You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

Torello comments on Open thread, Nov. 24 - Nov. 30, 2014 - Less Wrong Discussion

4 Post author: MrMind 24 November 2014 08:56AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (317)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: CAE_Jones 25 November 2014 12:48:25AM 1 point [-]

It seems that, in order to accomplish anything, one needs some combination of conscientiousness, charisma, and/or money*. It seems that each of the three can strengthen the others:

  • Conscientiousness correlates with earning potential
  • A conscientious person can exert extraordinary effort to learn, practice, and internalize behaviors that increase charisma.
  • a charismatic person can make connections and get deals and convince people to give them money.
  • Money can buy charisma/conscientiousness training or devices, or can pay people to be charismatic/conscientious in pursuit of one's goals.

If someone lacks all of these resources severely enough, is there any way to correct that? It rather seems like the answer is "no, but most people can't imagine someone with that much of a deficit in all three at the same time".

* Yes, I could have gone for alliteration with "cash", "credit", or "capital". Money seems different enough that the dissonance seemed like a better idea at the time.

Comment author: Torello 25 November 2014 02:26:42AM 4 points [-]

This is not exactly a reply to your question, but I think your question is fits this dynamic:

Miller's Iron Law of Iniquity

In principle, there is an evolutionary trade-off between any two positive traits. But in practice, every good trait correlates positively with every other good trait.

http://edge.org/response-detail/11314