Men who mean just what they say(journal.humancenteredtech.us)
journal.humancenteredtech.us
Men who mean just what they say
https://journal.humancenteredtech.us/p/men-who-mean-just-what-they-say
36 comments
I strongly recommend Focault's lectures (or book) on Parrhesia, on direct truth-telling.
https://foucault.info/parrhesia/
Why would this be flagged?! We desperately need more honest and trustworthy people or our society will collapse. Both Trump and Biden have been people who were not honest and have lost all of the citizens faith in our representative republic. We really need good ethical people leading us again.
[flagged]
> That timeline you gave a client that you hoped you could make but when push comes to shove was still quite optimistic, and in point of fact slipped by several weeks.
The songwriter wouldn’t have faulted a Green Beret for being optimistic in the face of risk, and maybe even failing sometimes. The message really was their whole being was invested in that timeline and making it happen, and you could be sure they would spend blood sweat and tears to give meaning to their words.
The songwriter wouldn’t have faulted a Green Beret for being optimistic in the face of risk, and maybe even failing sometimes. The message really was their whole being was invested in that timeline and making it happen, and you could be sure they would spend blood sweat and tears to give meaning to their words.
Yes, when circumstances change and make our "promises" unrealizable, that's not dishonesty. It's simply that we aren't omnipotent.
Any number of things could have prevented Kennedy's "go to the moon" promises from being pushed into the next decade. That wouldn't have retroactively made him a liar. (Other things like marital fidelity might have, but not the moon one.)
Any number of things could have prevented Kennedy's "go to the moon" promises from being pushed into the next decade. That wouldn't have retroactively made him a liar. (Other things like marital fidelity might have, but not the moon one.)
this is relatable, one reason I don't like the management track is because of this. I'm not the kind of software engineer that finds it difficult to communicate technical concepts in a non-technical way nor do I find it difficult to balance business decisions over technical pedantry
but I do find it draining to placate people, and largely irrelevant. as a founder when you have customers, clients, vendors, employees, other executives, board, and investors all with competing needs, that's the worst for me. at higher roles within someone else's organization it's even worse because you can get chewed out and be subject to these toxic relationships that actually affect your life. a founder with capital is just kind of annoyed but insulated from immediate consequence of paying down a debt or food and shelter.
outside of work, interpersonally, it's a friction only when around people with a different value system than you. I've moved around a lot and in some areas its like that, and I've "increased my emotional intelligence" more to accommodate but it is a breath of fresh air when a partner or friend is more reality oriented.
I have learned from these sycophantic LLMs and have adopted my language to be more similar, more affirmations even when my subsequent response is completely contradictory. "Good question!" "That's a very representative observation! I haven't seen anything to support that, you picked up on an important undercurrent"
now that I know it's all about engagement, based on how LLM's have been received and why, no other rigid framework is necessary
its important for me to know what reality is, so I prefer not to lie or omit because I want others to give me their objective reality, but its not as important
but I do find it draining to placate people, and largely irrelevant. as a founder when you have customers, clients, vendors, employees, other executives, board, and investors all with competing needs, that's the worst for me. at higher roles within someone else's organization it's even worse because you can get chewed out and be subject to these toxic relationships that actually affect your life. a founder with capital is just kind of annoyed but insulated from immediate consequence of paying down a debt or food and shelter.
outside of work, interpersonally, it's a friction only when around people with a different value system than you. I've moved around a lot and in some areas its like that, and I've "increased my emotional intelligence" more to accommodate but it is a breath of fresh air when a partner or friend is more reality oriented.
I have learned from these sycophantic LLMs and have adopted my language to be more similar, more affirmations even when my subsequent response is completely contradictory. "Good question!" "That's a very representative observation! I haven't seen anything to support that, you picked up on an important undercurrent"
now that I know it's all about engagement, based on how LLM's have been received and why, no other rigid framework is necessary
its important for me to know what reality is, so I prefer not to lie or omit because I want others to give me their objective reality, but its not as important
juggerl(2)
There are very few men in history remembered and celebrated primarily for integrity over violence and/or wealth and/or cleverness.
I would love to see more of a high-trust integrity culture in business and politics. But Wall St and MBA ethics are diametrically opposed to that.
Personally, I wouldn't trust a Green Beret CEO more than I'd trust any other founder.
I would love to see more of a high-trust integrity culture in business and politics. But Wall St and MBA ethics are diametrically opposed to that.
Personally, I wouldn't trust a Green Beret CEO more than I'd trust any other founder.
You get to lie to people exactly once. Once you lie, you may have profited, but your lie gets exposed and your jig is up. There is a lot more to be earned in the long term by staying honest.
> You get to lie to people exactly once. Once you lie, you may have profited, but your lie gets exposed and your jig is up.
Lots of people lie multiple times without their lies being exposed. Sometimes because they are good at lying, sometimes because they are good at picking targets that are bad at detecting lies, sometimes because they are lucky, sometimes because they have accomplices protecting the lies, sometimes a combination of multiple of those factors.
> There is a lot more to be earned in the long term by staying honest.
In the long term, we are all dead; all differences in material outcomes are short term; and while it would be nice if optimally moral behavior (including honesty) were also the optimal behavior for personal benefit, that’s not usually the case, and the myth that it is, among other adverse consequences, reinforces the cognitive bias where people give additional credence to the successful by associating success with trustworthiness.
Lots of people lie multiple times without their lies being exposed. Sometimes because they are good at lying, sometimes because they are good at picking targets that are bad at detecting lies, sometimes because they are lucky, sometimes because they have accomplices protecting the lies, sometimes a combination of multiple of those factors.
> There is a lot more to be earned in the long term by staying honest.
In the long term, we are all dead; all differences in material outcomes are short term; and while it would be nice if optimally moral behavior (including honesty) were also the optimal behavior for personal benefit, that’s not usually the case, and the myth that it is, among other adverse consequences, reinforces the cognitive bias where people give additional credence to the successful by associating success with trustworthiness.
> all differences in material outcomes are short term; and while it would be nice if optimally moral behavior (including honesty) were also the optimal behavior for personal benefit, that’s not usually the case
What a crappy worldview that is, and while it may have been true in the past, times have changed, and it no longer is the case. People can and will expose and report fraud rather immediately. Of course if one is demented or just not interested in fact-finding, then it makes no difference. Whether choosing to seek truth or ignore it, either way it is a choice.
Let me sum it up by saying that those who reject the truth have far shorter lives than those who accept it. So, yes, the ones disinterested in it will be dead sooner, and in this way they have more to gain from being a part of the lie.
What a crappy worldview that is, and while it may have been true in the past, times have changed, and it no longer is the case. People can and will expose and report fraud rather immediately. Of course if one is demented or just not interested in fact-finding, then it makes no difference. Whether choosing to seek truth or ignore it, either way it is a choice.
Let me sum it up by saying that those who reject the truth have far shorter lives than those who accept it. So, yes, the ones disinterested in it will be dead sooner, and in this way they have more to gain from being a part of the lie.
> What a crappy worldview that is, and while it may have been true in the past, times have changed, and it no longer is the case. People can and will expose and report fraud rather immediately. Of course if one is demented or just not interested in fact-finding, then it makes no difference. Whether choosing to seek truth or ignore it, either way it is a choice.
Sadly, I think the world has moved in the opposite direction.
I must assume that honesty was very important in the ancient world, in order for it to be listed in the Ten Commandments.
Today? Today I'm on a shared network with more humans than there are heartbeats in a lifetime. Even if a fraudster used their real names and not a fake ID, even when they're in the same country and it's not an international scam, even when a fraudster does time in prison, even when you're sure the fraud database itself isn't being gamed (e.g. getting legal threats for libel from listed real fraudsters, or the actual literal president uses their executive powers to pardon them), there's too many other people with the same names to just rely on looking everyone up.
Sadly, I think the world has moved in the opposite direction.
I must assume that honesty was very important in the ancient world, in order for it to be listed in the Ten Commandments.
Today? Today I'm on a shared network with more humans than there are heartbeats in a lifetime. Even if a fraudster used their real names and not a fake ID, even when they're in the same country and it's not an international scam, even when a fraudster does time in prison, even when you're sure the fraud database itself isn't being gamed (e.g. getting legal threats for libel from listed real fraudsters, or the actual literal president uses their executive powers to pardon them), there's too many other people with the same names to just rely on looking everyone up.
> What a crappy worldview that is, and while it may have been true in the past, times have changed, and it no longer is the case. People can and will expose and report fraud rather immediately.
If you don't think plenty of liars get away with repeatedly lying to the same people, then you aren't paying much attention to the real world around you.
Yes, some people will notice that they have been lied to the first time, and some of them will report it if that is something along the lines of fraud.
> Let me sum it up by saying that those who reject the truth have far shorter lives than those who accept it.
Even if that is true, that’s a very different thing. "Lying" and "rejecting the truth" are not the same thing.
If you don't think plenty of liars get away with repeatedly lying to the same people, then you aren't paying much attention to the real world around you.
Yes, some people will notice that they have been lied to the first time, and some of them will report it if that is something along the lines of fraud.
> Let me sum it up by saying that those who reject the truth have far shorter lives than those who accept it.
Even if that is true, that’s a very different thing. "Lying" and "rejecting the truth" are not the same thing.
> "Lying" and "rejecting the truth" are not the same thing.
