Unsolicited advice? Fair enough. Unsolicited comment- the ones related to money are spoken like someone who has never actually been poor, and are, frankly, insulting.
Even a cursory look at who has developed what over the years shows that people who actually had the resources to do whatever it was that interested them are the ones in the history books. Who knows how many others of equal or greater talent spent their whole lives scraping by instead.
In most every discussion I've come across that touches on money advice, I've see a variant of this comment "This world view doesn't incorporate (my) reality of the poorest of the Western world and is so in invalid and offensive".
I'm not sure what motivates this. If you invert the situation and someone made a list with stuff like "use coupons", would rich people come by and say "this is dumb because it only saves you $0.50 and I (as a rich person) don't care about $0.50"?
People have different starting conditions and different current situations, if what's described isn't relevant to yours--why does it bother you so? Let the people who find value in it find value in it.
• When playing Monopoly, spend all you have to buy, barter, or trade for the Orange properties. Don’t bother with Utilities.
Here's some better advice: don't play Monopoly! There are many, many new board games in the world that are incomparably better. One of the most grievous flaws of Monopoly is that it depends on the terrible mechanic of player elimination - the winner is the last player who hasn't been eliminated. That means if you have a game night with four people, then two people have to sit around bored, after they've been eliminated, while the remaining players fight it out.
If you play by the rules, with experienced players, a whole game takes about an hour to complete. And when players starts getting eliminated, the end is close. The most common house rules usually drag the game down and are probably the source of a lot of hatred for this game.
So if you play Monopoly, do yourself a favor and read the damn rules. In my booklet, there is even a quick variant that is suggested: the main difference is that you start with some property and the winner is the wealthiest player when one player is bankrupt.
And yes, there are better games, every board game geek knows that, but sometimes it is the only one available.
Also, Orange properties may be the best, but you usually don't have much of a choice. What you really want is a monopoly, any monopoly, as soon as possible, and build aggressively.
Monopoly is literally the antithesis of what makes board games fun. I vaguely recall a hilarious and accurate essay on this topic, comparing Monopoly to Settlers of Catan and highlighting the degree to which they are nearly
perfect polar opposites.
Monopoly with six is even worse this way, because you can have the situation of one person sitting around with nothing to do happen multiple times. If everyone plays, the first loser sits around. #2 tries to start something new with #1, and then #3 or #4 finds themselves having missed out on whatever the other people started.
If not everybody plays, then #2 may get everyone else to start something long. Now #4 and #5 are stuck playing something again with the winner, after that person has already monopolized their time for the entire evening.
Because face it, the player who wins or comes in second usually is the same motherfucker to suggest Monopoly in the first place.
I think I read recently that Monopoly was (derived from) a board game that was designed to make a political/economic statement about Georgism and not to be fun.
Suggestion for a fun group based game where no-one is left out for the entirety of the rounds: Avalon.
My friends and I have had so much fun playing this, especially with all of the tiny game modifiers you can introduce to spice it up when things get too easy.
I don't care for Monopoly because there is little room for strategy. It's the roll of the dice, and in fact, the original point of the game was to illustrate that wealth is a roll of the dice.
> • Money is overrated. Truly new things rarely need an abundance of money. If that was so, billionaires would have a monopoly on inventing new things, and they don’t. Instead almost all breakthroughs are made by those who lack money, because they are forced to rely on their passion, persistence and ingenuity to figure out new ways. Being poor is an advantage in innovation.
Uh, no. Being poor is a huge waste of time and energy.
The way I heard it that makes sense is that to be optimally productive you need to be "hungry" in the sense of wanting more and not being complacent. But you don't want to be starving, generally.
For the same reason, some say the worst addiction is a steady paycheck precisely because it makes you complacent.
These sayings are probably half-motivational with only a kernel of truth. If you are an heir or heiress you will have a big advantage, even if your motivation is less. But there are other metrics than just money, of course. If your point is to achieve excellence or greatness, or operate at the peak of your abilities, then possibly there is such a thing as being too comfortable.
> Truly new things rarely need an abundance of money.
Based on my experience this holds true for organisations. Time and again I've seen a well run startup lose its bearing with the avalanche of new funding and the expectation of hockey-stick growth that comes along with it. Money in this case proves to be counter-productive as everyone starts saying "let's-throw-money" to solve problems. Not only does it not solve the problem but it also starts attracting people who are disproportionately motivated by money. And once an org gets infiltrated by such people it's a sharp downhill from there.
> Instead almost all breakthroughs are made by those who lack money,.... Being poor is an advantage in innovation.
This is anecdotally true (again w.r.t. organisations). At a startup I worked for, we would come up with creative ways to scale up systems and honestly prioritise customers request. With the advent of funding that was replaced by "launch every darn feature now", "don't bother scaling up just buy more machine". Constraints bring out lasting innovations.
An awful lot of inventors and scientists, at least before 1900, were wealthy because they had the time to play around with things. Other inventors and scientists would get patronage from wealthy people. Or they'd get backing from business interests.
Today this patronage often comes in the form of grants by the wealthy to universities for research.
Being poor (but not debilitatingly starving) is an advantage for innovation. You have a lot of incentive to get the heck out of your miserable position, and you cannot fix the problem with just paying more, you have to incessantly invent and try new things.
Of course this is not necessarily good for your well-being, longevity, mental and physical health, prospects of your children and even chances to have any, etc.
I see this not as an advice to become poor, but as a solace to those who are already poor but whose mind is still inventive.
My extended family is a mix of people across the middle class. As a boy we were hit by a recession and my parents slipped into Pretend Middle Class status.
Much of my material lessons in both “being poor is expensive” and the value if Good Tools traces to watching my father struggle to have a working set of lawn care tools. I have a particularly vivid memory of watching him buy the second from the bottom string trimmer three times in seven years, while I tried to talk him into spending $25 more on a sturdier looking one. The damned things kept breaking. Every child eventually sees their parents as a human being with flaws, and for me that reached its apex in the lawn care aisle at Sears.
I’m big on doing without until you can do it right. A couple good knives or pans that you clean and pamper until you can afford a whole set. My own solution to the lawn problem was a hand powered edger (basically telescopic shears) and reducing edges wherever I can. String trimmers are bullshit anyway. Construct better beds instead.
Since he compared to Billionaires, I think he means poor in resources (as you have no abundance); but probably someone who has enough resources not to worry about a meal or housing.
• That thing that made you weird as a kid could make you great as an adult — if you don’t lose it.
I wish I could have grasped this as a kid, and I wish I could explain this to my kids now and have them understand/believe me.
My kids each have their own unique personalities, strengths, weaknesses, etc. But they all have to funnel through the same general requirements of school and such. It is too easy to fall into the trap of getting them to "conform." But I want to be able to nurture the "weird" in them!
• Compliment people behind their back. It’ll come back to you.
Super pragmatic. A tad selfish (complementing people in the hope it comes back around), but I still like it.
• Your best response to an insult is “You’re probably right.” Often they are.
This has been my default for years. It also disarms cunty humans (even when drunk at a pub).
• Always cut away from yourself.
When you learn this lesson the hard way, it sticks forever.
• In all things — except love — start with the exit strategy. Prepare for the ending. Almost anything is easier to get into than out of.
"except love" U WOT M8? Begin with the end in mind. You'll enjoy the experience more knowing the good times can end at any point. You also want to have your life in order to handle a massive emotional trainwreck.
> Super pragmatic. A tad selfish (complementing people in the hope it comes back around), but I still like it.
Yah, talk about doing the right thing for the wrong reason but still beats many alternatives. Also way up on my list is spreading good rumors without sharing the source: "someone... I'll never say who... said this nice thing about you!"
> It also disarms...
I can't even say it. I'm not Australian. I'll try admitting guilt though (not that I'm a...).
> "except love" U WOT M8
Anything can end at any point, including this precious life. Relationships ARE special though. Sometimes you get glimpses where you know it isn't gonna work out (and if you're red-flag aware... it won't take long). In that case, yah... look at those exits and appreciate what led you into this potential disaster while you can and learn.
BUT.
BIG BUT.
If this relationship has a chance then you have to throw the exit strat thinking out the window. That doesn't mean go get joined at the hip, but self fulfilling prophecies are a thing. If its a good thing, your partner will absolutely see you have one foot outside and hedge bets accordingly. Have faith! Not that you won't have problems, but that they will be worth overcoming.
"Recipe for success: under-promise and over-deliver."
I have never seen evidence that this is true in general. The field I got my PhD in has breakthrough papers with titles like "The Euler Equations as Differential Inclusions" and "Bounded Gaps Between Primes". Would people in the field be worse off if breakthrough papers had titles like "Attention is all you need"? I'm unconvinced that they would be. Would politicians be more likely to win office if they made fewer promises on the campaign trail? I'm unconvinced. Are you more likely to get a job if you are meticulously fair in how you describe your background and experience, or if you puff yourself up? I think the world would be a better place if folks biased themselves in the direction of under-promising, but for any individual person I'm pretty skeptical that this is good advice.
• A problem that can be solved with money is not really a problem.
I am broke and need X, which no one gives for free.
Let's call X education, because that and time might solve everything. Is that not a problem worth calling so?
The version of this I've always heard is, "Any problem that can be solved by writing a check you can afford to write, is not really a problem."
So, if your car suddenly needs a $500 repair, and you have $2500 in emergency savings, that's not a "problem". It's a contingency you were prepared to handle.
My takeaway from it is if the problem requires money to solve, at least you are aware of the solution: money. It may be difficult or impossible to achieve that end, but at least you know it's the direction to go and can possibly make progress toward solving.
The worst kind of problem is one you can't see your way out of and no option seems to exist to escape it.
If we're being charitable, we could take "can" to include "you can (reasonably) afford it", as in "YOU can solve the problem with money", not "ONE could solve the problem with money, if one had money".
Given the tone of the rest of the piece, I'm not sure being that charitable is warranted, though. I'm legitimately having a hard time telling whether this list is presented seriously, or as some kind of parody.
Some fun, interesting, true, and meh bits of wisdom here!
These 2 stuck out as ironic being back to back:
• I have never met a person I admired who did not read more books than I did.
• The greatest teacher is called “doing”.
Although without more context, its just a snap judgement. Admiring only people who are well read(assuming OP reads a lot) seems to leave a bit on the table.
Am I just showcasing my own ignorance by wanting support for this claim?
I've heard it stated elsewhere, but I've never heard a detailed argument supporting it. The closest justification I recall hearing is a vague reference to the Spanish Inquisition.
This is a classical logical fallacy. To give an extreme example:
The worse evils in history have always been committed by those who drink water. Beware of drinking water.
It may be the case that those who commit evils believed they were combating evil. It doesn't at all mean that the majority of those who believe they are combating evil are committing evil.
"Combating" here likely means doing evil things in order to combat other evil things. For example, the "Inferno" movie's plot was to release a virus to downsize the population in order to combat global warming.
Statistically, the Orange property set is one of the most frequented sets in the game due to the approximately 37% chance of landing on one upon the first turn after leaving jail; the most visited space on the board. In combination with a relatively cheap development cost, the Orange property set can be valuable to own.
> Money is overrated. Truly new things rarely need an abundance of money. If that was so, billionaires would have a monopoly on inventing new things, and they don’t. Instead almost all breakthroughs are made by those who lack money, because they are forced to rely on their passion, persistence and ingenuity to figure out new ways. Being poor is an advantage in innovation.
Completely disagree. A lot of the great innovations actually came from people who were already wealthy enough that they could spend time contemplating instead of figuring out where their next meal was coming from.
I see a lot of people knit picking over some particular item on this list or another, and this strikes me as a very unfortunate response to philosophy. The advice is not given as a set of arguments or syllogisms, so if some piece doesn't agree with you it does little to contradict the broader work.
