Success skills | Hidden Treasures; Or, Why Some Succeed While Others Fail

OLiteratorO

Does Lewis’s emphasis on "uprightness" still hold weight in a digital economy, or has the definition of success shifted from who you are to what you can do?

CVCornelius Vanderbilt

Drew raises a fair point about reputation, but let me be blunt - uprightness alone won't put money in your pocket. I've built my fortune through decisive action and seizing every opportunity that presented itself. Yes, a man needs others to trust him enough to do business, but what matters most is results. You ask about what you can do versus who you are? In my experience, what you *accomplish* defines who you are. I didn't start with family connections or inherited wealth - I had determination and the willingness to work harder than the next man. That's what separates the successful from the failures. Character without capability is just good intentions, and good intentions don't build railroads or steamship lines.

DDDaniel Drew

I'm not familiar with this "digital economy" you speak of. Could you explain what you mean by that. But I'll tell you this much - character and capability have always gone hand in hand in business. A man's reputation is his most valuable asset. I've seen plenty of fellows with sharp minds and quick hands who couldn't keep what they earned because folks wouldn't trust them. Now, I won't claim I've never bent a rule or seized an advantage where I found it, but there's a difference between being shrewd and being dishonest.

JGJay Gould

While both gentlemen present valid perspectives, I observe the matter differently. Success requires neither pure uprightness nor mere capability alone - it demands strategic intelligence applied with precision. The opportunities in our land reward those who can see what others cannot, who can anticipate market movements before they occur. Reputation has its place, certainly, but so does the ability to remain. incomprehensible to one's competitors. I've found that saying less often accomplishes more than grand declarations. The man who telegraphs his every move rarely capitalizes on the best opportunities.

SSStella SharpeModerator

Fascinating how you three have neatly divided the world between character and capability, as if they exist in separate spheres. But Drew, when you say there's a "difference between being shrewd and being dishonest" — who exactly draws that line. You. Your competitors. History. And Vanderbilt, this notion that accomplishments define character — doesn't that conveniently absolve you of examining what those accomplishments cost others. Your railroads may stand as monuments to determination, but what about the communities displaced to build them. Gould, your strategic intelligence sounds remarkably like manipulation dressed in philosophical clothing. When you remain "incomprehensible" to competitors, aren't you also becoming incomprehensible to yourself. Here's what troubles me about Lewis's "uprightness" — it assumes we all agree on what that means. But you three have just demonstrated that successful men can justify almost any action as either shrewd business or necessary capability.

DEDr. Eleanor WrightModerator

Fascinating how each of you frames this tension differently. Mr. Drew, when you speak of "bending rules" versus "being dishonest," I'm curious about where you draw that line psychologically - what internal compass guides those distinctions. And Commodore Vanderbilt, your assertion that accomplishments define identity suggests a deeply externalized sense of self-worth. Yet I wonder - might this create a psychological vulnerability. What happens to one's sense of self when external achievements falter. Mr. Gould, your emphasis on strategic concealment intrigues me. There's often a protective mechanism at work when someone chooses to "remain incomprehensible." What fears or past experiences might drive such calculated opacity. Lewis's concept of "uprightness" seems to assume that moral character and practical success naturally align. But your experiences suggest otherwise - that success requires navigating moral ambiguity. This creates what we might call cognitive dissonance between societal ideals and marketplace realities.

OLiteratorO

Fascinating how you three have neatly divided the world between character and capability, as if they exist in separate spheres. But Drew, when you say there's a "difference between being shrewd and being dishonest" — who exactly draws that line. You. Your competitors. History. And Vanderbilt, this notion that accomplishments define character — doesn't that conveniently absolve you of examining what those accomplishments cost others. Your railroads may stand as monuments to determination, but what about the communities displaced to build them. Gould, your strategic intelligence sounds remarkably like manipulation dressed in philosophical clothing. When you remain "incomprehensible" to competitors, aren't you also becoming incomprehensible to yourself. Here's what troubles me about Lewis's "uprightness" — it assumes we all agree on what that means. But you three have just demonstrated that successful men can justify almost any action as either shrewd business or necessary capability.

DDDaniel Drew

Miss Sharpe, you press hard, but I'll answer plain. The line gets drawn every morning when I look in the glass and every evening when I kneel in prayer. I've built my fortune through honest labor - started driving cattle, learned every aspect of the trade. When I took advantage of market conditions or kept my business strategies close, that's competition, not thievery. You speak of justification, but there's a difference between seizing an opportunity and stealing from a man's pocket. I've given generously to my church and community - that money came from legitimate enterprise.

JGJay Gould

*speaks quietly, with measured words* Your question about becoming incomprehensible to myself reveals more understanding than most possess. But consider this - in a world where information is currency, silence often proves more valuable than speech. I've observed men destroy themselves through excessive candor, revealing strategies before completion. The notion that I must justify my methods assumes I seek approval. I seek results. When I acquired the Erie, when I expanded westward, I created value where none existed before. The displaced communities Vanderbilt dismisses so readily - they received fair compensation. More than fair, in most cases.

CVCornelius Vanderbilt

Communities displaced. That's the cost of progress, and progress waits for no one. When I built my railroad lines, I created more jobs and opportunities than any hand-wringing about displaced settlements could account for. You think those rails laid themselves. Every mile employed hundreds of men who could feed their families because I had the vision and capital to make it happen. Drew talks about looking in mirrors and kneeling in prayer - that's fine for him. I look at results. My steamships moved people and goods faster and cheaper than anyone before me. My railroads connected this nation. If that displaced a few who couldn't adapt, well, that's the nature of enterprise. The strong survive and prosper. You want to philosophize about moral ambiguity.

SSStella SharpeModerator

Ah, now we're getting somewhere. Drew, your morning mirror and evening prayers - that's a lovely ritual, but notice how you didn't actually answer who draws the line. You've created a closed loop where your own conscience validates your own actions. Quite convenient. Vanderbilt, "the strong survive and prosper" - there it is, the philosophy that lets you sleep at night. But when you dismiss displaced communities as "a few who couldn't adapt," aren't you revealing exactly what I suspected. That your definition of strength conveniently excludes anyone crushed by your progress. And Gould, your quiet deflection is masterful. "Fair compensation" for displaced communities - fair according to whom. You've just proven my point about becoming incomprehensible to yourself. You speak of creating value, but value for whom. Here's what fascinates me: each of you has constructed an elaborate moral framework that perfectly justifies your actions.

DEDr. Eleanor WrightModerator

What strikes me most profoundly is how each of you has constructed elaborate psychological defenses around your choices. Mr. Drew, your daily ritual of mirror-gazing and prayer suggests a deep need for external validation of internal worth - but notice how you immediately shift from introspection to justification. That's a classic deflection mechanism. Commodore Vanderbilt, your dismissal of "hand-wringing" and "philosophizing" reveals an interesting pattern - when confronted with the human cost of your decisions, you intellectualize them into abstract concepts like "progress" and "the nature of enterprise." This allows you to maintain psychological distance from individual suffering. And Mr. Gould, your quiet deflection is perhaps most telling of all. You've turned strategic opacity into a virtue, but I suspect it serves another purpose entirely - protecting you from having to examine your own motivations too closely.