To reject the truth is to lie to oneself.
To reject the truth is to lie to oneself.
Those who lie to themselves, usually do badly.
Usually, not always.
Those whose self-lies make them confident in their decisions, have a bias towards taking risks that they don't even realise are risks, and that absolutely can pay off massively — see e.g. every lottery winner. Such confidence is also a way to get public support, and directly cause success, seen with various (but not all) politicians.
Usually, not always.
Those whose self-lies make them confident in their decisions, have a bias towards taking risks that they don't even realise are risks, and that absolutely can pay off massively — see e.g. every lottery winner. Such confidence is also a way to get public support, and directly cause success, seen with various (but not all) politicians.
Everything that has happened to US politics since 2016 refutes that premise.
I believe in most ways you are correct, but in REAL life: it's complicated. Crime does often pay. Cheaters sometimes win. Known liars can gain cultlike followers.
I believe in most ways you are correct, but in REAL life: it's complicated. Crime does often pay. Cheaters sometimes win. Known liars can gain cultlike followers.
Allow me to qualify: "You lie gets exposed" -- to those who're seeking the truth. If one is not seeking the truth, they could be a part of the lie.
But it looks like a lot of people aren't seeking the truth. In other words: "I lied to you and what will you do about it?" You might stop believing the lying person, but that means others can still make him rich.
> "What will you do about it?"
I will expose it, of course, as far and wide and immediately as possible.
I will expose it, of course, as far and wide and immediately as possible.
And most people will be annoyed by preaching and you will get sued for defamation (because the liars don't care if it's not right) or bullied in any way possible. And still, despite wide recognition of lies, the liar will have support, he can even be a president (happened in my country, not USA).
I read a fair bit of history and I’m skeptical that there was a time when people were more honest. The lyrics of a patriotic song tell us little.
Perhaps some people were more naive, though?
Perhaps some people were more naive, though?
There certainly have been groups of people who are more honest and a separate set of groups of people who are able to live in a high trust society - - which is not exactly the same as honesty.
I was just reading Meditations and in 8.44 he reminds us that future generations will be no different than the contemporary one...
I was just reading Meditations and in 8.44 he reminds us that future generations will be no different than the contemporary one...
Yes. There are distinct male virtues, such as courage, nobility and authority. But if a man isn't honest then he's not worthy of consideration. Or, if you like, he hasn't yet matured into manhood.
This is why so much of totalitarianism is about getting men to repeat lies. Or why those check boxes 'I have read and understood the terms and conditions' are harmful.
This is why so much of totalitarianism is about getting men to repeat lies. Or why those check boxes 'I have read and understood the terms and conditions' are harmful.
I was raised Quaker, and in theory one of the core tenets of Quakerism is that uncomfortable honesty. Trivial example: refusing to swear on the Bible because that would imply that you might not be honest when you hadn't just sworn on a Bible.
I have found that Quakers are just as fallible as anyone else; but the subset of Quakers who really live that tenet have an unnerving and extremely peaceful unflinching willingness to comment or question on problems in a way that removes the smokescreens of social obligations. I've found it far easier to talk about anything involving money, feelings, sex, danger, beliefs, crime, fear, etc. with those individuals who have really committed their lives to only let truth come out of their mouth (even if they don't always succeed).
I have found that Quakers are just as fallible as anyone else; but the subset of Quakers who really live that tenet have an unnerving and extremely peaceful unflinching willingness to comment or question on problems in a way that removes the smokescreens of social obligations. I've found it far easier to talk about anything involving money, feelings, sex, danger, beliefs, crime, fear, etc. with those individuals who have really committed their lives to only let truth come out of their mouth (even if they don't always succeed).
I was raised in the Friends culture, and find this characterization skewed. "Honesty", yes. "Even if uncomfortable", sure, often, but only literally speaking. But I've never heard a Quaker in my life extol "uncomfortable truth" in those words. Because, realistically speaking, "telling the uncomfortable truth" when declared as a principle is 99% of the time just a wordplay excuse to be an asshole or to be petty (which I assume is why I never heard the Quakers in my life use that phrase, since they tend to be not only honest, but also kind and pragmatic).
Sure, I'll concede that the common wording of "uncomfortable truth" has been hijacked by podcasters and their ilk. I just meant "the truth, even when it's uncomfortable".
This is one of the oldest trick in the book of very very dumb people who confuse "the truth" with "what they think".
I'm sure we all met that person in the family or in a new job, or at school being so proud of themselves for being "honest", and later on you discover that their honesty is not honesty, it's just "saying whatever crosses their mind unfiltered".
I'm sure we all met that person in the family or in a new job, or at school being so proud of themselves for being "honest", and later on you discover that their honesty is not honesty, it's just "saying whatever crosses their mind unfiltered".
