So, I expect this one to be controversial. If you’re a very sensitive person that likes to get offended, you might want to skip it. If you’re in a hurry, feel free to skim the bold parts.
I didn’t come from all that much. My great-grandparents and grandparents were dirt poor. My parents dug out of it a little bit, though I was born when they were young and unestablished. My kids will have more opportunities.
I wish to do much. How much is possible? To know, you have to study history.
So I study history. And looking at the history books, I see a number of differences between people of low birth and high birth.
Now, before I go any further, I recognize this is unfashionable and controversial to talk about in this day and age. But it’s definitely a real phenomenon, and I’ve never shied from the truth even when unfashionable. Also, I think after reading this you’ll see that the majority of high born characteristics are superior to low born characteristics, and it’s worth learning, training, and becoming better.
You have to do things correctly and consistently in order to become wealthy or powerful and hold on to it for any significant amount of time. People can become wealthy or powerful through evil means in the short term, but it’s unsustainable in the long term.
Before we go any further, let’s define wealth and power.
Wealth is anything that’s suitable to humans that humans want. Reshaping matter and energy into forms more suitable and desirable to humans produces more wealth. There are near unlimited possibilities to reshape energy and matter into more and more suitable forms. Thus, there is near unlimited wealth available.
Wealth, honorably gained, is purely a virtuous thing. If you steal, extort, embezzle, or fraudulently gain control over things people want, that is bad. But gaining wealth by building, innovating, shipping, transporting, taking risks, making the world beautiful and more suitable for humans – this is a purely virtuous thing.
Power is mastery over yourself and your surroundings. Again, power is virtuous if virtuously gained. Definitely, the power that comes from self-mastery and self-discipline is purely virtuous. Power over surroundings also tends to be a good thing – you are more powerful if you have a roof over your head and an umbrella so you don’t get wet in the rain, if you have books so that you become more knowledgeable, if you know how to write, if you understand numbers, and so on. You become more powerful by cooperating with other people in an honorable way. And so on.
The first difference between low born people and high born people are their attitudes towards wealth and power.
To put it bluntly, high born people generally pursue wealth and power, while low born people do not. Funny enough, a lot of times high born people actively put down and say bad things about wealth, while accumulating more and more of it. For instance, a notable insurance salesman campaigns for having higher estate taxes, while lobbying the government to make life insurance payments tax free – then he includes in his advertising that his insurance lets people get away from taxes.
This two-faced behavior is perhaps the largest turnoff of high-born people – they advocate for equality and unity while establishing political positions of great power. They find roundabout ways to enjoy all the privileges of wealth while simultaneously condemning it. Yes, I find it insufferable, but we can still learn from it. The first difference between low born and high born people is that high born people are generally steered towards getting wealth and power. (Ignore what they say, look at they do – they’re drawn to power)
I think this, in and of itself, is probably the biggest and largest difference. If you actively say, “Okay, I will get wealthy. I will move matter and energy around so that is more suitable for humans, and I will gain a greater mastery over myself and my surroundings” – in that case, you will become wealthier and more powerful. The decision to do it is a big part of the process.
High born people expect to be treated well. Low born people frequently expect to be treated poorly. And thus, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you grow up watching people snap to attention and treat your parents well, you expect it. Thus, paradoxically, you become kinder, friendlier, and less adversarial. High born people tend to have a an expectation that the situation will work out favorably for them, that people will do right by them, and that they’re going to get what they want. Thus, they do. Low born people frequently have an expectation that the situation is going to go poorly, that people do wrong by them, and that they’re not going to get what they want. Thus, they don’t.
High born people generally are more friendly, giving, and helpful than low born people. I understand this goes against what you see in movies, but it’s true. Generally speaking, someone who is successful or was raised by successful parents is more likely to do you a favor, introduce you to someone, or otherwise help you out. Low born people tend to be more paranoid and stingy about everything.
High born people don’t look to get paid back immediately. They know that you help people who seem friendly with a good character, and a lot of them will do right by you someday, sooner or later. Many won’t, but that’s okay.
Personally, I’ve found 90 out of 100 people you do right by kind of forget about it and are ungrateful. 9 out of 100 are gracious, friendly, and cool about it, and then that’s the end of it. But then that last 1 out of 100 people changes your life in an amazing way. I’m not looking to get paid back when I do something nice for someone – it’s like, do a lot of nice things, and good karma will catch up with me sooner or later. My best friend in the whole world I met because he sent me a long question at a company I was running, and for whatever reason, I was inspired to take two hours to write a long, detailed reply with lots of instructions. Since then, he’s helped me put together some really important business deals, we’ve been snowboarding together in Japan, I stay with him whenever I’m in Los Angeles, and I’ve learned so much from him.
There’s dozens of people I’ve helped out that didn’t even say thanks, but who cares? It doesn’t matter. Low born people feel very quid pro quo about things – they expect to get back right away, and will often remind whoever they did a favor for that they did a favor. This is tasteless and turns people off. High born people tend to know better – spread the good around, it’ll catch up with you sooner or later.
With that said, high born people are much more comfortable getting compensated for their skills, ability, and contribution. A girl born to a wealthy family will go to a cafe and say, “I made some paintings. Can I hang them in here with price tags on them?” A girl born to a poorer family will be more shy about trying to sell her work, despite the fact that she could use the money more. This is really a shame. High born people are more comfortable asking for money or compensation in exchange for providing value. People of high birth do more nice things for free with no expectation, but are also more comfortable selling themselves and their work.
High born people define themselves less by money and possessions. Thus, you see less asininely stupid purchases. Well, you might see someone who is making $2,000,000 per year buy a $200,000 sports car, and you think that’s asinine. But that’s only 10% of what he makes in a year, which isn’t so much compared to paying $25,000 for a car when you make $40,000. Low born people tend to be more insecure about not appearing well off, so they put a greater fraction of their income into consumption and showing off. This is, of course, not conducive to getting wealthy.
There’s lots more, and examples in both directions. I could write another 10-20 other points off the top of my head, but this is getting along. Though, I’ve got one big important one here -
Low born people often try to do too much in one generation, and wind up overexpanding because of it. If you’re familiar with Japanese history, compare Hideyoshi Toyotomi to Tokugawa Ieyasu. Hideyoshi had entirely won and unified all of Japan, but then – inexplicably – he immediately declared war and tried to conquer Korea and China. As a result, his family was overthrown shortly afterwards by the Tokugawa, who then ceased expansion, solidified their position, and ruled Japan for the next 250 years.
Hideyoshi was of low birth, he came from nothing. Really, he’s an inspiration, but he’s also one of the greatest lessons to low born people – don’t go too far. Hey, don’t mistake me for someone who is overly cautious – I’m trying to become the greatest strategist of this era. But note that strategist is a captain and advisor, not a general role or a king. My children will be high born, which means they’ll see from a young age these lessons – yes, it’s virtuous and appropriate to build wealth and become powerful. Expect to be treated well. Be friendly, giving, and helpful and don’t expect anything in return. Yet, when you’ve got something of value, offer good deals and get compensated. Don’t define yourself by money and possessions. There’s an unlimited amount of wealth and power available, you can gain it by building, inventing, innovating, cooperating, trading, and doing other virtuous things. Don’t be stingy and scramble for the last penny, leave something on the table. But don’t be too shy either, build and receive a lot in return, because why not do so?
I’ve learned a lot of these lessons, but many of them too late. I’m still shy about picking up the phone and calling a stranger to ask for help (though, getting better at it). I’m still shy about picking up the phone and asking someone how I can help them (though, getting better at it). I’m still shy about walking into an executive’s office and telling him that he should give tens of thousands of dollars to my company to build things for him (though, I’m getting better at it).
But I still have many of the low born mentalities, so I’m going to be careful not to go too far. A captain, not a general, not a king. If one of my sons has the ability, drive, and desire to be a general or king, so be it. He’ll be learning lessons at age 5 that I started learning at age 19. When he’s 14, he’ll know much of what I knew at 24. But not me – no overexpanding, no going too far and losing it all. I’m fit to be a captain, an advisor, a high-ranked servant, but I don’t aim to rule. There’s still too many screwed up low born ideas in the back of my head.
There’s exceptions to this – John Rockefeller was low born, but epitomized all of the high born traits to an exceptional degree. Alexander the Great was high born, but overly expansive and lost his empire because of it. But as a general rule, you’ll see these differences. I’d say aim to a most excellent captain, advisor, servant, or merchant if you’re low born, but be careful looking to rule. The ideal pedigree to rule starts being constructed young.
