Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | bt4u2's commentslogin

This is silly. Don't reduce me to some risk averse weakling because I'm not willing to put my neck out for strangers for little to no reward. If you're like that, and you regularly go to Africa to help people, more power to you. I'm not. Most people are not.


We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14676851 and marked it off-topic.


> I'm not willing to put my neck out for strangers for little to no reward

Part of my point is that is often exactly what is required of leaders.


No good leader is taking unnecessary risks. In fact, if you study history, taking unnecessary risks has been the downfall of many otherwise great leaders


IMO, everyone who has left a steady job to found a company has taken an unnecessary risk.


That's a very subjective definition of unnecessary risk. Clearly there are potential rewards (ev+ if you're into poker or ai) in starting your own company.

Helping a stranger get promoted? At the risk of ending your career (a massive loss for most people)? With the only reward being feeling good for Doing The Right Thing (tm)? Not so much


> Clearly there are potential rewards (ev+ if you're into poker or ai) in starting your own company.

That a risk is +EV does not make it a necessary risk.


Surely a more necessary risk than ev-, wouldn't you agree?


More advisable? Yes. More necessary? No.


Okay then. It took you a while, and a few unnecessary (ho ho ho) downvotes of my posts but we finally agree: The smart move for any male leader is to never spend any 1on1 time with female subordinates, and unfortunately ignore how that might affect her career


To be clear: I do not agree.

How you reach that conclusion and seem to claim that to be an inevitable/logical chain of reasoning is literally beyond my understanding. I started this subthread with the claim that an interesting life is full of risks and that leaders must be willing to take risks that do not have any obvious selfish benefit.

For the record, I have not downvoted a single one of your posts. (You can't downvote posts that are in reply to one of your own anyway, but I haven't downvoted any others either.)


Everyone is like this, and everyone knows it. But you're not supposed to talk about it.

Besides, thoughts are just thoughts. You can choose to try to not act on them


Definitely. But what are you supposed to do? "Don't overstep boundaries", sure, but that's not a very practical advice. In this life you will overstep sometimes. Like bugs in code, it's unfortunate, but unavoidable.

I wouldn't risk my career for a man, so why should I risk it for a woman? The rational thing seems to be playing it safe.

The whole situation is nuts


"A ship in harbor is safe, but that is not what ships are built for." (John Shedd, but sidelong relevant to this thread was also cited several times by Grace Hopper in interviews).

If you take the apparent maximally safe course of action at every turn in life, you probably won't achieve much. It's risky to change jobs, to break up with your current partner, to start dating someone, to have kids, to buy a house, to change cities, to pick a college/major, to pick an initial career, to drive in the rain, to play recreational sports, to travel to a different country, to eat sushi, and 100s of other times in any given year.

If you are willing to do something important (and work-related) for a man that you are not willing to do for a woman, IMO, you should not be in a position of leadership.


Why are comments like this allowed? Putting fingers in your ears and scream "no!!!" over and over is not very useful or constructive


I agree, the grandparent comment is not contributing to the discussion by disagreeing with every point without providing any meaningful counterpoint.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: