Reminds me of how we got money for our first servers for Publictivity. We were in between brainstorms and went down to Publix to get beer since we knew it was going to be a late night of mockups/product specs/ brainstorms,etc. It was a couple of weeks before the superbowl and Publix had a "win tickets to the superbowl contest" going on where you had to show that you were a passionate NFL fan for your favorite team. No one else competed, so they asked us two days before the superbowl to go compete in front of a few hundred people + NFL stars to win those tickets. We were pretty excited, because we knew those tickets were worth a few grand. We could use that to pay our server bills+other costs. So, we went. I had the routine of eating a cake in under a minute and getting everybody hyped up. I didn't win. Frank had the routine of shaving the Dolphins logo into his chest and being the number one Dolfan:
Frank won. We hawked the tickets on the day of the superbowl for about $3,400 or so. It paid for our original servers + development servers for the next year. The money was minimal though helpful, but moreso the story is one worth a whole lot more.
IMO the cleverest part is that "for privacy reasons" he couldn't show any of his work. It reminds me of the woman who conned the Ivy League saying that she changed her name due to domestic abuse. Maybe somewhere there's a guy calling himself the greatest programmer in the world, but he can't answer any interview questions because it's all classified.
Maybe somewhere there's a guy calling himself the greatest programmer in the world, but he can't answer any interview questions because it's all classified.
The government seems to hire a LOT of these people; I meet them all the time.
That level of lying would be too painful for me, even given the success that might come from it. As an engineer whose job it is to make reliable systems, I have strong feelings about the truth. I don't want to behave like that, and I don't want to be around people who do.
It may have been a lie but I enjoyed that lie. When a girl asks you if she looks pretty (and she doesn't), do you tell the truth? The morality of lies is a matter of individual perception. That subjectivity is making me less and less concerned about whether it is right or wrong to lie. These days I think in cost/benefit trade-offs. The trade-off in this story was a good one, his reputation doesn't seem to have taken any damage.
When a girl asks you if she looks pretty (and she doesn't), do you tell the truth?
Yes. I do. There are plenty of people who probably think I'm an asshole, but I think there might be more people who trust me.
I'm not saying that I tell the truth in absolutely every situation. There are cases where I would lie immediately-- to save a family member from kidnapping, whatever-- but that's a far cry from lying being merely a weight on the scales. For me, if I'm thinking about it consciously, weighing whether I should lie, the answer is no. I'd even go so far as to call lying Bad.
However it's a leading question and it most likely she is either feeling insecure or spent a lot of time getting ready, either way I would suggest not saying "no" especially if it's your girlfriend.
The person who asks a question hoping for a lie to make her feel better will not be my girlfriend (plus, I'm lucky in this case in that I think my girlfriend is dazzling).
But the real point is, I try to avoid people for whom appearances are more important than truth.
Augh! I'm seeing this more and more. This was a fine comment. It was not a troll; it was not rude. I personally don't agree with it, but voting is not for agreement or disagreement. That's what responses are for. Don't downvote comments which aren't trollish or otherwise rude just because you disagree with them.
(Background: this comment was downvoted. I've seen this happen at least 5 times in the past two days, it annoyed me, I commented.)
In general, I agree with you. But you can downvote for dishonesty in a comment, and the poster is advocating dishonesty. Not the same thing, but related. I think an argument can be made that that particular comment crossed the line and can be downvoted.
For example, you said that you believe a comment can be downvoted for being rude. I agree. But advocating dishoesty, I think, is far worse than being rude.
I think you're drawing a bright white line where there doesn't deserve to be one. White lies aren't "dishonesty"; they're essential social manners for getting along with people. Taken to the limit, in a drunken aggressive situation, white lies may save your life.
What annoys me more, though, is that you seem to be making a moral argument rather than a rational argument. Morals that are not backed by reason are on shaky grounds. And the great-grandparent was arguing by example that lying is sometimes not immoral. You can't counter that kind of argument by saying, in effect, that lying is wrong, that's that, and your argument is therefore worthless and should be downvoted.
Morals that are not backed by reason are on shaky grounds.
I'd say that's exactly what the moral realm is-- the area where reason fails us. Like you, I don't see much point in arguing about non-rational propositions; it's just two people contradicting each other.
I disagree with you about "white lies," though. In the limit, sure, I'd lie to save my brother from kidnapping, or that sort of thing. But most of the time, I'd rather deal in the truth, even if it makes people a little unhappier in the short term. For example, I'd rather hear "Your startup has serious problems X, Y, and Z that you had better fix before you launch," than "Looks great. I'm sure it will be bigger than Google," if the problems are really there.
My position is rather more stark than I made it out to be. I cannot agree with you that the decision between right and wrong must necessarily not be made with the rational mind.
