I would say that for good workplaces the difference is smaller. Surely, especially in managerial position, you'll have to help lots of people with their psychological issues, insecurities, troubles, etc... I would say that about 30% of my meetings are closed door, other happen in common spaces. In most of the cases when the meeting is closed door, it's to provide the other person with privacy and feeling of security.
My oldest one is 6 and sometimes he really needs some privacy and thus we do sometimes close door behind us. It's not as often as at work because a) I have less kids than employees, b) I suspect older he gets more private talks will he want to have.
At work people are paid to talk to me. If they like me or not, they kind of need to with with me. In real life, relationships don't work that way. No one it's getting paid to help me and every interaction with me is a choice.
Actually, I see it much the opposite way. You can choose to not to talk with people at work, eg by quitting.
It’s much more difficult to stop talking to your kids, wife. Sure, you can get divorce, but that’s kind of extreme compared to quitting the job :-)
What’s wrong about closed doors meetings at home?
Sometimes your kid needs to have a feel of privacy for a hard conversation and it really helps to seclude from the group and talk behind close doors.
Sometimes you have disagreements with your wife about how to deal with behavior of your kids, again, the conversation you better leave for the time kids are asleep or not around.
I am quite confused what the statement actually is. I don’t buy the argument about game ending in 30 seconds. The article quite clearly implies that it will last forever. If we are not playing a repeated game here, then none of this makes senses and all the (rational) players would turn the knob immediately to 30. You can induct from the last move to prove that.
If we are playing a finite game that has a probability p of ending in any given turn, it shouldn’t change much either.
I also don’t understand the argument about “context of equilibrium”.
I guess it would be helpful to formalize the statement you are trying to state.
I don’t think this works. Here is my strategy:
Now, this was a perfectly rational course of action for me. I knew that I will suffer temporarily, but in exchange I got a comfortable temperature for eternity.
Prove me wrong.
Actually you got it backwards. The so called intellectual property doesn’t have typical attributes of property:
– exclusivity: if I take it from you, you don’t have it anymore
– enforceability: it’s not trivial to even find out my “art was stolen”
– independence: I can violate your IP by accident even if I never seen any of your works (typical for patents), this can’t happen with proper property
– clear definition: you usually don’t need courts to decide whether I actually took your car or not.
Besides that, IP is in direct conflict with proper property rights (right to use your own property freely).
However, having IP is a practical way of overcoming the black passenger problem. But that’s the reason it was created in the first place. That’s the reason it actually expires after some time and works become a part of “public domain”. (Can you imagine a car becoming a part of public domain? See the difference?)
Now, even the US constitution is aware of this and explicitly states “progress of science and arts” as the only lawful reason to enact copyright.
[The Congress shall have power] “To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.
Nonsense. The fact that you can see some vague parallels between phlogiston and electrons or energy doesn’t make phlogiston theory any good. The fact that you can’t decide whether phlogiston represents electrons or energy should be a hint here.
Scientific theory should give useful predictions about the world and help us compress information. Phlogiston one does neither.
I would be careful to discern between fraud and police state allegations of fraud. Aaron Swartz is clearly the latter and it at least deserves to be mentioned in the article.
The line between good and bad is thin. This technique can be and often is misused for manipulation. The white-hat use of this technique is to make the other person stop and think.
I don't know how it looks like at your work, so hard to judge. But, I would say that your wife and kids do owe you, and you do owe them. It's not like you can stop carrying for your wife and kids tomorrow without breaching a strong (though informal) social contract.
And well, your colleagues are paid to do their job, but normally I would expect them to have a lots of freedom in how they do the job and how much of their attention will they spend helping other people? So, it's still kind of a choice if they do? But, again, I don't know your workplace, so maybe its more strict and formal?