Hacker News Reader

Another way of incorporating this is with the classic "Never trust a man in a suit"

We know that we give extra weight to the arguments of good looking individuals. Guys in suits generally look better than guys in sweatpants. Therefore, if a guy in a suit tells you something, it's not really as good of an idea as you think it is. He's also not as competent or hard working as you think he is.

To combat this, you should try harder to find faults in the well dressed. Hence, never trust a man in a suit.

no, to combat this, you need to wear a nicer suit.

if you are in a room full of suits and you are wearing casual clothes, you better own the fucking company or nobody is going to listen to a damn thing you're saying. the suit makes others, and yourself more authoritative, even to yourself.

this is a highly social activity/phenomenon you're describing, you can't just power through and ignore it because you know how computers work.

I'm sorry. I guess that I didn't make myself clear. I meant that distrusting people in suits should be used along side wearing one. You're absolutely right that this is a universal social bias that you can't erase simply through an act of will. Everyone will judge you on your appearance and you need act accordingly. However, if you don't try to overcome your own bias, you're ignoring people for no good reason.

To put it differently, the first lesson you should learn from Monster Cable is that, with proper marketing, you can get people to pay $60 for a $1 cable. However, the second lesson you shouldn't buy Monster Cable.

Why are people in Silicon Valley so against suits? I like dressing up. I look damn good in a suit and I want to wear one every day.

Of course you do. And because our natural tendency is to think "you look damn good in a suit, you must be competent and valuable", we need to watch out for that effect in ourselves so we don't unwittingly bias ourselves into making bad decisions.

Y'know, as the article spent pages and pages explaining.

Suits tend to be uncomfortable (mainly, they're too hot to wear in the summer, don't fit well if your body size fluctuates), are fragile and easily get damaged or stained or rumpled (eg, you can't casually sit on the grass wearing one) and are expensive and annoying to clean (you can't just toss them in a washer/dryer).

So there's a bimodal equilibrium. If you don't own anything that's dry-clean-only or requires pressing, it is a real pain in the ass to deal with one or two items that are. Whereas I suppose if nearly everything you wear is dry-clean-only, you evolve a very different set of habits such that it doesn't seem like a big deal to take care of a suit.

If you only wear a suit once or twice a year, it's not worth getting it re-tailored to fit you well or getting one perfectly matched for the seasonal weather...so when you DO wear it, you're wearing something that doesn't fit well and is too cold or too hot, which makes you less inclined to wear one often.

What if you're short?

Maybe devote your political activities to pushing for a height tax...

http://www.nber.org/papers/w14976

But yeah, from an economically utilitarian perspective, you could solve this by differentially taxing the attractive.

Harrison Bergeron, anyone?

Great story, everyone should read it:

http://www.tnellen.com/cybereng/harrison.html

Also, film adaptation that was phenomenally well done: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tvqsv1pPSbg

Er, no. An economist would be horrified by Harrison Bergeron, as demonstrating the most damaging possible form of egalitarianism and nothing like the grandparent proposal; the point of a height tax is not to make tall people shorter - whatever good or purpose is being fulfilled by tall people is still fulfilled after the tax, and the tax serves the useful function of raising revenue while also not distorting any investments or consumptions or plans.

Exactly.

Though it bears pointing out that Mankiw was doing this as a parody of progressive taxation, not as a serious proposal.

If there's any kind of proposal or law that favors the rich, the super rich or the ultra rich, Greg Mankiw will be in favor of it.

He's a morally and intellectually bankrupt academic. He's currently defending Reinhart and Rogoff, for instance.

I'm not sure it's such a bad idea. It's a non-distorting tax and the unearned benefits of height seem clearly established. Why not?

Better idea: Lets tax everyone who gives tall people advantages. The tall person didn't choose to be tall. Their parents didn't have a say in the matter either. Shall we tax them for making a tall heir?

You know who had a say in tall people having "advantages"? Everyone who gives them said advantage. Tax them.

>You know who had a say in tall people having "advantages"? Everyone who gives them said advantage. Tax them.

Ok... so the next step is how do you measure in a consistent and non-gamifiable way who is giving these advantages?

If you can't answer that, it won't be a good tax.

With all respect, bad idea. The next logical step would be the ability to choose any arbitrary trait to punish for producing an unfair advantage, like being smart (an overrated trait in many circumstances).

Abraham Lincoln was both tall and smart -- such a program would have ruined him. :)

Also, ideas like this only add to the power of governments. I think most people will argue there should be a limit to governmental power. People differ on what that limit should be, but I think most would agree that taxing height or some other trait goes too far.

> being smart (an overrated trait in many circumstances).

