From the publication: “The speculation that the hand gesture herein presented is a freemasonry’s conveyed code is fascinating, but it is hard to accept.”
This sentence concluded a very short paragraph that apparently aimed to explore whether the hand sign could have a Masonic meaning. But instead of giving any explanation for their conclusion, the authors merely postulate the above without any given reasoning. I’m surprised to find this in what appears to aim to be a scientific analysis. Even more so would it surprise me if any conscious reader found this conclusion satisfactory.
Because it’s a statement about men or because of the implied possibility they could be unhappy in their marriage?
Also, why is it horrible?
It appears this world has become manically trigger-happy to label something as -ist or -istic, when it contains even only a hint of something someone could possibly understand the wrong way.
It would be curious to examine in a psychological study if this reinforced behavior has developed more due to a subtle social reward system for the “labelers”, or due to a punishment system for the “non-labelers”.
You may be right about him “deserving” the place, but you appear to be missing the point here: just by pure statistics, there would have been others who also dropped out of college to serve in WW2, but who did not have an influential father like Munger, and who then did not get the admission he did. Also by pure statistics, there is a likelihood that among these others were many who were at least as deserving as he was.
In summary, the argument is to point out the difference between personal effort/discipline/work ethic/character (and everything that’s commonly named as the “reason” of success) and the huge impact of external conditions that are completely outside the realm of influence of the individual in question, such as their parent’s wealth and influence, physical build, natural attractiveness, health, location of birth, etc.
It is very, VERY common that people uphold and believe in the (comforting) myth that mostly oneself is responsible for success and that said external factors are basically negligible. The “self-made” person… You could even throw them on Mars and they’ll somehow become billionaires and own mansions!
There is not much to add, except that such thinking appears outdated (previous economic booms allowed for a bit more control of one’s fate), ignorant, and self-congratulatory - a delusion of a successful person who is neither aware nor grateful for the external circumstances that allowed them to get where they are.
FWIW I like Charlie Munger, a down-to-earth thinker who doesn’t shy away from talking about inconvenient truths. Chances are he would even agree with the above.
Book recommendation: “Outliers: The Story of Success” by Malcolm Gladwell.
I think what you’re describing could be because the pace of life was slower, there was less competition for everything, the consequences of making mistakes less severe, the general economic situation easier, and it was worth a lot more to learn and know something. There was also more quality work to be found in software, relatively speaking.
Oh, you just made me completely melancholic with that atmospheric description! Makes me miss these times a lot. The abundance of information is truly a blessing, but also a curse.
Optically maybe, if that’s what you’re aiming for. Just assuming that the “group of white men” are “all the same” is not very deep. The truth is that they’re all individuals with individual stories strangers who judge them by their looks know nothing about. It used to be understood as a good thing to not judge people based on their gender or skin color, including the nowadays declared “evil” white men.
> The point is sound - the reader is not responsible for paying the author, not even if the reader read author's work.
What a convenient way to make oneself feel comfortable living a moral-free life. Like as if this changes anything for the end result that someone stole something, and someone else has to foot the bill for that. You’re arguing off the premise that „the distributor is big anyway, so stealing from them doesn’t hurt anyone”. And the premise that it won’t hurt the author. It appears worthy of consideration that there may be a lack of fantasy here on your part.
I was thinking that this event might have been the inspiration for that part of the book?