Recap, some general helpful things to work on -
1. Consciously decide to pursue wealth and power. These are virtuous things, and there’s unlimited amounts of them available. Do it honorably.
2. Expect to be treated well, and act accordingly. Have a calm expectancy that people will agree to do things your way. Don’t argue or get upset, but do calmly insist that things be done correctly.
3. Be friendly, helpful, and giving to as many people as you can. Don’t be modest – ask people how you can help them, introduce people to each other, look to do good things. Make book recommendations, buy people small gifts, hell even wash the dishes if you’re a guest in someone’s home. Things like that.
4. Don’t expect to be paid back or remind anyone you helped that you helped them. Don’t even mention it again. Keep doing good things, don’t remind people you did something nice for them. It’s insufferable.
5. Yet, feel comfortable asking for compensation when you can bring value to the table. Sell some things you produce, sell some of your skills, get paid. It’s cool to ask people for money as long as you know you can deliver 10x the value of what you’re being paid.
6. Don’t define yourself by money or possessions. Define yourself internally by your ethics, what you stand for, what you mean to the world, what you mean to people who you truly care for, what you intend to do.
7. Be careful about overexpanding – you don’t have to do it all in one generation. Have children, raise them well, have your son take over where you left off. There’s only so much a person can accomplish in one lifetime, whereas even a modest dynasty can accomplish much, much more.
Oh, I forgot one – high born people generally don’t talk about this stuff. Whoops – guess I ain’t gettin in polite society any time soon. It’s going to be weird having my kids in with polite society and be high bred while I’m so rough and uncivilized. Ah well, life is a circus, as they say. Every dynasty’s gotta start somewhere.
Your comments, feedback, and reaction are very welcome. What are your thoughts on this area? Are you comfortable becoming wealthy and powerful in an honorable way?


{ 21 comments… read them below or add one }
A lot of really good things here that resonated. Honestly, some things you said fit me more than I’d like to admit. A couple comments:
1. You mention you never shy away from taboo topics. I suggest it’s worth it to go further, that taboo topics are a dead giveaway for “there’s something interesting going on here and it’s not common knowledge.” From an investment prospective I always feel a little giddy when I find a new taboo topic… here’s a quote from my investment prospectus on the subject:
2. I believe a substantial number of these high-born vs low-born predilections have a big epigenetic component. I’m not sure how familiar you are with the concept, but the short version is epigenetics is the mechanism our bodies use to turn genes on and off over our lifetimes. One of the primary uses of this system is to tune our behavior, outlook, and physiology into ‘high resource’ vs ‘low resource’ optimizations.
http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/the_reinvention_of_the_self/ is a decent starting point, though with a focus on neurogenesis.
> I suggest it’s worth it to go further, that taboo topics are a dead giveaway for “there’s something interesting going on here and it’s not common knowledge.” From an investment prospective I always feel a little giddy when I find a new taboo topic…
Hey, thanks for the feedback, I really appreciate it. Often I get silence on the controversial or out-there pieces I write – it’s like people aren’t 100% what to make of them. Now, I largely write for myself, but not just for myself – I want my writing to be useful and valuable for the people who stop by. It’s good to get feedback, and it helps me shape what’s valuable and what isn’t. Thank you.
> when there are topics which well-bred people just don’t discuss in certain terms (and particularly where there’s government intervention involved), it’s a strong sign of market inefficiency.
Market inefficiency? Fascinating, interesting point…
> I believe a substantial number of these high-born vs low-born predilections have a big epigenetic component. I’m not sure how familiar you are with the concept, but the short version is epigenetics is the mechanism our bodies use to turn genes on and off over our lifetimes.
Huh, that’s really interesting. I just assumed it was socialized/taught behavior. I’m not familiar with epigenetic components at all – this sounds like something worth looking into more.
> http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/the_reinvention_of_the_self/
Thanks for that – I’m off to breakfast, I’ll read in a little bit. Cheers, thank you for the comment.
I suppose, I am relatively high born, but I am around halfway as far as your traits go. I hate being served by anyone and value hard work, but I believe that things will always work out for me in the end. I never ask to get favors paid back, but I definitely feel uncomfortable asking for money for anything.
My parents were on the poor side when they had me, but my dad’s small business has been steadily growing for some time now. As such, we moved from a blue collar town to a rich town when I was 9 (now 20). I have now spent a lot of time around very high porn people.
You may be assigning high born people some virtues that they really do not deserve. The great majority of them are very lacking in the traits you mentioned. They seem entirely ignorant of how the world works, and lack any sort of drive to go and get the wealth and power that they think they deserve. Perhaps these traits are something they will grow into, but my impression is that unless these young adults receive a great deal of assistance, they will end up having low born children and even fall into these attitudes themselves.
However, if you were to limit your pool to people over a certain intelligence level, your ideas might have more truth to them.
Keep hitting those taboo subjects; I love the sparks they put into my brain.
Rusty
Hey Rusty – thanks for sharing your experience. This was a good, thought provoking comment.
> I suppose, I am relatively high born, but I am around halfway as far as your traits go. … My parents were on the poor side when they had me, but my dad’s small business has been steadily growing for some time now. As such, we moved from a blue collar town to a rich town when I was 9 (now 20). I have now spent a lot of time around very high porn people.
Yeah, that’s an interesting case – being raised halfway. Like anything, I guess it’s not black and white. Interesting stuff.
> You may be assigning high born people some virtues that they really do not deserve. The great majority of them are very lacking in the traits you mentioned. They seem entirely ignorant of how the world works, and lack any sort of drive to go and get the wealth and power that they think they deserve. Perhaps these traits are something they will grow into, but my impression is that unless these young adults receive a great deal of assistance, they will end up having low born children and even fall into these attitudes themselves.
You think so, really? You said you’re 20, so you mean other 20 year olds? I think a lot of people screw off and screw around and party at 20, seem to have no ambition, etc. I mean, people from all backgrounds, very few people are driven at 20. I’d guess the ambition would ramp up shortly…
> However, if you were to limit your pool to people over a certain intelligence level, your ideas might have more truth to them. Keep hitting those taboo subjects; I love the sparks they put into my brain.
Yeah, definitely taboo, but I’m glad to get some feedback. Thanks for sharing.
I am not sure what to make of this post. I have seen what you write, but I’ve seen these characteristics in all kinds of people. I am not confident enough in my memory to say whether or not there is a significant skew to the high or low born side for these qualities.
Should all this be re-framed in terms of social circles and cultures/subcultures? You have wealth/power on one axis (class, perhaps?) and subcultures on the other. Thus, the noveau riche in Russia exemplify none of this, their social circle simply does not value these virtues. On the other hand, I’ve seen communities that are lower middle class that do. Likewise, there’s the tech scene of startup founders, many of them welathy and powerful, that exemplify these values… but again, depends where you look. My Oxford friends, most of them upper middle class, exemplify the virtues you write about, while the Oxford snobs do not, even if they are very high-born. And so forth. If you have some harder data on correlations from virtues to class, I am interested.
Also,
> Be careful about overexpanding – you don’t have to do it all in one generation. Have children, raise them well, have your son take over where you left off. There’s only so much a person can accomplish in one lifetime, whereas even a modest dynasty can accomplish much, much more.
Why does this matter to you? You will, after all, be dead. This is not a jab — I never emphatized with this sentiment, and therefore I wonder.
Hey Ev,
Good comment/questions.
> Should all this be re-framed in terms of social circles and cultures/subcultures? You have wealth/power on one axis (class, perhaps?) and subcultures on the other. Thus, the noveau riche in Russia exemplify none of this, their social circle simply does not value these virtues.
I’m not sure… that’s potentially a good point yeah.
> On the other hand, I’ve seen communities that are lower middle class that do. Likewise, there’s the tech scene of startup founders, many of them welathy and powerful, that exemplify these values… but again, depends where you look. My Oxford friends, most of them upper middle class, exemplify the virtues you write about, while the Oxford snobs do not, even if they are very high-born. And so forth. If you have some harder data on correlations from virtues to class, I am interested.
How do I put this? Hmm… I think the evidence is fairly straightforward. If you actively pursue wealth/power while doing things of value, being helpful friendly and giving, having a calm expectancy that people will help you, asking to be compensated when you know lots of value in return, have a long time horizon and save/invest the money, spend a little more to buy higher quality tools, and other things like that – then I think you’re very very likely to become wealthy. Thus, someone who came from a more modest background but who got these virtues down would rise in the world pretty quickly, but then their kids would be high born and taught these lessons even more so as they grew up.
