

What Is Seen and What Is Unseen: The Hidden Price of Immoral Acts - tokenadult
http://www.skepticblog.org/2012/09/11/the-hidden-price-of-immoral-acts/

======
yason
From doping to trading, the tragedy is that people take it so seriously and
thus turn it into a life-and-death game of all-or-nothing.

Taking things seriously robs any chance to just be _good enough_ and be happy
about _that_.

Anyone who can complete Tour de France at all or moderately but steadily grow
an investment portfolio over the years should be extremely satisfied with just
that already. If you're not, you'll seek greater but less likely and more
momentary satisfaction from winning to win, and you'll likely end up more
miserable in the average.

~~~
ddfisher
> Anyone who can complete Tour de France at all or moderately but steadily
> grow an investment portfolio over the years should be extremely satisfied
> with just that already.

(I'm not certain what "should" means in that sentence - a moral judgement? -
but I'll interpret it as advice.) I think that this is excellent advice for
some people, but poor advice for others. I don't think there is anything
wrong, per se, with wanting to be the _very best_ at something. There's just a
trade-off: you can be happily excellent, or you can take a chance and be
perhaps the best but most likely just unhappy. But this decision is, in my
opinion, a personal one: happiness does not have to be the ultimate goal of
life.

~~~
chii
> I don't think there is anything wrong, per se, with wanting to be the very
> best at something.

Its probably obvious, but everyone wants to be the very best at something (or
even everything?), even though of course its unrealistic, so most people
disregard that desire almost immediately after thinking of it.

However, there are a minority that feel they can be, and when they realize
they mightn't be, they cheat to do so, at the cost of others. And that's what
i think is the real crux of the problem.

~~~
meric
Imagine you're now the best programmer in the world who knows as much as any
other programmer knows, and more. How depressing would that be. You'll always
find room to improve any library you download from the internet. When you have
no idea to do something, you have no one to ask. You'll have nothing to learn
from reading programmer's blogs. Nothing to learn reading programming related
entries in HN. No role models to learn from. No new information to read from
programming books. No enlightenment reading Knuth's (Or Rob Pike or Paul
Graham or Jeff Atwood or any other programmers') writing.

No, I have no desire to be the very best at all. It'd be great if I can always
have someone in front of me to learn from, all the time.

~~~
chris_wot
I'm happy for you, really. But those who strive for greatness and who invent
or discover new concepts also get amazing feelings, and learn amazing things
too.

Not to mention that nobody can know everything. If you know everything about
programming, you are deluding yourself. And even if you _could_ know
everything, there is much to be said of applying concepts from other
disciplines to your own. That's how we got Design Patterns.

~~~
meric
That is true.

The journey may be exciting, but the destination not so much. :)

------
notaddicted
Reminds me of a piece that I read on Marc Andreessen's blog back in 2007. Now
I see that it was written by Ben Horowitz. I'm almost embarrassed to admit it
how long it took me to find this, like 10 minutes. Anyway, quoting:

"Once WorldCom started committing accounting fraud to prop up their numbers,
all of the other telecoms had to either (a) commit accounting fraud to keep
pace with WorldCom's blistering growth rate, or (b) be viewed as losers with
severe consequences.

How severe were the consequences for not breaking the law? Well, like a
baseball player who refuses to take steroids, CEO Mike Armstrong of AT&T did
not keep pace with the cheaters. As a reward for his honesty and integrity, he
was widely ridiculed in the press prior to being fired and AT&T, perhaps
America's most valuable brand, was acquired for cheap. Now you see why Barry
Bonds needed something to help him keep pace with Mark McGwire."

[http://web.archive.org/web/20090621225533/http://blog.pmarca...](http://web.archive.org/web/20090621225533/http://blog.pmarca.com/2007/06/ceo-
crime-punis.html)

~~~
api
There is a difference between financial fraud and doping. The latter can
_actually_ increase performance, while the former only appears to on the
surface.

Lance Armstrong actually _is_ faster. WorldCom was not, in fact, doing any
better than AT&T and may have actually been doing worse.

------
Xcelerate
Very good article! I think it really comes down to the fact that people can
rationalize _anything_ nowadays. Get 10 people in a room and they'll all
disagree on what's right and wrong.

You know, I always feel like deep down, everybody knows what is _really_
right. Whenever you make a bad decision, you've just got to know that you're
rationalizing why it's okay. How could you not?

But maybe I'm wrong; I doubt that sociopaths and psychopaths have a true sense
of right and wrong. There's stories of these people being in interrogation
rooms and revealing all of the atrocities they've committed with no trace of
emotion. It's only once they read the faces of their interrogators that they
realize other people are horrified. And then they pretend to have remorse
because it improves their own chances of a good outcome.

~~~
yason
> the fact that people can rationalize anything nowadays.

That's the whole point of rationalization. Rational process of thinking can be
applied to anything, to choices deemed good or bad, much similarly to science
which can be (ab)used for purposes deemed good or bad. Nobody can't make a
decision based on pure rationalism because anyone half-skilled in
rationalizing is able to counter-argue his own argument down.

Rational thinking is a valuable tool to gain insight into things but only a
fool thinks he can solve dilemmas of good vs. bad with it. Ethics itself is a
product of a mind and what mind does is always rational.

~~~
mooism2
You seem to be confusing rationalisation with rational thinking.

Rational thinking involves making logical deductions from a set of objectives
and constraints to determine what actions to take. Ideally some of the
constraints will be ethical, and perhaps some of the objectives will be
emotional.

Rationalisation involves coming up with reasons to justify a decision that has
already been made for other reasons. Perhaps the real reasons do not satisfy
the person's conscience. Perhaps the real reasons will not persuade other
people. Perhaps the real reasons are emotional and not rational. But the
process of inventing these reasons is not allowed to challenge the original
decision.

------
tristanj
A few years back, coach Angel Heredia did an interview with Spiegel on the
same topic in which he alleges many of today's world-records would be
impossible without PEDs. There's a translated version below, but note that at
the time of interview, he under investigation for supplying illicit drugs to
athletes, and his responses are mildly tainted by personal agenda.

Translated Spiegel.de article: [http://www.sherdog.net/forums/f13/angel-
heredia-interview-sp...](http://www.sherdog.net/forums/f13/angel-heredia-
interview-sports-doping-1927491/)

NY times discussing the investigation:
[http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/13/sports/13doping.html?_r=1&...](http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/13/sports/13doping.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all)

------
cerebrum
What is not seen is that for this homo sapiens to be writing this book his
ancestors had to cheat themselves for him to be here. Killing off the
Neanderthals and whoever/whatever stood in the way is how humankind got here.
I think his observations are correct but the conclusion wrong. Cheating is the
way to go but unfortunately this cannot be said out loud. Homo Hypocritus(hat
tip to Robin Hanson) at work here.

~~~
ubernostrum
It's not possible to "cheat" at natural selection, because it's not a thing
and doesn't have rules; it's just a mathematical fact that's true.

And, like the other reply pointed out, human societies have systems of rules
because the results are worse when they don't (to stretch your example, a
species which consumes or destroys too much of a limited resource dooms all
its members, whether they "cheated" or not).

~~~
cerebrum
> It's not possible to "cheat" at natural selection

You are right but the same can be said for winning in contests. The only real
rule is "to win" all the rest are social contracts that you can break if you
can get away with it. In that sense the smarter, more capable more
hypocritical individuals will win, so yes, you are selecting for those same
traits. I take objection with the author for his moral preaching.

------
ma2rten
Are the rich and famous happier than the rest?

I think the average professional cyclist might be less happy then the average
plumber, even without doping. Think of all the pressure, knowing that you
career will have to end soon, still not being the best, dealing with the
press, etc.

In my mind, Cyclist Joe might be lucky to have become Joe the Plumber instead.

~~~
bdunbar
At least one rich guys says 'yes'.

I forget the exact quote by Dave Ramsey - who has been rich, then poor, then
rich again, said something like 'People tell you being rich sucks. Nu-uh.'

One can be rich and unhappy, and poor and happy. This is not news.

But .. having been poor myself (and then middle-class) having money to pave
over the small bumps in life makes it a whole lot easier to be content.

------
scotty79
> This is the problem with cheating across the moral landscape: it’s robs
> others of their possibilities.

If 1000 guys compete, only 1 wins the possibilities, 999 of them will be
robbed of their possibilities regardless of whether the winner cheats or not.

Don't plan (let alone invest significant portion of you life and health) on
1/1000 ratio. You have more or less that chance of dying next year. Do you
plan on that?

~~~
mooism2
No, if the winners didn't cheat to get there, then the others have not been
_robbed_ of their possibilities.

------
hasker
I take issue with how this article represents Lance Armstrong's doping as a
fact. He never tested positive. From what I understand, someone just testified
that they saw him shooting up with something. Who knows what Lance and his
team really did or did not do. The US Anti-Doping Agency was out to get him,
and from what I understand, the burden of proof is so low that they can get
anyone they want.

I also do not understand how the affordability of top doping experts is any
different than affordability of top coaches and nutritionists. The author
claims that only the top 25% can actually compete legitimately since top
doping specialists cost a lot. Top coaches likely do also.

I think these two points weaken the authors points tremendously, when I
somewhat agree with is point. He just needs better examples.

~~~
davidjohnstone
Actually, he has tested positive. On multiple occasions. There was a urine
test he failed in 1999 that he got out of with a backdated prescription. More
controversially, it has been alleged that he failed an EPO test in 2001 that
Hein Verbrugghen (then head of the UCI) made disappear. Coincidentally,
Armstrong donated $125,000 to the UCI at this time. Also, 1999 TdF samples of
his have recently tested positive to EPO (they didn't have an EPO test back
then), but those positives didn't count because the testing was done for
research purposes.

It's rather cynical, but [http://cavalierfc.tumblr.com/post/30172302298/its-
not-about-...](http://cavalierfc.tumblr.com/post/30172302298/its-not-about-
the-bike) is worth a look.

~~~
james1071
Perhaps you mean well, but you have not got a clue what you are talking about.

Armstrong has not tested positive for EPO, HGH or anything similar. The
allegation about the prescription drug incident is completely irrelevant.

Whether he has in fact taken PEDs is another question.

~~~
ixnu
It is not another question, and if it is, the same overwhelming evidence
points to his guilt. Lance's entire myth is deeply tied to his appearance of
being a clean athlete who is a victim of a vast and elaborate scheme to
discredit him.

The exact opposite is true and no matter of denials and double speak will
change this.

Lance fooled me. I'm a cancer survivor and an avid cyclist who was an original
member of the Peloton Project before it was Livestrong. I have traveled to
France and Austin multiple times to meet Lance and was completely taken by his
story.

His continued denials and the complicit noise makers sicken me.

~~~
james1071
1 Armstrong's performances have always been viewed with extreme scepticism.

2 The USDAA's investigation has also been viewed with extreme scepticism.

You believed completely in Armstrong and now completely believe in the
investigation.

------
aaron695
I think we need context here, these are just people going around in circles on
a track.

Their object is to entertain, and that they have in more ways than one.

This concept sport people are anything more is a sad reflection on society.
The technology and methods they spend billions on developing are mostly
useless to the normal world.

Even movie technology builds on itself and makes better movies, sport
technology just shaves 100ths of a second off records, what is the point. It's
forgotten by all but diehards 10-20 years later. At least a good movie or book
lasts hundreds of years.

To say sport is more than that is quite sad I feel, people need to get over
pretending it that important.

------
mikecane
For Want of a Nail (proverb)
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/For_Want_of_a_Nail_%28proverb%2...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/For_Want_of_a_Nail_%28proverb%29)

------
brudgers
I am so disappointed by American cyclists doping that I will no longer watch
cycling on TV. The benefit is that I now have more time to watch (American)
football.

~~~
james1071
Yes, watch the boys on roids.

------
api
There's an alternative interpretation here: that the heights of human
achievement are not available "cleanly."

Truth be told, there's a lot of doping in other fields. I've hung around
startuppers, scientists, and med students who heavily use racetams, modafinil,
amphetamine, B12 megadosing, "stack" diets, and massive amounts of caffeine.
Musicians and artists use psychedelic drugs to artificially enter hyper-
creative states. Isn't that a form of doping? Would we have most of the music
we have if there were no THC, psilocybin, or LSD?

And doping is just augmentation. A bicycle itself is an augmentation. Shoes
and special clothing are augmentations. The list goes on.

A race where runners run almost naked and are strictly limited to a straight
diet would be interesting in itself, but it would not achieve anywhere near
Olympic performance numbers.

I'm not necessarily saying that doping in sports is good, per se. If the rules
don't allow it in your event, you are cheating in your particular sport.
(There are no such rules for startups, science, or music.) What I'm really
getting at here is that there is another issue, and that the overall issue is
more morally complex than "honest and clean" vs "doped."

I also know that doping can destroy your health. Those modafinil/amphetamine
stackers in the startup world might be shortening their life spans. LSD and
psilocybin can make you go nuts. Steroids can cause cancer, heart disease, and
mood disorders. But what if that's the price for exceeding the records?

~~~
jonathanjaeger
I don't think the musician/startup analogy works. Regardless of the legality
of using certain drugs and prescriptions, sports players are competing against
each other for a certain output. Musicians and entrepeneurs are creating a
product, whether it be music or a company, that stands alone irrespective of
the lengths they went to achieve that creation. The people consuming that
product aren't suffering because someone else did the drugs, unlike the
cyclist who is competing against a doped up competitor or the investor who
doesn't do insider trading like others do.

~~~
thebigshane
Wait, who is suffering because of doped up cyclists? (The insider trading
investor does seem different as `lsc` talks about elsewhere in these comments)

~~~
monjaro
The cyclists who want to compete without doping.

------
rnernento
Really well written and really depressing.

------
james1071
So Tyler Hamilton has got a book out. What a joke.

