Ambition for Ambition’s sake

As some of you know, I started out in life with relatively little. It’s one of the reasons I don’t tend to be the most sympathetic person towards people who spend their entire lives being poor. 

Americans who are chronically poor, in most cases, can look at their own poor choices as being why they’re in the state they’re in.  The remaining are people who are physically more mentally disabled and those people I have endless compassion for.

Being wealthy doesn’t mean you’re better than others. It just means that you have managed to adapt yourself to the social/economic conditions of your environment.  That happens to be a skill I’m reasonably good at.

For me, wealth has never been a goal. Freedom is the goal. I want to be free to do what I want which requires a threshold of wealth to be obtained. Beyond that, I don’t care. I’m not heavily motivated to build empires of wealth just for the sake of building empires – particularly if it results in some loss of personal freedom.

Different people have different levers that motivate them. Some people crave respect. Other people crave adulation. Still others use wealth as a score card to live a life of achievement. And there are of course people who crave material wealth because that’s what makes them happy.  For me, it’s what I said, freedom. I want to do what I want to do.

I’d argue that I have a form of narcissism. Not the self-love kind but rather excessive self-ego. I do care about other people and how what I do will affect other people but I relentlessly pursue my own personal agenda.

A normal company of our size wouldn’t have its CEO out on the forums mixing it up with customers. And for good reason – I’m pretty rude and unprofessional. When I get into the mud with some disgruntled customer, it makes me and my company look amateurish and it costs us money in terms of business.  Clearly, since I know those things and will still continue to hang out on the chat channels and the forums chatting with other users rather than using an alias or having “handlers” do that sort of thing I must have other priorities  and I do – being able to do what I want.

In my experience, most people who are wealthy are people who have become extremely adept at doing what they are doing. And what they are doing produces wealth that enriches them.  What happens, in many cases, is that the means becomes the end – their ambition becomes the goal rather than the means to a concrete objective. It’s a path that I think leads many people to have regret later in life.

Some people, which we’ll generally call “losers”, look at the most successful people and think they’re greedy. If only that were the case. The most successful people are often people who are achieving for achievement’s sake with money being the scorecard. That is what I am trying to avoid. 

Sometimes, when I get busy, I will nearly forget why I’m working so hard. Because I happen to be so good at what I do, new opportunities arise to do even more – the ambition starts to become an ends unto itself.  So I have to remind myself why I do this – freedom.  The freedom to live my life as I see fit. To able to be the husband I want to be for my wife and the father I want to be for my children without having to compromise.  It’s often a delicate balance between sticking to ones goals and controlling the urge to let ambition take over.

10,046 views 29 replies
Reply #1 Top

Brad,

Do you agree with most of ayn rand's objectivism?  It sounds that way

from your post (eg rational self interest)

Reply #2 Top

Cool. Freedom is a sincere reason for a CEO to work hard towards achievement. Myself, I am a bigger fan of people who work hard for accomplishment, to create something, to do something great, or to be someone with a life worth living.

I have spent countless hours pursuing a career in science because I believe that is somewhere I can go where I can build something useful in society. I think I can improve lives, either as a medical professional or a contributer to human knowledge, and thus indirectly, a contributer to beneficial technology. I want to be able to fix nature, God's mistakes, and make the world a better place.

Specifically, I am interested in creating chemicals that will level the cognitive playing field, allowing strength of character to prevail over the chaotic distribution of intellegence. I am studying neuroscience at a top 20 university now, and hopefully, one day my dream will come true.

Unfortunately, a real catch-22 exists. My goal is a lofty one, and it is one that very few could hope to accomplish. Ironically, the factor most invovled in determining success is the one I hope to eliminate :p. Compounding the problem, what if the drug costs too much, and only the elite can afford it? Have I only taken a step backwards? What if it has undesirable side-effects? Should people be pressured to use it?

Reply #3 Top

And there is always the lurking question. Should I succeed, did I actually make the world a better place? Who am I to judge?

 

By the way, there are already a few examples of drugs that can enhance cognitive performance. Stimulants, for example, increase focus. Provigil will keep you alert. And a new class of compounds called "ampakines" shows promise in increasing memory. It's only a matter of time before someone, me or otherwise, succeeds in doing this.

Actually, the situtation is even more interesting than that. There are drugs that can do pretty much anything. Anabolic steroids to make someone stronger, antibiotics to make someone healthier, prozac to make them happier. Recently, someone invented a drug that promises to make people live longer (he actually takes it himself, although I do not recommend it).

Reply #4 Top

Quoting coderunner82, reply 1
Brad,

Do you agree with most of ayn rand's objectivism?  It sounds that way

from your post (eg rational self interest)
End of coderunner82's quote

Any sort of "ism" is something that tends to fail when practiced in its pure form.

But I would say I subscribe to the basic concept of objectivism.

Reply #5 Top

Quoting SlyDrivel, reply 2
Cool. Freedom is a sincere reason for a CEO to work hard towards achievement. Myself, I am a bigger fan of people who work hard for accomplishment, to create something, to do something great, or to be someone with a life worth living.

I have spent countless hours pursuing a career in science because I believe that is somewhere I can go where I can build something useful in society. I think I can improve lives, either as a medical professional or a contributer to human knowledge, and thus indirectly, a contributer to beneficial technology. I want to be able to fix nature, God's mistakes, and make the world a better place.

Specifically, I am interested in creating chemicals that will level the cognitive playing field, allowing strength of character to prevail over the chaotic distribution of intellegence. I am studying neuroscience at a top 20 university now, and hopefully, one day my dream will come true.

Unfortunately, a real catch-22 exists. My goal is a lofty one, and it is one that very few could hope to accomplish. Ironically, the factor most invovled in determining success is the one I hope to eliminate . Compounding the problem, what if the drug costs too much, and only the elite can afford it? Have I only taken a step backwards? What if it has undesirable side-effects? Should people be pressured to use it?
End of SlyDrivel's quote

High intelligence is not a predictor for success. There have been plenty of studies on that topic.  Success tends to require a certain minimum threshold. But after that, preparation and opportunity are the key factors and no chemical will solve that.

 

Reply #6 Top

By the way, there are already a few examples of drugs that can enhance cognitive performance. Stimulants, for example, increase focus. Provigil will keep you alert. And a new class of compounds called "ampakines" shows promise in increasing memory. It's only a matter of time before someone, me or otherwise, succeeds in doing this.

Actually, the situtation is even more interesting than that. There are drugs that can do pretty much anything. Anabolic steroids to make someone stronger, antibiotics to make someone healthier, prozac to make them happier. Recently, someone invented a drug that promises to make people live longer (he actually takes it himself, although I do not recommend it).

End of quote

Modafinil won't make you successful. It will make you alert and more focused. But success isn't based on that.  The most intelligent people in the world don't tend to be any more successful than people with merely above average intelligence.

Don't put too much stock on exceptional intelligence. 

Reply #7 Top

I think consistency in whatever you do is one key element in success. Although, I guess that goes along with the long term goal and not just the instant gratification.

Reply #8 Top

I want to be able to fix nature, God's mistakes, and make the world a better place.
End of quote

I hope you don't mind my curiosiy about this particular comment of yours but, when you say God's mistakes (and I am not trying to make this a religious thing BTW) hw do you know they are mistakes? I have often questioned the concept of considering some people crazy just because they can see or do things most people can't so how does one define a mistake made by God? How do we know it was not meant to be that way? I'm just curious, if we can't even understand how the brain truly works fully, how can we say something from nature is a mistake?

Sry for not sticking to the topic of the article on this comment Brad but that comment just caught my attention.

Reply #9 Top

If you don't mind Brad, you have inspired me to write an article on this since I have so much to say and don't want to take up too much space on your article. I would, however, like to say that while it's unusual to see the CEO of a company mingle with those in his forums, I think it's actually pretty cool that you do. It shows that you can be part of this world as much as part of the Business world as oppose to sticking to one or the other alone.

Reply #10 Top

Quoting Draginol, reply 6
Don't put too much stock on exceptional intelligence. 
End of Draginol's quote

Sure, if you consider high IQ and SAT/ACT scores the sole measure of intelligence.

I say that [un]common sense is perhaps a more accurate measurement of a person's intelligence.  An exceptionally sensible person sees the need to work for a living to avoid being poor.

You've pretty much said yourself that even "intelligent" people can lack this sensibility.  Why should you think you're not as smart as them, when you clearly understand something they don't?

Reply #11 Top

Success tends to require a certain minimum threshold.
End of quote

 

Modafinil won't make you successful.
End of quote

 

Yes, of course. I wouldn't dream of making everyone extremely intelligent. I would just want to ensure that everyone had the neccesary, even if not sufficient* , potential to succeed.

I will tell you that I am biased in terms of what I believe chemicals can do. I received an ADHD diagnosis, and atomoxetine has been helpful for me.   I have always been able to score high on standardized tests, so I want to make it clear that I am not talking about IQ, which can be complicated and controversial. Given standardized test scores I have accumulated over the years, I would conservatively estimate my IQ at around 125, yet I have been fired from pretty much every job I have attempted, due to inadequate social skills. More simply, I think chemicals can give struggling people a chance. When a child is given the hope that if s/he works really hard s/he can become a symbolic professional, it should not be a false hope, not for biological reasons anyway.

It eats away at our essential humanity to deny people the chance of fulfilling their hopes. See the movie GATTACA. See the movie Amadeus. In my opinion, genetic inequality is essentially unethical. Anything that can be done to ensure that people who are really passionate about their lives will have an equal opportunity to succeed is something I condone. To me, giving the cognitively impaired** smart pills is no different than pursuing equal opportunity for minorities and women.

*I realize that unequal distribution of opportunity is another huge problem, and maybe one easier to solve. But I don't enjoy politics.

 

** I mean people who do not meet the threshold for success.

Reply #12 Top

Yes, of course. I wouldn't dream of making everyone extremely intelligent. I would just want to ensure that everyone had the neccesary, even if not sufficient* , potential to succeed.

I will tell you that I am biased in terms of what I believe chemicals can do. I received an ADHD diagnosis, and atomoxetine has been helpful for me.   I have always been able to score high on standardized tests, so I want to make it clear that I am not talking about IQ, which can be complicated and controversial. Given standardized test scores I have accumulated over the years, I would conservatively estimate my IQ at around 125, yet I have been fired from pretty much every job I have attempted, due to inadequate social skills. More simply, I think chemicals can give struggling people a chance. When a child is given the hope that if s/he works really hard s/he can become a symbolic professional, it should not be a false hope, not for biological reasons anyway.

It eats away at our essential humanity to deny people the chance of fulfilling their hopes. See the movie GATTACA. See the movie Amadeus. In my opinion, genetic inequality is essentially unethical. Anything that can be done to ensure that people who are really passionate about their lives will have an equal opportunity to succeed is something I condone. To me, giving the cognitively impaired** smart pills is no different than pursuing equal opportunity for minorities and women.

*I realize that unequal distribution of opportunity is another huge problem, and maybe one easier to solve. But I don't enjoy politics.

 

** I mean people who do not meet the threshold for success.

End of quote

The problem is that even if you raise everhone's intelligence, the threshold simply moves up with them.

High intelligence isn't particularly helpful. It's being an idiot that hurts.  

I do agree with you of the power of chemicals. I'd love to see Modafinil (for instance) become an over the counter drug (certainly safer than Caffeine).

Reply #13 Top

Sure, if you consider high IQ and SAT/ACT scores the sole measure of intelligence.

I say that [un]common sense is perhaps a more accurate measurement of a person's intelligence.  An exceptionally sensible person sees the need to work for a living to avoid being poor.

You've pretty much said yourself that even "intelligent" people can lack this sensibility.  Why should you think you're not as smart as them, when you clearly understand something they don't?

End of quote

I certainly don't consider IQ a very good measure of intelligence.

To use a computer analogy, IQ is like how fast your CPU is.  But CPU is only one aspect of how fast (smart) your computer is. Memory is another big factor.

Speaking purely of myself, I've never thought of myself as having a massive IQ. My "magic" advantage is memory. For whatever reason, my ability to accumulate knowledge seems to be a lot higher than normal.  So it's like having a decent CPU but an incredible disk cache. But there are few measurements of that (my short-term memory is average).

Reply #14 Top

The problem is that even if you raise everhone's intelligence, the threshold simply moves up with them.
End of quote

This would be true if the entire spectrum shifted (if absolutely everyone took the drugs). Instead, the spectrum might be narrowed.The threshold might increase, but other factors aside from those modified would bridge the gap.

High intelligence isn't particularly helpful. It's being an idiot that hurts.
End of quote

Although, that does bring up an interesting point. Coffee is a stimulant that works basically by causing the effects of adrenaline to persist longer. Over 50% of Americans drink coffee (and probably significantly more drink caffinated beverages in general). What if something that worked even better were made widely available?

I found a blog that addresses this:

http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/business/the-ethics-of-smart-pills/1208

And another (this one even references a potential "brain-chip" prosthetic technology, which sounds dubious. But who knows?)

http://www.britannica.com/blogs/2009/01/smart-pills/

 

 

 

 

Reply #15 Top

This is an interesting sub-discussion in itself, and intelligence as it's accepted by the majority in the psychology field (and this doesn't mean it's RIGHT, but just what the majority believe) in the psychology field is a general intelligence factor (g) that's composed of two subfactors crystallized intelligence (gC) which does measure acquired knowledge or long-term memory and fluid intelligence (gF) which is basically pattern recognition and problem solving.  These are usually the main things used when computing IQ. 

 

But it doesnt' take into account things like creativity, work ethic, knowledge, or wisdom which I think is just as important or even more.

Reply #16 Top

Quoting Frogboy, reply 13


Speaking purely of myself, I've never thought of myself as having a massive IQ.

End of Frogboy's quote

I'd say you have a massive game creating IQ.  ;)

 

GC2 / SoaSE ftw.  I guess demigod is more GPG's puppy, but are you working on the AI in demigod also?

Reply #17 Top

To use a computer analogy, IQ is like how fast your CPU is.
End of quote

 

I'm not really an expert on IQ. I only have a basic understanding of psychology. But from what I have come across, I believe that IQ is a measure of functioning in the pre-frontal cortex (executive functions like working memory, realizing when you are about to do something stupid, paying attention) as well as a measure of your accumlated knowledge in specific (and undoubtably biased) areas. Interestingly, perscription meds for ADHD target neurotransmitters important for pre-frontal cortex functioning. I saw one study in which IQ went up from normal to about 117 average among a group of 23 ADHD individuals. Most of the increase came from a sizable boost in "performance IQ", not the knowledge type. Go figure.

 

 

 

Reply #18 Top

Cool. Freedom is a sincere reason for a CEO to work hard towards achievement. Myself, I am a bigger fan of people who work hard for accomplishment, to create something, to do something great, or to be someone with a life worth living.
End of quote

Way to go completely missing the mark..

He BECAME a CEO to be free to "dos something great, or to be someone with a life worth living". that is the very definition of freedom. Not to work hard towards achivement. Yours is one of the most insulting posts I have seen in a while.

Reply #19 Top

IQ means intelligence quotient. It is (Developmental age / chronological age) * 100... so a 10 year old with the development of a 15 year old has an IQ of 150...

This is also tooled ENTIRELY for finding deficiencies in learning in school systems. From the very first format through its five major reivisions it has always looked only for problem areas. Its creators always insisted it is not a measurement of intelligence, but a measurement of lack of learning capability. It can be used to diagnose the existance of a learning disability, which can later be narrowed down into things like dyslexia or retardation or ADD or simply lack of educational background (aka, bad teachers / schools in past)

I think intelligence has a LOT to do with success... but intellgience is not IQ. Realizing that money is an enabled for freedom, but that the goal is freedom, is a sign of intelligence. falling into the pit of "money is greed" or "money for money's sake, even if i sacrifice my family for it" are signs of lack of intelligence (you come up with a stupid conclusion to an otherwise simple and obvious question)

Reply #20 Top

Way to go completely missing the mark..

He BECAME a CEO to be free to "dos something great, or to be someone with a life worth living". that is the very definition of freedom. Not to work hard towards achivement. Yours is one of the most insulting posts I have seen in a while.
End of quote

I intended no insult. The desire for freedom can be a powerful driving force. It is not an unscrupulous or superficial reason to achieve. Thousands of Americans gave their lives in the war against terror for politcal freedom, for the ability to return home and live their lives the American way, without worrying about being attacked. There is something about being human that causes people to crave not being controlled. If you are just a peon, then your boss is really the one who has the ideas, and in a sense, you are only working to fufill his dreams (assuming it is not one that you share).

My idea is a little different, though it certainly overlaps. I think Frogboy and me have different personalities. As a CEO, he probably likes to take charge. I am ok with taking charge, but I enjoy solving problems more. I really missed my calling as an engineer. Whereas Frogboy sees success as being at the top of a big company that creates great computer games, I see success as creating a great computer game. In the end, I probably got the raw deal on personality. But what can you do?

Reply #21 Top

Quoting taltamir, reply 19
IQ means intelligence quotient. It is (Developmental age / chronological age) * 100... so a 10 year old with the development of a 15 year old has an IQ of 150...

This is also tooled ENTIRELY for finding deficiencies in learning in school systems. From the very first format through its five major reivisions it has always looked only for problem areas. Its creators always insisted it is not a measurement of intelligence, but a measurement of lack of learning capability. It can be used to diagnose the existance of a learning disability, which can later be narrowed down into things like dyslexia or retardation or ADD or simply lack of educational background (aka, bad teachers / schools in past)

I think intelligence has a LOT to do with success... but intellgience is not IQ. Realizing that money is an enabled for freedom, but that the goal is freedom, is a sign of intelligence. falling into the pit of "money is greed" or "money for money's sake, even if i sacrifice my family for it" are signs of lack of intelligence (you come up with a stupid conclusion to an otherwise simple and obvious question)
End of taltamir's quote

I disagree with your definition of IQ, given what I have heard about it being normalized. But who knows? I already mentioned that I have not looked into it directly.

Having enough money to live comfortably is very important. Beyond that, pursuing a life that is satisfying for you means much more. If your goal is freedom, then excess money will probably make you happier. But, as you said, not at the cost of losing control of everything else in your life (having relationships, hobbies, etc.)

 

Take a look at this guy:

http://worldblog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/03/02/1816633.aspx

Reply #22 Top

My idea is a little different, though it certainly overlaps. I think Frogboy and me have different personalities. As a CEO, he probably likes to take charge. I am ok with taking charge, but I enjoy solving problems more. I really missed my calling as an engineer. Whereas Frogboy sees success as being at the top of a big company that creates great computer games, I see success as creating a great computer game. In the end, I probably got the raw deal on personality. But what can you do?
End of quote

Bill gates was first and formost a computer engineer, he okayed EVERY snippet of code for the first 10 years of microsoft, sometimes changing it on the spot... that is, someone will send him completed code, he would change or approve it, and send it for distribution. And he kept doing software engineering for years later.

He had the power and freedom to engineer what he wanted, with a team to help him engineer what he wanted, and so on...

I desire this kind of freedom to, to be a researcher / designer and the owner at the same time. To make the most of the money from MY hard work, and to have a team researching and helping me design what I want to build.

Reply #23 Top

 I disagree with your definition of IQ, given what I have heard about it being normalized. But who knows? I already mentioned that I have not looked into it directly.
End of quote

Thats not my definition of IQ, thats the definition of the person who originally invented the concept, and the team who revised it 5 times since.

My definition of INTELLIGENCE has nothing to do with my definition of IQ, I don't try to define IQ... My definition of intelligence is, among others, making smart decisions and reaching smart conclusions.

Reply #24 Top

Quoting coderunner82, reply 16


Frogboycomment 13 Speaking purely of myself, I've never thought of myself as having a massive IQ.
I'd say you have a massive game creating IQ. 
 
GC2 / SoaSE ftw.  I guess demigod is more GPG's puppy, but are you working on the AI in demigod also?

End of coderunner82's quote

Well in all our games it's a collaboration whether it's developed here at Stardock or externally.

Sins of a Solar Empire is awesome because of Ironclad.  Demigod will be awesome because of GPG. 

My contribution to Sins was in helping come up with most of the frigates and cruisers and much of the economic system, the constructor ships, the two resources and that they're asteroids.

My contribution on Demigod is probably a bit more substantial because the original game designer left GPG last Summer just as we were getting involved and so Mike Marr (GPG) and I had to step in and essentially come up with a design to finish the game.  So in Demigod, I came up with the ideal of upgrading Citadels, having flags, having flags that do something, having what is available in the Citadel to purchase be due to war score (Mike and I collaborated on that part a lot), Favor items, Favor points, and lots of little details.

But while that list seems big, it is dwarfed in comparison with the whole game as a whole.  I don't think I'm a particularly good game designer, I'm just a very very experienced gamer so I tend to have a feel for what game mechanics will work in practice.

Reply #25 Top

Quoting SlyDrivel, reply 17


To use a computer analogy, IQ is like how fast your CPU is.
 
I'm not really an expert on IQ. I only have a basic understanding of psychology. But from what I have come across, I believe that IQ is a measure of functioning in the pre-frontal cortex (executive functions like working memory, realizing when you are about to do something stupid, paying attention) as well as a measure of your accumlated knowledge in specific (and undoubtably biased) areas. Interestingly, perscription meds for ADHD target neurotransmitters important for pre-frontal cortex functioning. I saw one study in which IQ went up from normal to about 117 average among a group of 23 ADHD individuals. Most of the increase came from a sizable boost in "performance IQ", not the knowledge type. Go figure.
 
End of SlyDrivel's quote

I can't pretend to say what IQ is other than that IQ tests on the Internet are BS (even if you get all the answers wrong you still get like 105 on some of them).  I had to take one in college and it involved figuring out a lot of patterns and shapes, and a few story problems.

What I am saying is that I don't think my cognitive ability is particularly exceptional regardless of what my IQ is on paper.  I think what has helped me become successful from a "talent" point of view is my ability to absorb knowledge, recall it quickly, and build new knowledge with it.  

Mostly, though I would say that I'm successful because my particular talents happen to be in high demand at this particular time in human history and combined with a lot of hard work over time has made me a success.  Had I been born 100 years ago, I wouldn't be rich and if I'd come of age now I probably wouldn't be rich.