> > There’s only so much a person can accomplish in one lifetime, whereas even a modest dynasty can accomplish much, much more.
> Why does this matter to you? You will, after all, be dead. This is not a jab — I never emphatized with this sentiment, and therefore I wonder.
That’s a long discussion. The short version is I like humanity and I want to see humanity successful after I’m gone. I’d like to see my descendants become virtuous, make good contributions, and rise in the world. Things like that. I’m also very grateful for all the people who came before us who invented, who did science, who fought against tyranny, who established law and infrastructure and good governance, who developed language, who made art, etc, etc. I’d like to pay it forwards – we’ve gotten a lot from our ancestors, why not build and give even more to our descendants?
Hi Sebastian.
Really enjoyed this article, although I’m certainly finding myself in something of a mix and match scenario like some of the other commentors. I.e. not high or low, but inbetween. I would like to see these ideas applied to a shared living arrangement, since applying the “high-born” traits in this situation would bring out a number of gray areas within the ideas. I.e, if you have purchased groceries for the house a few months in a row, how does a person with more high-born traits approach the person who does not contribute?
Anyway, my main reason for commenting, is that I just couldn’t let this statement go by:
“Wealth, honorably gained, is purely a virtuous thing”.
This statement (to me) only holds true if you assume that all wealth is honorably gained. As this is obviously not the case, I cannot agree with the above statement. As long as some wealth is accumulated by immoral means, all wealth within the system will become tainted over time. Obviously this is very minimal, but by making money within a system that supports evil practices (and in fact encourages them), I can’t help but feel that some “bad” is being done.
Of course wealth honorably gained, will have a net positve effect, but it’s worth noting that it is not purely virtuous.
Hmm… then again I am being a bit liberal with my use of the term “virtuous”, as I am really equating virtuous to good, instead of just virtue…
Sorry, just can’t get out of my “low-born”/hippie belief that money is evil. I just can’t get away from the idea that the more money I make, the less somebody else makes, as there is only a limited amount of money/wealth within the system (I mean resource limited… you need more vespene gas!).
Hey Pete -
I keep meaning to give this a full reply and wanting to dedicate 30 minutes or so to really fleshing out something cohesive for you, but I just keep not finding the time.
Basically, there’s a concept covered in law called “adverse possession” – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adverse_possession
It says that after something has changed hands and stayed changed for long enough (often 50 years), then ownership changes.
Why is this? Because otherwise, it’d be very possible that there’d be multiple legitimate claims to one area. I think once wealth starts circulating for long enough, the original means of producing pale in importance. By that, I mean – if a criminal steals your television set, that’s obviously a crime and ill-gotten and he’s liable for the set. The next person who buys the TV set from the criminal also might be on the hook. But if that person sells it at a yard sale 10 years later, the person who bought at the yard sale isn’t on the hook. After that much time passes, stuff just becomes stuff.
Thus, I think dishonorably gained wealth – fraud, theft, etc – is dishonorable and carries its crime and stigma with it for a short while, but after long enough its just stuff. I mean, the Pyramids were built with slave labor. Should they be torn down? Angkor Wat – same deal. Should we tear it down? I think the answer is obviously not, but at this point the Pyramids and Angkor Wat are a boon to society. Now, if someone were to try to construct in that way, we should go put a beatdown on them. And anyone coerced in such a manner would have some legitimate claims against their coercer. But at some point, it just becomes stuff, which lets us let bygones be bygones. You’ve got however long to make your claims of crime and dishonor and violence and fraud, and then it’s over so we don’t pick over wounds 3,000 years old.
Good discussing this, thanks for taking the time to comment and share your views.
If the lowly people aren’t rich, then it’s their fault. Therefore, it’s ok for “high” people to ignore the fact that they have basic needs for food and shelter, or to take away education, healthcare, and representation, because if they really wanted those things then they’d quit being so lazy and act like rich people. Economic barriers to success are society’s way of separating the Worthy from the Wimpy.
> If the lowly people aren’t rich, then it’s their fault.
No, it’s no one’s “fault” – it’s the state of nature. We evolved from being apes and crawled out of jungles, forests, and caves. We all start poor. Some people have never had anyone in their bloodlines dig out of it – in which case, it’ll be up to them to do it.
After that, no, it’s not okay to take things away from people, nor are you required to furnish things for other people. Philanthropy and charity are good thing to do, but it’s not mandatory. I would encourage it, though.
I am very thankful to this topic because it really gives up to date information :’*
I echo what Roderick said :)
There are exceptions but I like your framework. One of the interesting things about the Silicon Valley culture is how this “new rich” culture has the marks of the high born: desire for wealth and power, free exchange of favors and ideas, and delayed gratification. Perhaps what the variety of ethnic cultures in the bay area have in common is a high born upbringing in their home countries?
Interesting thought, hmm… I’ve never lived in SF, only visited. I’ve got lots of friends there though, I’ll ask for some of their takes. Good comment.
I’m interested. What do you think generally motivates some to act hypocritically in amassing wealth while simultaneously advocating unifying/egalitarian policies? Patrick Bateman rhetoric?
I haven’t seen that movie, so I don’t know for sure what Patrick Bateman rhetoric is.
Perhaps it’s just cognitive dissonance though. Or maybe it’s just noting how effective it is and being ruthless… like, think about the communist countries where the dialog was all “the people, equality, the people!” but the leaders would live incredibly better than anyone else.
Is it a planned technique, or do they cognitive dissonance/rationalize it? Could be either, I suppose.
You haven’t seen American Psycho? It’s a modern American classic. I’d recommend it if you watch movies; it’s a satire about upper affluent American culture in the early 90′s. Bateman, played by Christian Bale, is an investment banker whose sole obsessions in life are to be better than his peers and stoke his pride. The quote below summarizes this character:
Patrick Bateman: I have all the characteristics of a human being: blood, flesh, skin, hair; but not a single, clear, identifiable emotion, except for greed and disgust.
The PB rhetoric i’m referring to is from a dinner scene where patrick delivers a masturbatory speech stressing the importance of certain egalitarian social reforms despite the fact that inside he considers people who aren’t in his socioeconomic strata to be losers and despises them outright in other parts of the movie.
It’s when well-wishing of others is done to make oneself look and feel noble.
Strategic tactic or cognitive dissonance inducing hypocritical behavoir? I think most people exhibit the latter because I don’t suppose most use the forethought required to strategically manipulate others in the long term or when they do it’s usually over some petty matter and shouldn’t be called a grand scheme
Of mankind we may say in general they are fickle, hypocritical, and greedy of gain.
Niccolo Machiavelli
This really struck a chord for me. I’ve been struggling with this, it seems, my whole life, but only recently have I been able to define aspects enough to improve them, to deliberately think a different way. It happened early last July, which is telling that I can nail it down to the three-day period in which I had my epiphany.
I know what you mean Moriah – it’s a particular shift in thinking that you can *feel*…
Actually, just being aware of it goes a long ways. Unsurprisingly, this article evokes a lot of mixed feelings. Some people go – whoa! things make sense now!
Other people really don’t like that I wrote it up this way… that’s how it goes, eh? Cheers for the comment, I know the exact sort of experience you’re mentioning.
Wow. Really good, and deeply thoughtful. It’s interesting to see how one goes from low to high. I find myself in that middle ground now. I’m 3rd generation in the USA, and for my family, it has actually taken three generations to turn that corner. Very interesting….
I am interested in the expectations of people, in particular the entitlement (or lack thereof) and the accountability.
Wow, wow, and…………………………………………. WOW. You don’t know how long I’ve been struggling with these issues. From my upbringing in a certain county not far from Los Angeles, California, within walking distance of the beach, I have constantly felt the stigma of being high-born. When I continued my education at a certain world-class University in one of the poorer neighborhoods of the aforesaid metropolis, I was instantly labelled. I shouldn’t have to repeat those names— they are too hurtful, and besides, I think you can guess. Let me say it for the record: there is nothing wrong with money. There is nothing wrong with power. And what a beautiful explanation you have here. People of high birth truly are better than everyone else. There’s are reason the beggars of the world are what they are.
> People of high birth truly are better than everyone else.
I don’t think that’s a useful way of putting it. Rather, some people act better than other people in some ways. The guy who is acting consistent, reliable, on-time, loyal, and hard-working isn’t better in the abstract than someone who isn’t – he’s simply acting better. Most of these things seem learnable over time.
{ 2 trackbacks }