I'm really sorry he died, even though I was horrified by the externalities of what he did in my town and, frankly, didn't much like the cat personally. But this idea that all of this started when he went to Park City is just not true. The culture of heavy boozing and drugs was very much always a big factor in the Vegas downtown tech scene. I don't think that statement would be considered controversial by anyone who was around for the real surge of it, from about 2010 - 2014 or so. And look, I'm not a Puritan or an abstainer, but it's hard to take people seriously when most of the meetings seem to be done whole day drinking at the casino or by the pool in the Ogden condo.
Whatever. It's all over with now. I didn't even know Tony had left town - he'd stopped really making the scene outside his trailer park long before that. I wish he'd had people who could help him, but he spent a long time being told that he was an instinctual visionary whose every act was an act of genius. That isn't very good for honest self-evaluation.
I wish everything had happened differently, but it didn't. It's a shame.
Money can destroy you just as easily as it can empower you. Look at what happens to a significant percentage of lottery winners.
It's an amplifier, and it can amplify your problems and self-destructive tendencies along with your desire to do good.
This isn't even about half the shit that went down.
So yeah, success and money can really trash lives if people aren't ready or they have underlying issues, but a lot of times you don't see it coming.
Before that we ran a fairly uneventful chain of video rental stores and otherwise led a bog normal and happy middle class life.
When toxic or habit-forming materials are involved a craving can be observed which is the type very difficult to control.
But an excess or virtually unlimited supply of a craveable requires an unusual degree of control otherwise it often does not end well and more than just the excess is lost.
Cravers will be drawn like a magnet.
Toxic materials which affect decision-making and are accepted as eccentric within popular culture can give rise to some of the most volatile situations.
Someone surrounds themselves with people who are financially dependent on them, so they only tell them that they're great, and whatever they do is the best thing that has ever happened. The unchecked praise-money feedback loop eventually leads to the host's destruction.
See also: Silicon Valley.
I'm glad to have the impression that he wasn't surrounded only by sycophants - it sounds like he was a fundamentally good person trying to do good in the world, and it's a more positive thought that many of his friends were trying to meet him where he was and get him back on track, rather than only enabling his downward spiral - though certainly it sounds like there was plenty of that, too.
It's one thing to overly indulge a billionaire friend, it's another to endanger his physical/mental well being to the point of death.
I can't open the link, but I read https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/26/technology/tony-hsieh-dea... and the whole thing seems classic untreated bipolar disorder.
I wonder how much of SV shenanigans can be attributed to manic breakdowns. There was already a "hypomanic advantage" meme going around a while ago; and, of course, thinking you can slightly toe the line towards a controled flirt with mania is classical bipolar anosognosia.
PSA: For many years, I self-administered the Young's Mania Ratings Scale everytime I felt the scales begin to tip. It's very short and impressively insightful. You might not know what mania is actually is, and if you live a high-intensity lifestyle you owe it to yourself to take it just once:
Look at college students and knowledge workers using various ADD/ADHD medications, as an example.
It's the epitome of unreasonable expectations: a self-fulfilling prophecy by setup. "Yes men" are terrible, especially if they're there to mooch rather than question or be more than good weather "friends."
https://www.forbes.com/sites/angelauyeung/2020/12/04/tony-hs...
Sheesh... this really sums it up. Tragic.
I was lucky to have met Tony twice, having a decent discussion one time. What happened is really unfortunate, and I feel as if we're going to see very similar situations unfold with many of those who are new money making a fortune from tech. I imagine it's got to be unfathomably hard to stay grounded and find meaning after acquiring so much money. All the syncophants in the world will come after you, and as it's been seen with Musk, many others will attempt to bet against any future endeavors of yours just to make a quick buck.
Tony Hsieh is ultimately responsible for his choices that led to his tragic and early death. But it leaves a bad taste to see people calling out his entourage here and then other people advocating similar behavior in other submissions.
I think a better way of describing it is a continuum of belief around drugs. Most people aren't talking about caffeine or alcohol when they say "drug use" but those are indeed psychoactive drugs as well.
"All drugs are wrong, but some are useful." is perhaps a useful model for thinking about it? (Not that I think drugs are wrong, just that nothing, and I mean nothing, in life is without cost in a cost/benefit analysis.)
All substances we ingest, from distilled water, to table salt, to a cup of coffee, broccoli, a beer, a cheeseburger, morphine, or methamphetamine have various effects, long term and short, on our bodies, and we should understand those effects as best we can before we ingest any of them.
I've seen ketamine save people's lives, and I've seen it destroy people's lives. Same with firearms. Sharp tools are a good thing, on balance, in my opinion, but should be wielded with knowledge and understanding in order to be safe.
Don't forget sugar:
https://www.webmd.com/diabetes/features/how-sugar-affects-yo...
Would look classier than 10000 little chargers in piles -- nitrous addicts can consume a staggering quantity of little pods, basically back to back constantly every 15 seconds for hours. It is reportedly very 'moreish', as the brits would say.
It feels odd to tell anyone ‘no’ because people think you are judging them, so most just stay quiet.
In a different culture, Tony may have survived if people felt comfortable questioning dangerous behavior.
Plus, if I had a close friend who was doing mushrooms and nitrous oxide, I wouldn't necessarily think that was particularly dangerous. I, perhaps ignorantly, would have considered those to be relatively safe things to experiment with.
It's so easy to say what should have been done after the fact, but it can be incredibly difficult to know the right thing in the moment.
