= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Emile comments on Beyond Smart and Stupid - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (44)
Some examples would still be nice, even if controversial.
Some that I can think of:
A lot of what Pick-Up Artists talk about, i.e. the way a boy is "supposed" to behave to get a girl isn't always the way that actually works (I remember reading something about how the "traditional" wooing behavior made more sense in a context where you were mainly going after the approval of the girl's parents, but I haven't researched the subject in depth).
Much milder, "it's better to ask for forgiveness than permission", i.e. bypassing "official" hierarchy to get crap done
That some churches don't care that much about the actual professed belief
For many students, networking and contacts is more useful for the future than the degree you get or what you learn in classes (that's not a very big secret is it?)
When it's OK to ask for certain fees to be waived, to ask for a discount, to haggle
When it's OK to bribe someone (probably much more relevant in less-industrialized countries)
A lot of stuff is probably specific to a culture, or even to an organization.
Yes, these are all good examples. Some other ones that come to mind are:
Traffic rules: the ones that other drivers expect you to follow and cops actually enforce are significantly different from the formal ones. (For example, speed limits.)
Dealing with bureaucracies, both governmental and private ones. Their real operational rules are usually different from the formal ones, and you can use this not only to save time and effort, but also to exploit all kinds of opportunities that theoretically shouldn't exist at all.
Excusing your offenses and failures by presenting them as something that, while clearly not good, is still within the bounds of what happens to reasonable, respectable, high-status people. If you pull this off successfully, people will be much more forgiving, and the punishments and reputational consequences far milder -- and you can be much bolder in your endeavors, knowing that you have this safety exit if you're unlucky. This basically means exploiting people's unwritten practical rules for judgment, which may treat very differently things that are theoretically supposed to be equally bad.
The exact bounds to which you can push self-promotion without risking being exposed as a liar and cheater. This is essential since if you're not an extraordinary achiever whose deeds speak for themselves, you're stuck in a nasty arms race in which everyone is putting spin and embellishing the truth. However, it's far from clear which rules determine in practice where exactly this stops being business as usual and enters dangerous territory.
By the way, my thoughts on this matter were at one point stimulated by this shrewd quote by Lord Keynes: