Comment by Jtsummers | Hacker News Reader

Comment by Jtsummers | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I think you've turned those "short game" situations into "long game" situations by how you've answered the questions.

In the first, working late isn't for short term gain (overtime, hitting a deadline) for its own sake, it's for a longer term (or more critical) objective: money for the partner or daycare or college. Especially the college one, setting up that money early by working overtime now means having to work and stress less when that bill arrives. It is the long game.

And you're right, as written it's not nuanced, but that's why there are questions to answer.

Why do I go out with friends every Monday/Wednesday instead of doing BJJ like I used to? Precisely the same as your answer: That's when they're available to hang out with (reliably). And yes, it's a hit to my fitness, but I haven't abandoned the gym I'm just doing it less (and not BJJ). My mental and emotional health is important, along with my physical health. So this socialization is (for me) part of my long term objectives, not just because I can.

I think you've turned those "short game" situations into "long game" situations by how you've answered the questions.

This is precisely the point I wish to make; without these nuances of understanding the tradeoffs, the article weakens its argument. While it is entirely possible for a person to prioritize short-term vs long-term in a way that isn't advantageous to themselves, the situations provided do not explicitly state the argument the author tries to make with them.

It seems like you maybe have slightly missed the point by overly focusing on the examples in the article though.

Not when the article says flat out:

> In its simplest form, the long game isn’t really debatable. Everyone agrees, for example, we should spend less than we make and invest the difference.

Which conveniently brushes aside the fact that there are good reasons not to play the long game.

Here's a very non-standard example: If I do not have nor can I afford health insurance, then I shouldn't invest the difference between expenses and wages:

As time goes on the probability that I have a bankruptcy due to medical bills approaches unity, so any money I save I will likely never get to see the results of.

Emphasis on "In its simplest form"

I read that as "in general" it is accepted that one shouldn't spend more than what one can afford. Generally on luxury. But if it's a necessary need. Then you will indeed need to make a deal with the sharks.

I'll copy paste the last paragraph:

> In everything you do, you’re either playing a short term or long term game. You can’t opt out and you can’t play a long-term game in everything, you need to pick what matters to you. But in everything you do time amplifies the difference between long and short-term games. The question you need to think about is when and where to play a long-term game.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com