Former Community – We Moved
🆕 Coached community here, for posts & feedback public community here.
Ray Dalio beef with the WSJ: a terrible communication mistake
Quote from Stef on August 30, 2020, 8:00 amThis is great advice from a tactical point of view to avoid unnecesary conflict/escalations and for your peace of mind.As long as...
Absolutely, it comes with all the exceptions you state.
If you just interpret everything in the best light possible, then there are plenty of situations when you're setting yourself to being played, or to look submissive/stupid.
But if you choose to do it strategically, then it can be an effective technique of frame control, as well as giving people the benefit of the doubt and avoid escalations based on miscommunication.
When I was younger, I found myself at a place in life where I was completely alone. I became depressed and eventually suicidal because I felt like I was forced into isolation by my circumstances and missed out on getting a childhood due to having to grow up too fast to deal with my constant suicidal thoughts.
Happy to hear you are feeling better these days!
Something similar happen to me during my early teen years (around 12 to 16)
New book casting some doubts on Ray Dalio's supposed "perfect company culture" for effectiveness:
I'm starting to think that "ideal companies" and "(almost) perfectly meritocratic" aren't just rare.
They may be super rare -and must be super small and unknown, because the more the people in it, the more unlikely it is that everyone is an ego-less person. And the more well-known it is, the more likely it is that an egomaniac is promoting it-.
And companies that are wholly free of power dynamics, egos, and self-interest first are non-existent.
I'd like to review this book soon and link it to the original review of Principles.
Hi Lucio,
this is very interesting.
In other words, to paraphrase this with a single sentence, his books may just be one big PR stunt to "retroactively explain his success with a convenient 'good morals always win' story".
Just like 99% of all other books like his, I now see.
The Gervais Principle seems to really explain what goes on in the world. Most people are basically brainwashed.
That's why we don't teach in schools how to recognize and defend from dark triads: we are basically ruled and surrounded by them.
Well, that's what this new book seems to say.
But I think my original post may have gone overboard and framed that new book as "the real truth" (my bad), which of course, I don't know, and it's not necessarily the case.
Edit:
Also in that interview above, I personally sensed a bit of a one-sided bias.
As it's often the case, the truth may be a bit more in the middle and more shades of grey.
Already in the past we flagged that Dalio's "what's good for the whole is good" happened to also be tremendously good for him.
So, if I'd have to bet, I'd bet on "definitely no enlightened being" and "books present a way rosier view than reality" :).
PR stunt... Also potentially true, in my opinion.
But it's a major jump to go from "not enlightened" and/or "wanting power/recognition/influence" to "sociopath".
It's interesting. Agree 100% with what you said. In a small group you can control the culture and the recruiting. Past a certain size, it's not possible to control it and we have to accept that the balance of politics vs meritocracy will be unfavorable as the organization size grows.
Past a certain size, it's near impossible to fill the role that is missing and screen for manipulators/takers with an interview process. One will slip in at some point. The rotten apple will be in the basket just for statistical reasons.
Like Elon Musk had a "no-asshole" policy.... until he was the asshole.
Quote from John Freeman on November 12, 2023, 8:51 amIt's interesting. Agree 100% with what you said. In a small group you can control the culture and the recruiting. Past a certain size, it's not possible to control it and we have to accept that the balance of politics vs meritocracy will be unfavorable as the organization size grows.
Past a certain size, it's near impossible to fill the role that is missing and screen for manipulators/takers with an interview process. One will slip in at some point. The rotten apple will be in the basket just for statistical reasons.
Yes, exactly the dynamic I had in mind.
Even if, even if the founder is a true great guy, an eagle going for meritocracy and beyond Eagle to be truly enlightened, and even if he were to 100% transcend self-interest (whether that's a good thing or not, not entering into that topic)... He may have good control and influence until he picks the people around him and has full oversight.
But the more it grows, the more it becomes "standard human nature".
And out of simple statistics as you say, the higher the chances that simple and plain assholes and various dark triads will seep in (and maybe one day even take over).
OFF-TOPIC
As for Elon, yeah, it may be a very similar dynamic as Dalio and, in my clueless opinion, possibly worse as Elon is even a better PR guy.
OFF-TOPIC
Reflections after The Fund.
I believe in good part Ray Dalio called his own investigative journalism.
Had he owned it high power and straight, there wouldn't be any need to "uncover dirty laundry".
Something like:
"Yes, I do want to keep leading Bridgewater.
Everyone is partial to more power, rather than less.
I'm a human being, not immune to it.
But I also deeply love my job. And I also believe I can add more value if I'm in charge. Who knows, I may be wrong. But Bridgewater didn't grow so large if I didn't get a few things right (<---- power move against his attacker: what have you done to judge me?)
Instead...
It's when he went all "not true, I'm enlightened, you can trust me", that he came across a sneaky liar.
And that's when he instigated his own worse -and potentially valid- criticism.
P.S.:
This is an addendum I make for PU.
If anyone wants to reply, do so on Discord.
Forum's out :)