Don't forget, emotions are just rationality in a different guise, in an evolutionary context. Take the extreme examples of love and hate: love help ensures the survival of genetic material close to your own lineage, while hate binds you to act - possibly violently (i.e. "irrationally") - if wronged, even if that is harmful to your own material position, in a kind of logic of mutually assured destruction. And of course, MAD is one of the more supremely rational approaches to the nuclear question, and is the primary reason why there hasn't been a WW3.
The problem with abandoning reason with respect to morals is that you will no longer be swayed by rational argument. For example, if you take your morals from the dead scripture of an old religion, you're locking yourself into a rational system of laws designed (largely) for agricultural societies which often didn't have an independent strong rule of law. If your attachment to this dead writing is strong, it will lead to profoundly unjust positions and outcomes, such as supporting the suppression of females in society, or discrimination against people "not like you" (gay, other religions, etc.).
I'm not sure I understand what you mean. I agree enthusiastically that taking your morals from the dead scripture of an old religion is a terrible idea. I also think that we should try to make all of our decisions as rationally as we can.
But I also think that there are certain questions that I answer irrationally, but with great certainty. The best example I can think of is torture. (Sorry to be gruesome.) When I think about whether the torture is justified, my immediate answer is no. I am not certain, but I don't think a rational argument could convince me otherwise. I could probably be convinced that mild forms aren't always bad, but the more extreme stuff-- no way.
I think my position could be summarized as "There is a subset of decisions that I can't make rationally, even though I think it would be better if I could."
Sure, but 30 seconds before you pitch that startup is it more beneficial to hear "Pingswept you look great!" or "Pingswept that zit on your nose really detracts from your presentation."
I realize that there are people who are motivated by that kind of vapid encouragement, or discouraged by superficial criticism. I'd rather hear the truth, even if it's painful.
I'm not saying that right before an important presentation, I'd like to hear the recitation of an index of my shortcomings-- I'd rather hear a list of my strengths. But I don't think false praise is helpful.
Morals that are not backed by reason are on shaky grounds
I'd argue that all moral decisions are made on emotional, not rational, grounds. The ones that appear to be reasoned are in fact just rationalizations of emotional decisions.
Morality is how emotions manifest themselves in decision-making, and those emotions evolved to maintain specific social behaviours. There's nothing wrong with that. That's how morality (e.g. reciprocity) works in all other animals, and it's why there are so many grey areas and edge cases (white lies being a prime example).
Emotional arguments are rational arguments, but of a different kind. As I explain in my cousin posting to this (see reply to pingswept), emotions have rational reasons for existing. So we need not base our moral reasoning in emotions, but rather on the rational concepts behind those emotions, with no loss of generality.
You're making a lot of false assumptions about my position.
I essentially agree that white lies aren't "dishonesty," but what exactly consitutes a "white lie" is up for debate.
More importantly, I believe the word "moral" simply refers to a code of right and wrong which MUST be rationally supported to be valid.
I don't think there is a valid moral rule that states, "Do not lie." For example, one morally SHOULD lie to a serial killer who asks if your wife and kids are in the house. However, I consider that kind of case out of the scope of the present discussion. As a rule, you should not attempt to fake reality (lie) to other honest people in normal situations.
Nah. Advocating dishonesty is okay. It's a legit point of view, if you don't like it, say so. He wasn't being dishonest, after all, only advocating it.
Also, it's ironic that your comment was downvoted.
Criticism should always be specific. (And should suggest a way to re-mediate the issue)
No: "You look fat", "You suck at maths", "RTFM"
Yes: "That dress is wrong for your body. It makes you look fat. Try this one", "You need to work on your fractions more - here; I'll help", "Rather than asking it here, this manual over here (link) answers your questions. Try chapter 5"
// I forgot to add a reason. Truth is important. I'm much harsher on those that I love than strangers - the reason is that hearing any truth gives you an opportunity to grow. I never lie to my wife / close friends because I care about them, and not just about their feelings. I'd rather hurt their feelings in the short term, than damage them in the long term.
However, he confessed his lie, and now he works making movies. They're lies too! They're fictional. Yet good things -- including important truths -- come out of them.
Richard Branson confesses in his autobiography how he started his business career with lies. He would phone up a bank and try to sell advertising space in his student magazine by claiming that a rival bank had already bought space and that they should get in on the action.
I remember my dad telling me about different kinds of businesses one can start. He told me about a family friend that's running a pawn shop, and is rather successful at it. I asked him why he never went into the pawn shop business. My dad told me that wasn't a business he'd be able to do by his nature.
I realized a while later that what he meant was that there's lots of ways to make money, but not all of them will sit well with you. Each industry has its cultural values and accepted norms. Everyone's different with the ethical decisions that crop up in business's edge cases. You'll want to pick one that suits your nature so you can sleep at night.
Of course, business is all one gray area. While we may all bend the rules a bit for an advantage, beware those that do it too much. What you do attracts those you run with.
I remember reading in Tao of Warren Buffet saying something to the extent of (not exact quote) "Pick those that are smart, hardworking, and ethical to work with. Especially the last one, because if that isn't there, the first two are going to kill you."
I have heard this story (about personalized porn ) before reading the blog post. At the time I wondered how many people would be comfortable doing so, but in all of NY I figured it was remotely possible. Now, I realize it would be the perfect lie because it was "obvious" that he would not have any material left over, and as a rumor it could easily spread.
I would have that suspicion even if he posted about how he made up the whole story for a blog post and it got him traffic. Or at any level in this recursive tell-a-tall-tale-but-it-was-all-a-lie process.
> "Man, you’re a good bullshitter," I say. "You knew that about me already," he says.
This guy deliberately lies to "friends" simply because it might benefit him someday. At best he's a drinking buddy; the author would be out of his mind to actually trust him.
People can be trustworthy in all sorts of ways. Some people will lie all the time because the truth is boring, but they will also drive 2 hours into the middle of nowhere to pick your ass up when you break down at 2 am.
That's not necessarily true. Some people compartmentalize things on a need to know basis. They'll lie about stuff that isn't on the list for fun or profit, but will absolutely do the right thing if it concerns you.
Did I ever tell you about my first startup? We did top secret project for the US government and sold to a branch of the government for about $100 million.
The name? Oh, I can't tell you the name. That's top secret!
One of the senior engineers at a past employer once worked for a government contractor. Their product didn't work. At all. And everyone at the company new it.
However, their customers were all government agencies, and the work was classified. Which meant that none of them could tell other government agencies that the product didn't work. At all.
So they went on merrily selling the same non-working product to multiple agencies, one by one, until they ran out of agencies working on classified products that didn't already know they were full of shit. At which point I assume the company went bankrupt and the engineers took their saved-up salaries and found other jobs.
Contrary to what this story is trying to teach us, I think the real lesson here is that it's all about who you know. The key phrase was: "I liked the story so much I pitched the idea to a jour na list friend of mine". Yes, he needed a good story or something remarkable to pitch to his journalist friend, but it was his network of connections that ultimately helped his young, film maker friend.
The lesson is that our usual assessments of people are superficial and inaccurate. This includes standardized testing, people's faces, and of course subjective self-assessments.
Some people lie to compensate for the inadequacies of people's ability to assess innate capability. Other people lie to try to get more than they truly deserve. The former is a normal response from a normal person. The latter are called "douchebags."
Another story along these lines I heard a few years ago is about a guy who wants to put on a trade show in some industry. This is going to be the first of a (hopefully) annual occurrence. A great event to pull customers and businesses together, yadda yadda. Nobody wants to be the first vendor to sign up for his show. So, he starts calling some 2nd tier companies and telling them there is "limited space" and "many of their competitors are already on-board", but of course he can't name specific names.
Once people started thinking it was actually filling up and was going to be a good event they started to sign up. He managed to fill the whole expo space at the last minute and everyone lived happily ever after.
Had he not sold on the "lie" it would of never happened... Sometimes you have to get creative with your marketing and take a chance when you believe in yourself.
'Had he not sold on the "lie" it would of never happened... Sometimes you have to get creative with your marketing and take a chance when you believe in yourself.'
So it's OK to lie, because you can put it in scare quotes and talk about it all worked out in the end?
When you're out on a job interview and they ask you "Are you interviewing with anyone else?" or "Do you have any other offers?" or "What's your current salary?", what are the answers you give? Would you always answer these questions completely and honestly?
"Would you always answer these questions completely and honestly"
Pretty much. If they ask something that's none of their business, I tell them that, too, as tactfully as possible.
Answer completely? No, not always; people are not entitled to information just because they ask.
What I try not to do is get people to make decisions based on me willfully and deliberately making shit up.
When I read stories such as the "custom porn" tale, and people's reactions to it, I get the sense that the bravado and cleverness of it absolves (or at least obscures) any issues with deceit.
There are times when lying is not only needed, but the absolute right thing to do, but that's not decided by what a good story it makes to tell your friends later.
Oh, I get what lesson he wants people to take away from it. It's highlighted in bold with neon signs. It's kind of similar to a lot of what Tim Ferriss does.
I'm just not sure if that's anything I want to use. But despite that, it was a good read.
Whether this is entirely true or not, surely the underlying message worth noting is that you can give the impression you are more successful than you are. This, of course, translates to the business/startup world where perception matters.
Regardless of the truthfulness of the story, I think there's something worth taking away here. (And it's pretty funny!)
Anyone creative and determined enough to come up with a lie like that to get around barriers and break into a business, would have creative enough to come up with an alternate route that doesn't involve lying.
Video: http://www.youtube.com/user/publictivity#p/u/2/DP3WtwwoarE
Frank won. We hawked the tickets on the day of the superbowl for about $3,400 or so. It paid for our original servers + development servers for the next year. The money was minimal though helpful, but moreso the story is one worth a whole lot more.