I assume the author understands that difference , maybe he is riding a different wave just that both are looking at endless fall to the abyss.
Daniel Kahneman, in his book thinking fast and slow, has a really good insight on why people in bad situations keep taking bad choices.
Google "The fourfold pattern". Basically, he states that there's a cognitive bias where people in situations where a poor outcome is likely to happen, tend to risk too much, and not settle for a bad (but better) outcome that what they already have.
If they kept compounding these "bad but better choices", they might have a chance.
Google "The fourfold pattern". Basically, he states that there's a cognitive bias where people in situations where a poor outcome is likely to happen, tend to risk too much, and not settle for a bad (but better) outcome that what they already have.
If they kept compounding these "bad but better choices", they might have a chance.
Just FYI, pretty much all of Thinking Fast and Slow has been caught up in the replication crisis and repudiated. I don't know about the fourfold pattern in particular.
Can you share your source, please.
(Not OP)
Here's one: https://replicationindex.com/2020/12/30/a-meta-scientific-pe..., discussed here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28917017
Here's one: https://replicationindex.com/2020/12/30/a-meta-scientific-pe..., discussed here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28917017
This is detailed pretty will in the book Scarcity, which highlights similar psychological effects among people who have not enough money, not enought time, not enough prestige, not enough room for caloric intake (dieters), etc.
I wish this book were more popular.
I wish this book were more popular.
> not enough prestige
If someone had enough money, time, etc. but not enough prestige, how would it manifest itself?
If someone had enough money, time, etc. but not enough prestige, how would it manifest itself?
"Risking everything" in a literal since, sure. Most people mean Risk everything non-essential and all of your gains. If you have 5,000$ saved up above your necessities to live, "Risking Everything" would be more in line with investing it all into AAPL, or investing it all into a food cart, not maxing out your credit cards and soaking family members or putting your family home up as collateral.
"poor kids" or people that don't have a ton of surplus savings can visit the casino, they just aren't playing the high stakes tables, they are playing penny slots.
"poor kids" or people that don't have a ton of surplus savings can visit the casino, they just aren't playing the high stakes tables, they are playing penny slots.
>> Poor kids aren't visiting the carnival. They're the ones working it.
Speaking for myself, I'm kinda priviledged in working in the carnival, it's a good and steady income and I'm accumulating wealth, meaning I'm in a more economically privileged position than my parents and their parents were (housing crisis / cost of living aside, of course, sigh). That can, down the line, if I feel like it, be used as a springboard to do a throw.
Speaking for myself, I'm kinda priviledged in working in the carnival, it's a good and steady income and I'm accumulating wealth, meaning I'm in a more economically privileged position than my parents and their parents were (housing crisis / cost of living aside, of course, sigh). That can, down the line, if I feel like it, be used as a springboard to do a throw.
Plenty of poor kids visit the carnival. Having worked there, lots of kids walking around are poor.
> housing crisis
People have been screaming about a housing crisis for many years now, yet the percentage of owner occupied households is higher than it was compared to all of 1970-1990.
People have been screaming about a housing crisis for many years now, yet the percentage of owner occupied households is higher than it was compared to all of 1970-1990.
> Middle class kids can afford one throw.
*self funded
Once you have decent funding, the wealth of your parents shouldn’t impact you very much.
*self funded
Once you have decent funding, the wealth of your parents shouldn’t impact you very much.
Some things it impacts includes:
1) Your safety net. If you lose, will they help you out so you at least aren't totally destitute?
2) Your social/professional network, and (correlationally) your access/ability to develop one, or funders and other technical assistance.
1) Your safety net. If you lose, will they help you out so you at least aren't totally destitute?
2) Your social/professional network, and (correlationally) your access/ability to develop one, or funders and other technical assistance.
In this metaphor, once you have decent funding you are no longer a "middle class kid".
Whenever that comment comes up I feel the urge to just post the wiki entry for the Kelly criterion. If you don't have as many resources as your competitors in the market, reduce your bet size!!! Yes, that may mean you cannot challenge Mark Zuckerberg for yacht size just yet, but it will also mean that you can try again if you fail. Match your ambition to your means. Super risky plans with no room for errors make for great movies, but are terrible ideas in real life.
Of course, when you can barely afford to live, the Kelly criterion does not do anything at all for you. You have nothing that you can afford to lose. Not even miniscule bets.
If you accept the official poverty line as threshold, that'd be ~13% of people in the US. And the poverty line is ~$14k/year - even if you make double that, the amount of money you can risk is really pretty close to zero.
Any risk in that situation is a super-risky plan with no room for error.
If you accept the official poverty line as threshold, that'd be ~13% of people in the US. And the poverty line is ~$14k/year - even if you make double that, the amount of money you can risk is really pretty close to zero.
Any risk in that situation is a super-risky plan with no room for error.
It seems we agree that below the poverty line people should not make uncertain bets, because they have nothing they can afford to lose. Not betting when you can't afford it is exactly what the Kelly criterion proscribes, no?
You were replying to a person who were pretty clearly implying the position that the game is rigged. It's reasonable to assume your comment was meant to dismiss it as "you're just playing it wrong". I understand after your second comment that that was not the intention, but the first comment could be read as that.
> I feel the urge to just post the wiki entry for the Kelly criterion.
Apparently not that strong of an urge ;-).
For those (like me) who didn't know it yet: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelly_criterion
Apparently not that strong of an urge ;-).
For those (like me) who didn't know it yet: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelly_criterion
> It is valid when the expected returns are known
Sounds like a great way to lose money.
Sounds like a great way to lose money.
I'm sure this is referring to the expected value in something like say, a dice throw. If the chances of winning when picking a certain number are 1/6 and the payoff is 6x the investment then the expected returns after a large mount of attempts are known and would be zero. I'm sure this is widely applicable in gambling.
Exactly the right term to use: Expected Value. If we have 1/6 chance of winning and each win gives us 6x, we have an EV of 0.
Poker is a great game to learn to understand EV/variance.
Poker is a great game to learn to understand EV/variance.
I wonder what the expected value of entrepreneurship is?
I rather suspect it is significantly negative, because most new businesses fail and the venture capital system means gambling with someone else's money.
I rather suspect it is significantly negative, because most new businesses fail and the venture capital system means gambling with someone else's money.
Not to mention the rules are known in gambling, such as required minimum bets. Business has no such courtesy. The criterion is worthless if your small bets always result in failures because you need capital to get going.
If the preconditions arent met but you are sure they are, yes.
> Match your ambition to your means.
"Suck it up" as the ultimate in life advice to those born less lucky lacks a certain something to the more empathetic folks out there.
"Suck it up" as the ultimate in life advice to those born less lucky lacks a certain something to the more empathetic folks out there.
that is not analogous to 'suck it up' its calibration. Kelly criterion applied to blackjack for example. Play 5 dollar min bets, 100 max if you have a 30k purse and play perfectly. you wont withstand volatility iver 100 hours.
I hope this clarifies your misunderstanding
I hope this clarifies your misunderstanding
That may just be reality. The Disney movies telling everyone they can be princesses may be the cruel ones at the end of the day.
You will not have the same opportunities. Look closely at the ones you have and don't ignore them for sour grapes.
Anything more than "sucks to be you" requires opportunity or real costs and basically no one is willing to do.
Heck even the cases of tutorship are reserved for the lucky talented ones.
You will not have the same opportunities. Look closely at the ones you have and don't ignore them for sour grapes.
Anything more than "sucks to be you" requires opportunity or real costs and basically no one is willing to do.
Heck even the cases of tutorship are reserved for the lucky talented ones.
How do you reduce your bet size when you're betting years of your life?
Beautiful short story. I'm happy there were no comments yet on it, as I'd normally browse the comments and then leave. If you are like that, then I recommend to read the article, it isn't that long.
It's a nice story but imo would be better without the forced lesson at the end. As most here have pointed out, it's just survivorship bias with some poetic phrasing.
As for taking risks: I don't think I'd lose single utilon if I never hear another affluent ex-entrepreneur talk about the importance of taking risks. I've been broke before, I've nearly missed rent on several occasions, and none of those times had me working at my baseline competence, let alone at my peak. If those people do better at those circumstances, they must have some quirk that I'm missing.