There is a ton of good advice here that is worth repeating. Personally, I really appreciate how it blends practical advice with ethical advice, as well as how there are deeper implication for practical aphorisms ('If you think you saw a mouse, you did. And, if there is one, there are more.')
With a really tight knot where you can't find a place to start, don't pull, push. Knead and squeeze at it long enough, and you'll find some looseness somewhere. That's usually all you need.
[+] [-] Baeocystin|4 years ago|reply
Even a cursory look at who has developed what over the years shows that people who actually had the resources to do whatever it was that interested them are the ones in the history books. Who knows how many others of equal or greater talent spent their whole lives scraping by instead.
[+] [-] biren34|4 years ago|reply
I'm not sure what motivates this. If you invert the situation and someone made a list with stuff like "use coupons", would rich people come by and say "this is dumb because it only saves you $0.50 and I (as a rich person) don't care about $0.50"?
People have different starting conditions and different current situations, if what's described isn't relevant to yours--why does it bother you so? Let the people who find value in it find value in it.
[+] [-] SaltyBackendGuy|4 years ago|reply
Lists like these are full of survivor bias. In fact, it's baked into it.
[+] [-] d_burfoot|4 years ago|reply
Here's some better advice: don't play Monopoly! There are many, many new board games in the world that are incomparably better. One of the most grievous flaws of Monopoly is that it depends on the terrible mechanic of player elimination - the winner is the last player who hasn't been eliminated. That means if you have a game night with four people, then two people have to sit around bored, after they've been eliminated, while the remaining players fight it out.
[+] [-] GuB-42|4 years ago|reply
If you play by the rules, with experienced players, a whole game takes about an hour to complete. And when players starts getting eliminated, the end is close. The most common house rules usually drag the game down and are probably the source of a lot of hatred for this game.
So if you play Monopoly, do yourself a favor and read the damn rules. In my booklet, there is even a quick variant that is suggested: the main difference is that you start with some property and the winner is the wealthiest player when one player is bankrupt.
And yes, there are better games, every board game geek knows that, but sometimes it is the only one available.
Also, Orange properties may be the best, but you usually don't have much of a choice. What you really want is a monopoly, any monopoly, as soon as possible, and build aggressively.
[+] [-] chrisweekly|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hinkley|4 years ago|reply
If not everybody plays, then #2 may get everyone else to start something long. Now #4 and #5 are stuck playing something again with the winner, after that person has already monopolized their time for the entire evening.
Because face it, the player who wins or comes in second usually is the same motherfucker to suggest Monopoly in the first place.
[+] [-] nerdponx|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sensual_cabbage|4 years ago|reply
My friends and I have had so much fun playing this, especially with all of the tiny game modifiers you can introduce to spice it up when things get too easy.
[+] [-] WalterBright|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chasing|4 years ago|reply
Uh, no. Being poor is a huge waste of time and energy.
[+] [-] nwah1|4 years ago|reply
For the same reason, some say the worst addiction is a steady paycheck precisely because it makes you complacent.
These sayings are probably half-motivational with only a kernel of truth. If you are an heir or heiress you will have a big advantage, even if your motivation is less. But there are other metrics than just money, of course. If your point is to achieve excellence or greatness, or operate at the peak of your abilities, then possibly there is such a thing as being too comfortable.
[+] [-] vishnugupta|4 years ago|reply
Based on my experience this holds true for organisations. Time and again I've seen a well run startup lose its bearing with the avalanche of new funding and the expectation of hockey-stick growth that comes along with it. Money in this case proves to be counter-productive as everyone starts saying "let's-throw-money" to solve problems. Not only does it not solve the problem but it also starts attracting people who are disproportionately motivated by money. And once an org gets infiltrated by such people it's a sharp downhill from there.
> Instead almost all breakthroughs are made by those who lack money,.... Being poor is an advantage in innovation.
