Being clueless can be admirable, I think. These are the people you work with who put in the work even when it won't lead to a fatter paycheck for themselves. The essay makes them out to all be useless middle managers, but the actual top contributers to a team also fit most closely with this category.

The Clueless is the person who actually believes his work makes a difference and wants to do a good job. Not necessarily a terrible way to live, although it should be acknowledged that the Loser frees up time and energy to devote to other things, notably family.

(According to the theory) it is a terrible way to live, because everything the Clueless believes is false.

The Clueless believe their work makes a difference, but it doesn't. They believe it matters they do a good job, but it doesn't truly matter except for the advancement and power plays of the Sociopaths. They believe themselves "company men", and are loyal to a company that despises them and sees them as completely expendable.

The Losers understand this, and therefore devote their energy to other things outside work, where they find meaning in life.

(Again, I understand this is what the theory states and doesn't necessarily reflect reality. But I do think there's a kernel of truth to it.)

You are assuming that there's something bad about everything you believe being false. There's a fair amount of evidence that it's a good thing. EG religious people being happier and living longer

On the contrary, the frugal option is quite often the cooler, more fulfilling one:

- riding a bike instead of driving (makes you fitter, hotter, increases mating potential)

- cooking food (impressive to friends and potential mates, makes you and your family healthier)

- building furniture, tech stuff, whatever (your stuff is customized to your own tastes and situation)

- playing music in a band (get paid for a Saturday night out instead of paying for it)

- helping friends and asking friends for help in return (builds social ties)

"just build your furniture and suddenly you'll have millions in the bank"

Guy... come on, he was talking about smug money FIRE types not 'living a meaningful life'. in fact they are usually the types that have no friends because it's expensive.

They said "many things", not "everything".

How so?

Ok but we were talking about marginal differences in potty training methods, not neglecting kids and feeding them garbage.

Exclusive breastfeeding (not bottle feeding breastmilk) is less labor than formula. The problem is potential discomfort, and inability for both parents to split the labor more equally.

You raise a good distinction with exclusive breastfeeding and no bottle.

That assumes

-Always available to breastfeed

- mom doesn't work (or at least has tremendous flexibility)

-and doesn't need to pump

Those are overly idealistic to me and impose overhead costs.

“Potential discomfort” undersells it.

Spending the time to get the baby to really latch correctly is well worth it, if my wife's experience is anything to go by.

This is why politicians are usually expected to choose their words carefully. Most of them know that what they say matters and has effects on the real world.

I think that interventions in the region of interest, the middle east, are more relevant data points than Venezuela.

Do you believe that those goals will be achieved? Given the historical track record of these kinds of interventions, I do not.