In practice I perform at my best when I'm emotionally invested but don't really care about the outcome. My two successful businesses were both side gigs I started for fun that scaled well when I noticed that I had greatly underestimated demand. I didn't risk anything for either of those beyond maybe a hundred hours of initial setting up time.
As for taking risks: I don't think I'd lose single utilon if I never hear another affluent ex-entrepreneur talk about the importance of taking risks. I've been broke before, I've nearly missed rent on several occasions, and none of those times had me working at my baseline competence, let alone at my peak. If those people do better at those circumstances, they must have some quirk that I'm missing.
In practice I perform at my best when I'm emotionally invested but don't really care about the outcome. My two successful businesses were both side gigs I started for fun that scaled well when I noticed that I had greatly underestimated demand. I didn't risk anything for either of those beyond maybe a hundred hours of initial setting up time.
Literal survivorship bias, for both parties involved in the story.
Or, this was just a bad plan. They got lucky, the next bunch not so much.
Was it? Perhaps I misunderstood, but when the author found them, they were less than a day from Cancun, and on the right course. They would have made it even without her help.
Good story.
Being a good human is important. Helping someone without being involved in (aside from sustaining them) is noble as well.
Not every problem in this world needs a solution, those seeking will or will not find their solution. If in a position to help them humanitarianly, do so. Don't set expectations or guidance, resolve a need. Unless you have other extraordinary means.
Being a good human is important. Helping someone without being involved in (aside from sustaining them) is noble as well.
Not every problem in this world needs a solution, those seeking will or will not find their solution. If in a position to help them humanitarianly, do so. Don't set expectations or guidance, resolve a need. Unless you have other extraordinary means.
Maybe I'm a bit cynical, but I don't see anything admirable about this mindset. In fact, I think it's incredibly selfish. What kind of inhumane person would "risk everything" on a business venture?
This reads like a dystopian horror novel exploring the extremes of a deranged entrepreneur's mind.
This reads like a dystopian horror novel exploring the extremes of a deranged entrepreneur's mind.
Most students risks more than everything, as worst case they will be ridden with debt without any additional job prospects. For an entrepreneur at worst they can declare bankruptcy and be better off than the student.
So it doesn't seem like entrepreneurship is all that risky compared to what average students go through.
So it doesn't seem like entrepreneurship is all that risky compared to what average students go through.
losing all your money =/= risking everything
Many people have more things going on in their lives except their bank account. Family, spouse, children, friends. Losing them is what real loss means to me.
Many people have more things going on in their lives except their bank account. Family, spouse, children, friends. Losing them is what real loss means to me.
Unsurprisingly, it is easy to lose your spouse, children, etc. if you're at the point where you've already lost all your money. Because very likely, you've also lost their money in the process. I've seen people lose their family and friends, too.
People take out mortgages, credit card loans, loan money from friends, family, colleagues. Are intentionally opaque about their financial situation.
Then if things go bust, and people want their money back, they're stuck alone with the mess.
At its core, it's due to breach of trust.
People take out mortgages, credit card loans, loan money from friends, family, colleagues. Are intentionally opaque about their financial situation.
Then if things go bust, and people want their money back, they're stuck alone with the mess.
At its core, it's due to breach of trust.
What kind of business would benefit from you betting your children on it? Sure you can easily burn all of those by working too much, but that is a trade and not a bet.
Whenever someone says that, it's immediately clear which country they come from.
God's own... The land of the free.
I am older now and sooo happy I had the luck to be born in a country where studying is not a debt-trap.
God's own... The land of the free.
I am older now and sooo happy I had the luck to be born in a country where studying is not a debt-trap.
Yeah, I agree that your take is cynical and judgemental to boot. No need to pass judgment on other people's value system esp. when the matter is very personal and won't affect other individuals or creatures and just deals with their subjective worldview and how they make sense of their role and contribution to the society or humanity in general.
If you post your subjective view on a public forum, judgement is literally the only opposing force in a discussion (because subjective differences in opinion cannot be rationalized by objective arguments). Unless you want an echo chamber, I don't see a problem with judgement.
I don't see a problem with judgement either but yours was very non-impersonal (ad hominem) and on top of that, absolutist in nature and sweeping in scope severely lacking in nuance and subtlety.
This is a crazy story. It is a tale of compassion and human perseverance against nature.
