Total conjecture. I'm not even going to try to pass this off like I have "sources." It's conjecture based on experience and observation though. I also did not invent this theory.
I spent 40 years in the corporate world, and I saw very few wheeler-dealer party-goers reach the top. Most of the people that I saw reach the top did well in school, worked (and still work) long hours, and spent considerable time politicking to impress those above them. They simply did not have the time to "party on."
Note: Politicing is a poor choice of words becasue it has a poor connotation. But, if you want to reach the top, you are competing with others who want to reach the top, and they are just as good, if not better, than you are. You have to do something to get the attention of the people in charge.
Youre talking about rarities woton, bosses and CEOs, theres not many jobs on "the top" but more people who learn how to have fun have better livings.
I can't disagree with you. I was one of the worker bees. I went to work after the top brass, left work before they did, lived the lifestyle that I wanted to live, and now have a comfortable retirement.
I never saw why people wanted the aggravation of climbing the ladder (most never got beyond worker bee). But, it's a good thing that some people do, because we need people at the top.
Also, you don't need to be a CEO. Second and Third level managers in the companies that I worked for made $250K+ (the OP's example). There are a lot of those jobs available (relatively speaking).
You made a joke? Are you sure?
Yes, Bigpoison. He made a joke which you completely missed.
I often miss jokes that lack humor or wit.
The interlocutors seem to have disappeared without defending their arguments.
There's no reasoning with one who believes that only they can hold the correct answer (both of us are guilty of that) and I don't like to argue.
I feel bad for alot of the people who go to the same chess club as I do. While about half of our members seem to be well adjusted people with adequate social lives and aspirations outsite of chess, the other half seem to have little or no social life and are just not well adjusted.
Being well adjusted is over-rated.
In my view, the "argument" takes place for the benefit of the third party readers. As in, we are putting on a bit of theatre for their benefit. Our audience also judges the merits of our cases.
I have nothing else to say; I've stated what I think and why I think it and it is up to the reader to decide whether what I think is correct or not.
Yeah, good attitude. I feel the same.
"You know the type, the poorly dressed schmuck sitting by himself at Starbucks with a bad comb-over and drooling all over himself staring into his pocket chess set with the little peg-pieces."
Besides the drooling over himself, I don't see the problem with this person yet. If he has been making important contributions to the world for example, what he does at Starbucks isn't going to change that.
Where in this fact pattern was the bit about where "he has been making important contributions to the world"?
Could you point it out please?
Thanks in advance.
You didn't say he was; you didn't say he wasn't. Thus I don't see a problem with him yet.
Well, I did say he wasn't. By not saying he was. You can't willy-nilly add facts to a hypothetical. Next thing you know you'll be telling me that guy was actually... Ryan Seacrest!
"Well, I did say he wasn't. By not saying he was."
Not at all. All we know about this guy is that he has bad hair at starbucks. He could be a guy with bad hair at starbucks who doesn't do anything, or one who volunteers.
Also, it's not necessary to be "well adjusted" in order to make important contributions.
The best Director I've ever worked with cannot by any stretch of the imagination be described as "well adjusted". I would very much enjoy working with him again, though... even though you typically need to carry both sides of any conversation that you have with him.
Better to be the alienated chess loser than the alienated star wars action figure collector loser.
@YO_Bro: Post #62 gives more context. It pretty much boils down to saying I'm not going to jump to conclusions about the person -- maybe he's making important contributions, maybe he isn't, but until I know it would be unfair to act as if he doesn't just because of what he's doing at Starbucks.
For the worst logic, it seems to make a surprisingly good deal of sense to me. Guess my standards are just low.