One of my biggest gripes with the Bay Area tech scene is that its social norms are the opposite of those espoused in this article.
> Perhaps it is also a testament to our incredibly deeply social nature that the highest praise of a man might in fact not be his prowess and ability to survive on an animal level, his ability to kill or run or calculate, but rather his ability to speak, and to do so in a way which accurately reflects the disposition of his soul, even if doing so risks the alienation of the person he speaks to or incurs obligations on himself which might be difficult to fulfill
Can we now acknowledge the harm the Bay Area communication style has done to our industry? This performative "kindness" cant you're supposed to adopt, this kayfabe of epistemic uncertainty, this "shit sandwich" feedback style, the obfuscation of orders as questions and of questions as musings --- it's exhausting. It's dishonest. It gets in the way of making good technology.
It also privileges a certain in-group undeservedly. The San Francisco Performative Niceness Lilt functions as a shibboleth. It comes more naturally to some than others, especially those who grew up far from Stanford's arches and palm trees. Much of the world, and much of the West, rewards a communication style much more in line with this "men who mean just what they say" essay, and it's about time the tech industry stop rewarding indirection-based word games.
> Perhaps it is also a testament to our incredibly deeply social nature that the highest praise of a man might in fact not be his prowess and ability to survive on an animal level, his ability to kill or run or calculate, but rather his ability to speak, and to do so in a way which accurately reflects the disposition of his soul, even if doing so risks the alienation of the person he speaks to or incurs obligations on himself which might be difficult to fulfill
Can we now acknowledge the harm the Bay Area communication style has done to our industry? This performative "kindness" cant you're supposed to adopt, this kayfabe of epistemic uncertainty, this "shit sandwich" feedback style, the obfuscation of orders as questions and of questions as musings --- it's exhausting. It's dishonest. It gets in the way of making good technology.
It also privileges a certain in-group undeservedly. The San Francisco Performative Niceness Lilt functions as a shibboleth. It comes more naturally to some than others, especially those who grew up far from Stanford's arches and palm trees. Much of the world, and much of the West, rewards a communication style much more in line with this "men who mean just what they say" essay, and it's about time the tech industry stop rewarding indirection-based word games.
[flagged]
Couldn't agree more with this. Another way to describe this kind of honesty is as "integrity", or in other words the coherence of your inner and outer lives. Hypocrites are always in a contest against themselves, which is a kind of self-sabotage. Insisting on personal integrity forces you to align your stated values with revealed preference, sharpening both.
When I was in my 20s, I hit a point where I started looking back on my high school years and realized there were a small handful of teachers who had a very large influence on what I use as my "compass" for guiding me towards being the person I wanted to become as an adult.
One commonality among all of those teachers is that decade(s) later, it seems that they are mostly the same person, beliefs-wise and character-wise. It appeared that they had hit a point in their life where they "figured it out", and anchored themselves on that point. I put the phrase in quotes, because as an adult, I know the statement is superficial now, but that it certainly how it seemed when I was younger.
Circling back to the post: in my own lived experience, "Men who mean what they say" became that way not necessarily through the sole virtue of honesty, but by guiding themselves using the same set of virtues (honesty included) for large portions of their life. It was very easy to understand what mattered to them and what they believed in, and as an adult at the end of my 20s, it is clear to me that should I want to become the person my younger self aspired to be, following in my teachers' example means making an increasing percent of my actions reflect the virtues that matter the most to me.
But it is a learned process, not one necessarily passed down through merely being a person who has learned that lying is bad. By learning to practice actions which reflect your virtues, you also learn how to avoid shallower "means-justify-the-ends" behavior (e.g. is it more important to NEVER tell a lie, even if speaking only in facts you know to be true creates more harm?)
One commonality among all of those teachers is that decade(s) later, it seems that they are mostly the same person, beliefs-wise and character-wise. It appeared that they had hit a point in their life where they "figured it out", and anchored themselves on that point. I put the phrase in quotes, because as an adult, I know the statement is superficial now, but that it certainly how it seemed when I was younger.
Circling back to the post: in my own lived experience, "Men who mean what they say" became that way not necessarily through the sole virtue of honesty, but by guiding themselves using the same set of virtues (honesty included) for large portions of their life. It was very easy to understand what mattered to them and what they believed in, and as an adult at the end of my 20s, it is clear to me that should I want to become the person my younger self aspired to be, following in my teachers' example means making an increasing percent of my actions reflect the virtues that matter the most to me.
But it is a learned process, not one necessarily passed down through merely being a person who has learned that lying is bad. By learning to practice actions which reflect your virtues, you also learn how to avoid shallower "means-justify-the-ends" behavior (e.g. is it more important to NEVER tell a lie, even if speaking only in facts you know to be true creates more harm?)