I disagree, the advantages of being smart appear in an astounding number of contexts, from making a lot more money than everyone else to living longer to having better teeth etc (and yes, most of the many IQ correlations survive after conditioning on the obvious stuff).

The real issue here is that intelligence correlates with income to such a degree that progressive income taxation (very common) may already be playing this role.

We are in agreement, that was my whole point. =))

I agree wholeheartedly. Unfortunately we're in a country (assuming US) where everyone wants handouts and an even playing field, regardless of their lifestyle choices. People demand their offices install ramps for mobility scooters when they're morbidly obese and it's discriminatory not to oblige, but try arguing your work should open later because you drink too much every night. Overeating and copious alcohol consumption are one and the same, IMO.

It's also easy for others to assume everything they don't have was given to others or comes naturally. Out of shape people give me hell all the time for being in excellent physical condition, but they don't know about the 10 miles of running every day and 6 hours of training I put into wrestling for most of my life, or that I run and lift weights daily and watch what I eat. To them, they're not willing to work on their body to have what others have, but are willing to bitch about it. Granted some people are just born unattractive, but it's amazing what a little focus on your appearance can do to change how you look and are perceived. We can extrapolate unattractiveness out a little bit and look at appearance as well. Would you be fired from an office job for dressing like a bum, smelling like body odor, and looking disheveled all the time? Most likely. Is that discrimination? I would argue it's not.

"everyone wants handouts"

"an even playing field"

The argument there would appear to be that the people arguing for a level playing field want no one to get handouts (or, alternatively, for them to get compensatory handouts). Which, in a world with perfect knowledge and perfect implementation, I could probably get behind a government policy enforcing that. After all, a rich kid getting access to a million dollar trust fund is getting a handout just as much as the single mom picking up some food stamps. Or a person with a pretty face making more money than someone with a pock-marked face does simply by that fact.

Requiring perfect knowledge and perfect implementation are, of course, insurmountable caveats.

Of course. "Stop being fat, it's easy, look at me how fit I am" is pretty much the same "Stop being poor, it's easy, look at how rich I am."

Not being fat also involves lifestyle choices that are easier to make when you are rich. E.g. want to go workout but you live in a sucky climate? No problem, just drive on over to the gym! Want to live in a better climate where you can bike to work every day? Sure, just move to the bay area. Want to work out before lunch? You have a high value job, your employer will be flexible.

Then sometimes its just a matter of context. I've totally gained weight since the gym in my apartment complex suddenly shutdown, and the pollution has been so bad this winter (700+ 2.5PM) that my options for doing much anything active have been severely limited.

This is true.

In my younger and more vulnerable years my father gave me some advice that I’ve been turning over in my mind ever since. “Whenever you feel like criticizing any one,” he told me, “just remember that all the people in this world haven’t had the advantages that you’ve had.”

Control your eating. More Protein, more veggies. Eating in a way that is healthy and keeps your weight down is not expensive. A few bodyweight exercises can be done several times a week and take only a few minutes. It's possible to be in good shape and lean even if you are poor. If you want too.

Ok Governor Schwarzenegger, I think you are missing the point. There are three factors that determine your healthiness:

1. Willpower/discipline/ (i.e. if you want too!)

2. Habit (nurture)

3. Environment (income, climate, work schedule, nearby grocery stores)

Any deficiency in one factor must be made up by another. Yes, (1) is good enough if you have a lot of willpower/discipline to spare, but not all of us do. (2) is ideal, but maybe our parents didn't do such a great job. (3) allows perhaps allows you to overcome (1) and (2), but not always.

Close, but not quite. I'm more german than austrian.

Actually I'm doing my PHD on adherence to healthy habits and behavioural change (preventative medicine with a focus on exactly these things). ;) The whole willpower shtick is a bit overplayed based on the available evidence. The real (first) problem is often learned helplessness. And then a lack of knowledge on how to change things and which things are most important. Shaping your environment and changing your habits without using significant amounts of willpower. It's doable.

"Stop being fat, it's easy, look at me how fit I am"

Which is very, very, very true. I was 240 pounds, went down to 155 - and hell yah, I will repeat it back to you - "Stop being fat, it's easy, look at me how fit I am". Gym, sweat and cry as I did. The first thing you'll notice too is how much less self-pity you have. And that's manly too.

I was going to post that nobody who has actually been through it will tell you that it's easy. I guess I was wrong. I think you're probably missing the point.

I weighed slightly less than you (something like 105kg / 230lbs), dropped down to around 70kg (155lbs) mostly on diet changes, and am currently hovering around 75kg (165lbs) having been doing weight training for the last four months. Not done yet obviously (still some more body fat to get rid of), but I'm getting there.

It feels easy from here, certainly, because I'm used to it. Getting here required a lot of hard work (in my case, over a period of a couple of years), and a lot of persistence.

The problem is getting started - knowing what you need to do, getting on with it, and sticking to it. It's intimidating, and it requires quite a lot of commitment. The trick is that, once you've got going, it actually gets much easier. You just need to get going first.

I'll completely agree on this though: DO IT. Seriously, just do it. It's all going to be worth it in the end, because you'll feel so much better for it.

> Out of shape people give me hell all the time for being in excellent physical condition, but they don't know about the 10 miles of running every day

My major exertion this week was going to the doctor. I rode in a car, walked 20 ft, sat on a chair, talked, rode home, and had to go lie down and take medicine. As my doctor remarked, "You look grey." Because I have a chronic illness and nobody is sure what exactly it is or what to do about it. I've been like this off an on, without much rhyme or reason, since 2009 when I came down with mono for the second (yes second) time. I used to exercise every day, before I got sick. Now some days, if I do any kind of exercise -- for mere minutes! -- it'll knock me on my ass for days, a kind of exhaustion and pain and fatigue you can't understand unless you've experienced it. This they give the benign, cuddly title of "post-exertional malaise."

Luckily if somebody looks at me and thinks I'm fat because I'm lazy, I really couldn't give a shit, because having your vitality ripped from you at 26 really gives you perspective on stupid things like that guy's staring at my fat ass.

The irony, of course, is that you are guilty of what you claim others are guilty of… not having a clue as to the private lives or struggles of the people around you. Judging them based on appearance. Thinking you know them.

But if you, heaven forbid, develop a chronic illness and you're smart enough to do your own research, you'll find that millions of people all around you are suffering in silence. Of being told they simply must be lazy. Without a proper diagnosis or any kind of medical help.

Oh wait. I guess those are handouts?

I can relate.. I also have a chronic illness, with the gloriously vague name of fibromyalgia. I have had doctors tell me there was nothing wrong with me, accuse me of being a drug addict, lazy, etc etc. What fun. Have spent since 2008 doing my own research (with generous amounts of help from my wife and friends). I have discovered that I am in a club that I don't want to be in, the chronic pain and fatigue club.

I have to plan what days I exert myself on, because I know that the next few days will be spent in bed, unable to move. Gives me plenty of time to think, haha. "you should exercise more" is the least helpful advice, which I get all the time. People mean well, but they don't understand. It gives me an opportunity to reflect on when I do the same to others, when I mean well but don't understand.

Yes, I have fibromyalgia too. I consider it a non-diagnosis (like chronic fatigue syndrome, which may or may not be the same thing, but which I (also?) have). It doesn't tell you causes it or how to get better, or what it really is. So.

On most days, I'm much better than I described above. What really helped me is the protocol in the book _From Fatigued to Fantastic_. If you haven't read it, haven't tried his approach to fixing sleep and other imbalances, I CANNOT ENCOURAGE YOU MORE to check it out. The trazodone alone changed my life. Plus the magnesium, the B vitamin supplements, (sometimes) the adrenal supplements, heavily supplementing electrolytes with electrolyte pills (that's my addition)… these took me from being non-functional, unable to discuss facts or details or make decisions, or go further than the sofa, to being able to go out, see people, do things (with limits).

This week I've started naturthroid to support my normal-testing thyroid. So far it seems to be working. I have hope that it will stop the "crashing."

Hope you feel better.

You should put things back into context, because I don't think the parent poster targeted you specifically; most obese people aren't obese because of chronic illnesses but because of lifestyle choices (most of the time, having been fed and addicted to unhealthy food since childhood; thus the lifestyle choice might as well be blamed unto parenting shortcomings, which could be blamed their onto poverty and lack of sanitary regulation on food...).

Some of the most prominent researchers in the US believe that 40-60% of Americans suffer from hypothyroid, possibly in combination with syndrome x. Both of which cruelly cause weight gain AND reduce energy/ability to exercise. That percentage would have to include "most obese people" -- heck, most people, period!

The thing with these 2 issues (hypo/syndrome x) is they are both a cause and a symptom. You can't tell who did what to themselves tabula rasa, or what was done to them (as you point out) by genetics, by childhood, by an environment laden with adrenogenic/estrogenic chemicals, etc. A parent's poor diet changes the expression of genes which can have effects on their children; the additives in food today can have toxic consequences and the food is engineered to be addictive. Sure, personal responsibility. But most people aren't smart enough, or educated enough, or well-positioned enough to fight all the odds against them. And doctors, in my experience, are worse than useless.

Hm, I'm wondering: How does your diet look like? IIRC you already supplementing vitamin D.

Love your work (esp. Talks at Microconf) btw.