For a wealthy high functioning billionaire, but one who is arguably affected by dopamine dysregulation that compromises his faculties, I'd imagine it's a trickier path to walk...
What if the reason someone isn't motivated to get better is precisely because of the acute drug dependency? In other words, what if getting someone through the initial withdrawal of, say, heroin stabilized them enough to feel motivated to improve their lives?
After all, we use this reasoning to prescribe medication for e.g. anxiety and depression. The reasoning is that drugs are sometimes very good at providing people with just enough stability to allow for long-term solutions like therapy.
If this is indeed the case, might there not be some situations in which forcibly taking someone to rehab would be helpful?
The "you cannot forcibly make someone go to rehab" seems like policy more than actual truth. It may even be a good policy, for all I know. But assuming I'm right, maybe we shouldn't confuse the two.
It's one thing to help a friend avoid an accidental death, but this speaks to a months long pattern of behavior that was clearly a deliberate personal decision.
What's the point of wealth if not obtaining the basic freedom to live (and die) how we choose?
Drug/Alcohol addiction is hardly a personal decision... This is a dangerous point of view to take.
This is one of those amazingly insightful things sort of hiding in plain sight. There is some plain wisdom right here.
Because I know exactly what you're talking about and I'm struggling with this so much, about being supportive of our friends on various decisions they make sometimes even when we don't think deep down it's the right thing in some situations, but we're afraid to say it for an increasing amount of reasons: criticism from woke culture, being afraid of being seen as bossy, party-pooper, disagreeable, puritan. But friends are friends, give them honesty, show them the doubt you feel, tell them your gut feeling. Yeah it'll take some work to make it palatable, but do it, give the hard take that you really should.
I know I rely on my family and friends to do so. Conversely, I know I'm able to do so with them and they love me just the same.
I mean, it's a trope at this point in American media where your loved one can slap your face hard to give you a reality check. I've never personally had that happen but to say the culture is a culture of enablers doesn't seem well supported.
It's a joke, but the humor exists because it illustrates the idea that the people really like their enablers. Not everybody would find the joke funny, though I have no idea if Americans in general find it funnier than people from other cultures.
Wikipedia on the early history of Saturday Night Live:
>Drugs were a major problem during the show's first five years. "The value system that was around there was, as long as people showed up on time, did their job, it was nobody's business what they did in their bedroom or in their lives. That value system turned out to be wrong", [Show creator Lorne] Michaels later said. [Original cast member Dan] Aykroyd said that "The cocaine was a problem. Not for me, it was never my favorite... but it was around a lot, and it was affecting the work, the performance, the quality of the scripts... wasting time, and that was bad".
The one exception among cast and crew:
>[Jane] Curtin remained on the show through the 1979–1980 season. Guest host Eric Idle said that Curtin was "very much a 'Let's come in, let's know our lines, let's do it properly, and go' ... She was very sensible, very focused", and disliked the drug culture in which many of the cast participated. Show writer Al Franken stated that she "was so steady. Had a really strong moral center, and as such was disgusted by much of the show and the people around it".
For Curtin to have made it through the first five years of SNL without succumbing to what almost destroyed the show and those who were a part of it—during the 1970s in NYC, the era of Studio 54, no less—is remarkable.
So generalizing this example and applying it to US culture is off base.
Another stab in the same general vicinity is: "A friend will help you move. A REAL friend will help you move a body."
People like to personify addiction, as if there is some outside force controlling the person, but this is to discount and discard every single addict who decided to clean themselves up. I know lots of addicts who chose to continue, and I know lots of addicts who chose to stop.
Don't personify the addiction: the brain of an addict is still that person's brain, and their decisions are still their own, even if they are de-legitimized in your own opinion due to their addiction. There is literally no one else who could possibly be responsible for the decisions of that human's brain and actions than that human being.
What goes in to our own bodies when we are not coerced by another person is our own decision, full stop.
I know one person who says of herself that some days she just can't go into the city. Because she knows on those days she'd get hooked again if she were to pass a place where she used to shoot. And she talks about "it", that urge, in the third person.
I fully "discount" her judgment in some areas and she would agree. Like I can't reason you into holding your breath for longer than a minute, I can't reason her into ignoring the urge. I would not treat as "legitimate" a decision she takes following that urge. Whether she stays clean or not depends a lot on her surroundings. Does that put responsibility on her friends? You bet.
I wonder, what do you make of Toxoplasmosis? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxoplasmosis#Rodents
If one can opt out (by eg not going into the city), one can also opt in.
?????
>I know lots of addicts who chose to continue, and I know lots of addicts who chose to stop.
I highly doubt you know any addicts full stop.
>Don't personify the addiction: the brain of an addict is still that person's brain, and their decisions are still their own
I just can't even, are you a scientologist or something? I have literally never encountered arguments like yours. Truly outlandish.
"Addiction exerts a long and powerful influence on the brain that manifests in three distinct ways: craving for the object of addiction, loss of control over its use, and continuing involvement with it despite adverse consequences. While overcoming addiction is possible, the process is often long, slow, and complicated."
"...we recognize addiction as a chronic disease that changes both brain structure and function."
https://www.health.harvard.edu/%E2%80%A6/how-addiction-hijac...
That may be true in your experience, but not mine: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25327689
Oh but you see, it's her friends that give her the freedom not to go to the city: If they weren't there, she wouldn't have that choice.