This is anecdotally true (again w.r.t. organisations). At a startup I worked for, we would come up with creative ways to scale up systems and honestly prioritise customers request. With the advent of funding that was replaced by "launch every darn feature now", "don't bother scaling up just buy more machine". Constraints bring out lasting innovations.
[+] [-] WalterBright|4 years ago|reply
Today this patronage often comes in the form of grants by the wealthy to universities for research.
[+] [-] nine_k|4 years ago|reply
Being poor (but not debilitatingly starving) is an advantage for innovation. You have a lot of incentive to get the heck out of your miserable position, and you cannot fix the problem with just paying more, you have to incessantly invent and try new things.
Of course this is not necessarily good for your well-being, longevity, mental and physical health, prospects of your children and even chances to have any, etc.
I see this not as an advice to become poor, but as a solace to those who are already poor but whose mind is still inventive.
[+] [-] hinkley|4 years ago|reply
Much of my material lessons in both “being poor is expensive” and the value if Good Tools traces to watching my father struggle to have a working set of lawn care tools. I have a particularly vivid memory of watching him buy the second from the bottom string trimmer three times in seven years, while I tried to talk him into spending $25 more on a sturdier looking one. The damned things kept breaking. Every child eventually sees their parents as a human being with flaws, and for me that reached its apex in the lawn care aisle at Sears.
I’m big on doing without until you can do it right. A couple good knives or pans that you clean and pamper until you can afford a whole set. My own solution to the lawn problem was a hand powered edger (basically telescopic shears) and reducing edges wherever I can. String trimmers are bullshit anyway. Construct better beds instead.
[+] [-] bryanrasmussen|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] csomar|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kwdc|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] shanecleveland|4 years ago|reply
I wish I could have grasped this as a kid, and I wish I could explain this to my kids now and have them understand/believe me.
My kids each have their own unique personalities, strengths, weaknesses, etc. But they all have to funnel through the same general requirements of school and such. It is too easy to fall into the trap of getting them to "conform." But I want to be able to nurture the "weird" in them!
[+] [-] el_dev_hell|4 years ago|reply
• Compliment people behind their back. It’ll come back to you.
Super pragmatic. A tad selfish (complementing people in the hope it comes back around), but I still like it.
• Your best response to an insult is “You’re probably right.” Often they are.
This has been my default for years. It also disarms cunty humans (even when drunk at a pub).
• Always cut away from yourself.
When you learn this lesson the hard way, it sticks forever.
• In all things — except love — start with the exit strategy. Prepare for the ending. Almost anything is easier to get into than out of.
"except love" U WOT M8? Begin with the end in mind. You'll enjoy the experience more knowing the good times can end at any point. You also want to have your life in order to handle a massive emotional trainwreck.
[+] [-] mr-wendel|4 years ago|reply
> Super pragmatic. A tad selfish (complementing people in the hope it comes back around), but I still like it.
Yah, talk about doing the right thing for the wrong reason but still beats many alternatives. Also way up on my list is spreading good rumors without sharing the source: "someone... I'll never say who... said this nice thing about you!"
> It also disarms...
I can't even say it. I'm not Australian. I'll try admitting guilt though (not that I'm a...).
> "except love" U WOT M8
Anything can end at any point, including this precious life. Relationships ARE special though. Sometimes you get glimpses where you know it isn't gonna work out (and if you're red-flag aware... it won't take long). In that case, yah... look at those exits and appreciate what led you into this potential disaster while you can and learn.
BUT.
BIG BUT.
If this relationship has a chance then you have to throw the exit strat thinking out the window. That doesn't mean go get joined at the hip, but self fulfilling prophecies are a thing. If its a good thing, your partner will absolutely see you have one foot outside and hedge bets accordingly. Have faith! Not that you won't have problems, but that they will be worth overcoming.