But parts of it really bother me. To equate risking everything for a chance at a decent life with the struggles of foundership is discarding the inherent worth of life. The two are not equivalent things. The former is about basic dignity and human rights and the chance to live a happy life and the latter is about trying to build something.
I don't discount the challenges founders face; on the contrary I have tried it and failed spectacularly; it is not easy and that it requires a set of skills that is hard to learn and harder still to master.
> We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
- from the US Declaration of Independence
I believe strongly in that, and I will say further that I believe that all human beings are created equal, and have inherent rights. Many countries have similar mottos: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life,_Liberty_and_the_pursuit_...
I believe it is a disservice to humanity to compare foundership and basic human rights and dignity.
> Luck On a day when it really counted, they had some of it. But it dawns on me that luck is just the product of all these other qualities.
Really struggling with this quote. It is in my opinion a serious mistake to believe that luck is not a factor. I have been extremely lucky; I was born in a democratic country and I had easy access to health care and education, and by god I had access to a computer at a young age. These accidents of birth are nothing more or less than luck, and they made a tremendous difference in my life and had a significant positive impact on my life. Even in my own city, people are suffering in poverty, have a lack of access to medical care, etc. These people simply don't have the good luck that I have had.
As other commenters like buro9 have mentioned,
> Those risking everything have no other choice.
But parts of it really bother me. To equate risking everything for a chance at a decent life with the struggles of foundership is discarding the inherent worth of life. The two are not equivalent things. The former is about basic dignity and human rights and the chance to live a happy life and the latter is about trying to build something.
I don't discount the challenges founders face; on the contrary I have tried it and failed spectacularly; it is not easy and that it requires a set of skills that is hard to learn and harder still to master.
> We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
- from the US Declaration of Independence
I believe strongly in that, and I will say further that I believe that all human beings are created equal, and have inherent rights. Many countries have similar mottos: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life,_Liberty_and_the_pursuit_...
I believe it is a disservice to humanity to compare foundership and basic human rights and dignity.
> Luck On a day when it really counted, they had some of it. But it dawns on me that luck is just the product of all these other qualities.
Really struggling with this quote. It is in my opinion a serious mistake to believe that luck is not a factor. I have been extremely lucky; I was born in a democratic country and I had easy access to health care and education, and by god I had access to a computer at a young age. These accidents of birth are nothing more or less than luck, and they made a tremendous difference in my life and had a significant positive impact on my life. Even in my own city, people are suffering in poverty, have a lack of access to medical care, etc. These people simply don't have the good luck that I have had.
As other commenters like buro9 have mentioned,
> Those risking everything have no other choice.
[deleted]
Migrating to the United States or Europe for these desperate souls seems the least risky option.
Sure the journey is difficult and you might die, but this isn’t worse than the alternative of starvation or enslavement in the place from which you flee.
The boat migrant is risking everything. But it’s a calculated risk and he doesn’t have much to lose anyway.
Sure the journey is difficult and you might die, but this isn’t worse than the alternative of starvation or enslavement in the place from which you flee.
The boat migrant is risking everything. But it’s a calculated risk and he doesn’t have much to lose anyway.
Not much, but related:
Risk Everything - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40192 - Aug 2007 (2 comments)
Risk Everything - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40192 - Aug 2007 (2 comments)
From Rudyard Kipling's If;
If you can make one heap of all your winnings
And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss,
And lose, and start again at your beginnings
And never breathe a word about your loss;
If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew
To serve your turn long after they are gone,
And so hold on when there is nothing in you
Except the Will which says to them: ‘Hold on!’If you can make one heap of all your winnings
And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss,
And lose, and start again at your beginnings
And never breathe a word about your loss;
the conclusion after many ifs is:
"Yours is the Earth and everything that’s in it, And—which is more—you’ll be a Man, my son!"
"Yours is the Earth and everything that’s in it, And—which is more—you’ll be a Man, my son!"
Here is the complete If by Rudyard Kipling;
If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you,
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
But make allowance for their doubting too;
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
Or being lied about, don’t deal in lies,
Or being hated, don’t give way to hating,
And yet don’t look too good, nor talk too wise:
If you can dream—and not make dreams your master;
If you can think—and not make thoughts your aim;
If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster
And treat those two impostors just the same;
If you can bear to hear the truth you’ve spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken,
And stoop and build ’em up with worn-out tools:
If you can make one heap of all your winnings
And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss,
And lose, and start again at your beginnings
And never breathe a word about your loss;
If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew
To serve your turn long after they are gone,
And so hold on when there is nothing in you
Except the Will which says to them: ‘Hold on!’
If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,
Or walk with Kings—nor lose the common touch,
If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you,
If all men count with you, but none too much;
If you can fill the unforgiving minute
With sixty seconds’ worth of distance run,
Yours is the Earth and everything that’s in it,
And—which is more—you’ll be a Man, my son!This guy has got it all wrong.
These guys have everything to win and nothing to lose. They are not taking any risks.
These guys have everything to win and nothing to lose. They are not taking any risks.
What is more worth than life?
Wolf Larsen from The Sea-Wolf by Jack London;
“Do you know the only value life has is what life puts upon itself? And it is of course over-estimated since it is of necessity prejudiced in its own favour. Take that man I had aloft. He held on as if he were a precious thing, a treasure beyond diamonds or rubies. To you? No. To me? Not at all. To himself? Yes. But I do not accept his estimate. He sadly overrates himself. There is plenty more life demanding to be born. Had he fallen and dripped his brains upon the deck like honey from the comb, there would have been no loss to the world. He was worth nothing to the world. The supply is too large. To himself only was he of value, and to show how fictitious even this value was, being dead he is unconscious that he has lost himself. He alone rated himself beyond diamonds and rubies. Diamonds and rubies are gone, spread out on the deck to be washed away by a bucket of sea-water, and he does not even know that the diamonds and rubies are gone. He does not lose anything, for with the loss of himself he loses the knowledge of loss. Don’t you see? And what have you to say?”
“Do you know the only value life has is what life puts upon itself? And it is of course over-estimated since it is of necessity prejudiced in its own favour. Take that man I had aloft. He held on as if he were a precious thing, a treasure beyond diamonds or rubies. To you? No. To me? Not at all. To himself? Yes. But I do not accept his estimate. He sadly overrates himself. There is plenty more life demanding to be born. Had he fallen and dripped his brains upon the deck like honey from the comb, there would have been no loss to the world. He was worth nothing to the world. The supply is too large. To himself only was he of value, and to show how fictitious even this value was, being dead he is unconscious that he has lost himself. He alone rated himself beyond diamonds and rubies. Diamonds and rubies are gone, spread out on the deck to be washed away by a bucket of sea-water, and he does not even know that the diamonds and rubies are gone. He does not lose anything, for with the loss of himself he loses the knowledge of loss. Don’t you see? And what have you to say?”
Your life is as valuable as the freedoms and things you can access. If you are living in Cuba with no money, no freedoms and no prospects; your life is worth very little to nothing. It's a no-brainer to jump on a boat and move somewhere else where your life value can increase.
Okay, it's a detail, but Cuba is a weird country to single out. It's bad, but surely there must be literally dozens of worse countries to choose from.
Great read, thanks for sharing.
Fuck, that was well written.
The author is wondering whether she'd get better business results if she pushed her team in a way more akin to communist Cuba.
2007
I take objection to this line:
> When I share this story with other sailors, they are universally aghast that we helped these refugees.
I wonder what kind of sailors they are conversing with, if at all.
> When I share this story with other sailors, they are universally aghast that we helped these refugees.
I wonder what kind of sailors they are conversing with, if at all.
The author is obviously from the US where fear of others permeats everything (and requires carry of arms to defend one's home, for instance). They even talked of pirates in the story.
While US is not universally like that, there is probably a large proportion that is (citation missing).
While US is not universally like that, there is probably a large proportion that is (citation missing).
Sailing is a very international activity, and if one is doing large crossings, then meeting sailors from around the world is quite common.
A lot can go wrong on a boat, and sailors - especially, small family crews can be forgiven for putting their safety ahead of a boat full of men that can outnumber and overpower them.
A lot can go wrong on a boat, and sailors - especially, small family crews can be forgiven for putting their safety ahead of a boat full of men that can outnumber and overpower them.
I may not know much about how horrible the US is because I've never been, but refugees are regularly endangered in European waters despite help being technically around. In one case I heard of even the Italian coastguard would do nothing until the UN was called and put pressure on them. The refugees had called emergency services and were ignored, without UN intervention they would have died.
So yeah, you might want to check your bias. This isn't something that just happens in the US, it's a worldwide thing. Refugees are mistreated in Africa, in Asia - everywhere.
So yeah, you might want to check your bias. This isn't something that just happens in the US, it's a worldwide thing. Refugees are mistreated in Africa, in Asia - everywhere.
I never said US is horrible: it is a magnificient country, and people are very friendly and welcoming to strangers (in familiar settings).
But they are also very fearful of others at the same time. The article talks of refugees encountering 5 other boats which wouldn't help them before the author did.
My (completely unsubstantiated, iow, my gut feel) claim is that they are a bit more fearful of other people being out to get them than people from most European countries. Think of it like 35% of Europeans would help vs 25% of Americans (again, numbers completely fabricated, or pulled out of my behind): a small percentage points difference, but a huge relative difference.
But they are also very fearful of others at the same time. The article talks of refugees encountering 5 other boats which wouldn't help them before the author did.
My (completely unsubstantiated, iow, my gut feel) claim is that they are a bit more fearful of other people being out to get them than people from most European countries. Think of it like 35% of Europeans would help vs 25% of Americans (again, numbers completely fabricated, or pulled out of my behind): a small percentage points difference, but a huge relative difference.
Also:
> The prevailing wisdom for this seafaring situation is “Don’t Stop.”
The law is to render assistance. That law was based on prevailing wisdom.
Apparently the author moves in different circles to the rest of seafaring folk.
> The prevailing wisdom for this seafaring situation is “Don’t Stop.”
The law is to render assistance. That law was based on prevailing wisdom.
Apparently the author moves in different circles to the rest of seafaring folk.
I think it really depends on where you are. There are still many places in the world where piracy is real, and where distress can be used to lure naive victims. In other places, piracy isn't an issue and you're legally required to offer help.
I found that more than a little odd. Sailors are universally out to help other seafarers and hope for help themselves when they need it. This was the guys first blue water trip, I guess he wasnt a true sailor yet, and hadn't lived life abord for long enough to adopt the culture.
You are correct in that the seafaring culture is to always render aid.
Additionally it is also the law and international convention.
https://www.bullivant.com/rescue-at-sea/
“Every master is bound, so far as he can do so without serious danger to his vessel and persons thereon, to render assistance to any person in danger of being lost at sea.”
Additionally it is also the law and international convention.
https://www.bullivant.com/rescue-at-sea/
“Every master is bound, so far as he can do so without serious danger to his vessel and persons thereon, to render assistance to any person in danger of being lost at sea.”
Sailors are. They intimately know the sea and her dangers, they know looming death and despair during many months of being subjects to powers immeasurably stronger than any human can ever imagine.
I would argue that two blokes on a sailboat doing fun rides in the Caribbean are hardly sailors. I guess when they talked to other 'sailors' who were 'agast', it was the Jonas Grumby/Gilligan type.
I would argue that two blokes on a sailboat doing fun rides in the Caribbean are hardly sailors. I guess when they talked to other 'sailors' who were 'agast', it was the Jonas Grumby/Gilligan type.
I don't understand the objection. Is there any reason to assume Americans who sail are immune to xenophobia, rhetoric, and politics?
It's clearly the "universal" that's the problem there...
Really, I wonder if it happened at all.
I have a far less interesting and infinitely less daring story (but that is my response to the author's contention, "risk everything" and your question "why people are aghast").
When I was young in my mid 20's, I've just moved to a hip and hipster neighborhood of a college town lively with grad students, artists and musicians and comics; But I was just a lonely and geeky guy lookin' to fit in and meet and make new friends with the glitsy scene.
One one evening, driving back from staying late on the job, I stopped for a fellow who motioned for help in the middle of the road. It turned out that his car battery died - but peculiarly his battery would not hold charge and his engine would only run if the jumper cable hooked up at all times. So really wanting to help, I offered to get into both of our cars with the jumper cables still connected - like 2 hungry hippos joined at the open mouths and drive down gingerly down 5 city blocks 'till we got to his driveway. Someway, somehow, against many honks and even incoming traffic, we made it. I was elated and thought I had made a friend and had a great story to tell; we exchanged phone numbers, and I asked the guy to have drinks with me some times.