[+] [-] domnomnom|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] woopwoop|4 years ago|reply
I have never seen evidence that this is true in general. The field I got my PhD in has breakthrough papers with titles like "The Euler Equations as Differential Inclusions" and "Bounded Gaps Between Primes". Would people in the field be worse off if breakthrough papers had titles like "Attention is all you need"? I'm unconvinced that they would be. Would politicians be more likely to win office if they made fewer promises on the campaign trail? I'm unconvinced. Are you more likely to get a job if you are meticulously fair in how you describe your background and experience, or if you puff yourself up? I think the world would be a better place if folks biased themselves in the direction of under-promising, but for any individual person I'm pretty skeptical that this is good advice.
[+] [-] a3w|4 years ago|reply
I am broke and need X, which no one gives for free. Let's call X education, because that and time might solve everything. Is that not a problem worth calling so?
[+] [-] scottlilly|4 years ago|reply
So, if your car suddenly needs a $500 repair, and you have $2500 in emergency savings, that's not a "problem". It's a contingency you were prepared to handle.
[+] [-] v64|4 years ago|reply
The worst kind of problem is one you can't see your way out of and no option seems to exist to escape it.
[+] [-] intergalplan|4 years ago|reply
Given the tone of the rest of the piece, I'm not sure being that charitable is warranted, though. I'm legitimately having a hard time telling whether this list is presented seriously, or as some kind of parody.
[+] [-] bena|4 years ago|reply
If a problem can be solved with money, your real problem is not having the money.
[+] [-] coldtea|4 years ago|reply
He means money that you have and can spare.
[+] [-] cabaalis|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mym1990|4 years ago|reply
These 2 stuck out as ironic being back to back:
• I have never met a person I admired who did not read more books than I did.
• The greatest teacher is called “doing”.
Although without more context, its just a snap judgement. Admiring only people who are well read(assuming OP reads a lot) seems to leave a bit on the table.
[+] [-] rednerrus|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] CoastalCoder|4 years ago|reply
I've heard it stated elsewhere, but I've never heard a detailed argument supporting it. The closest justification I recall hearing is a vague reference to the Spanish Inquisition.
[+] [-] guerrilla|4 years ago|reply
This is why we should always judge projects based on whether we value their goals and how effective they are at accomplishing those goals.
[+] [-] BeetleB|4 years ago|reply
The worse evils in history have always been committed by those who drink water. Beware of drinking water.
It may be the case that those who commit evils believed they were combating evil. It doesn't at all mean that the majority of those who believe they are combating evil are committing evil.
[+] [-] akomtu|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] swyx|4 years ago|reply
heck. that's just true. really put into words something i've taken a while to learn (and am still learning).
[+] [-] elric|4 years ago|reply
This one struck me as being particularly random, even in a list of pretty random items. Can anyone with Monopoly mojo expand on this?
[+] [-] compiler-guy|4 years ago|reply
Statistically, the Orange property set is one of the most frequented sets in the game due to the approximately 37% chance of landing on one upon the first turn after leaving jail; the most visited space on the board. In combination with a relatively cheap development cost, the Orange property set can be valuable to own.
[+] [-] vlmutolo|4 years ago|reply
I think this is generally good advice, but it's equally important to not be too hard on yourself. You have to learn to forgive yourself for mistakes.
[+] [-] nocommentguy|4 years ago|reply
My favorite. “Write 2 essays, one defending each side” is the most valuable kind of assignment, in my opinion.
[+] [-] RcouF1uZ4gsC|4 years ago|reply
Completely disagree. A lot of the great innovations actually came from people who were already wealthy enough that they could spend time contemplating instead of figuring out where their next meal was coming from.
[+] [-] standardUser|4 years ago|reply
5 stars
[+] [-] tomcam|4 years ago|reply
In my experience, never said by people who have been poor
• If you can’t tell what you desperately need, it’s probably sleep.
Agree completely!
[+] [-] bena|4 years ago|reply
I've never seen any good come from withholding necessary information.
[+] [-] vageli|4 years ago|reply
> I've never seen any good come from withholding necessary information.
Surely being selective with information is advantageous in negotiations?
[+] [-] blululu|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] phaemon|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] throwanem|4 years ago|reply