Except the guy never replied back to my messages. And while disappointing, it wasn't a big deal in the grander scale of things in life vis-a-vis major breakup's, "major reorgs" at work or major rifts with family relatives. But with passage of time, I've learned why it still nagged at me - because if I was honest with myself: what I did was actually not very altruistic. I stopped because I was a lonely young man who was looking for some kind of excitement to take on a "hero" role even if only for a moment. A situation I was hoping would garner me some dopamine hit with truly minimal cost to me - and yes even an covert expectation that the stranger would return my " kindness" and maybe even a social reward if I re-told the story [chasing an aesthetic pleasure disguised as an ethical act in the Kierkegaardian sense].
So I don't think I'd be keen to stop for someone now - not because I've become a grumpy old man who don't believe most people are bad and you shouldn't take un-necessary personal risk. But because (a) I think real heroism is deliberately pushing all your chips [at true emotional or material sacrifice to yourself] to the middle of the table for something or people whom you love over a long sustained period of time - not some impulsive act in the moment for an emotional reward, and (b) I think those people stranded on the road should have purchased an AAA membership; or should have carried an radio for emergency contact, brought on additional provisions or a marine GPS for their course on the high seas.
When I was young in my mid 20's, I've just moved to a hip and hipster neighborhood of a college town lively with grad students, artists and musicians and comics; But I was just a lonely and geeky guy lookin' to fit in and meet and make new friends with the glitsy scene.
One one evening, driving back from staying late on the job, I stopped for a fellow who motioned for help in the middle of the road. It turned out that his car battery died - but peculiarly his battery would not hold charge and his engine would only run if the jumper cable hooked up at all times. So really wanting to help, I offered to get into both of our cars with the jumper cables still connected - like 2 hungry hippos joined at the open mouths and drive down gingerly down 5 city blocks 'till we got to his driveway. Someway, somehow, against many honks and even incoming traffic, we made it. I was elated and thought I had made a friend and had a great story to tell; we exchanged phone numbers, and I asked the guy to have drinks with me some times.
Except the guy never replied back to my messages. And while disappointing, it wasn't a big deal in the grander scale of things in life vis-a-vis major breakup's, "major reorgs" at work or major rifts with family relatives. But with passage of time, I've learned why it still nagged at me - because if I was honest with myself: what I did was actually not very altruistic. I stopped because I was a lonely young man who was looking for some kind of excitement to take on a "hero" role even if only for a moment. A situation I was hoping would garner me some dopamine hit with truly minimal cost to me - and yes even an covert expectation that the stranger would return my " kindness" and maybe even a social reward if I re-told the story [chasing an aesthetic pleasure disguised as an ethical act in the Kierkegaardian sense].
So I don't think I'd be keen to stop for someone now - not because I've become a grumpy old man who don't believe most people are bad and you shouldn't take un-necessary personal risk. But because (a) I think real heroism is deliberately pushing all your chips [at true emotional or material sacrifice to yourself] to the middle of the table for something or people whom you love over a long sustained period of time - not some impulsive act in the moment for an emotional reward, and (b) I think those people stranded on the road should have purchased an AAA membership; or should have carried an radio for emergency contact, brought on additional provisions or a marine GPS for their course on the high seas.
This story was told in 2007. A used entry level marine GPS was in the $700 range at that time. Current map was $200 extra. In the boondocks there often isn't much price difference between used and new, so the price could have been in the $1000s also.
A used long-range radio could be cheaper, but not that much.
Both could easily be a year's earnings.
Satellite Phone was in the $10000s.
A used long-range radio could be cheaper, but not that much.
Both could easily be a year's earnings.
Satellite Phone was in the $10000s.
The fact this tale ended up on HN is in no way surprising to me.
[deleted]
Nice story. Thanks for sharing.
This, to me, highlights the flaw in the whole article. They nearly died. They were saved by a chance encounter with a friendly boat. This encounter was SO OBVIOUSLY not a product of their own motivation, boldness or any of the rest of that guff.
This is the worst form of survivor bias.