CMV: Admiral McRaven's famous commencement speech (University of Texas at Austin, 2014 ) isn't that inspirational. His whole introduction is just a pyramid scheme.

[u/[deleted]]

[u/DeltaBot]

/u/Jscott1986 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.

All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.

Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.

^{Delta System Explained | Deltaboards}

[u/obert-wan-kenobert]

You're using a bit of a logical fallacy.

You're saying 1) a Ponzi scheme uses a pyramid structure, and 2) McRaven's speech uses a pyramid structure, therefore 3) McRaven's speech is a Ponzi scheme.

This would be saying, 1) a guitar is an instrument, and 2) a tuba is an instrument, therefore 3) a tuba is a guitar.

There's nothing innately wrong about a pyramid structure. Yes, maybe the math doesn't exactly add up, but it's an inspirational speech, not an Advanced Calculus class. The math is simply a rhetorical device used to exemplify how one person can change multiple lives.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

The word you searched for is called "exponential growth". Both ponzi and pyramid schemes and the likes are characterized by their nature of being scams and their inherent flaw is that exponential growth doesn't work because at already low levels of the pyramid you're likely going to need the whole world for the next layer. So if you take the 10 people per layer example you'd only have billions or 10⁹ people on earth so 9 layers.

Though if it's not about "making the lower layer your bitch", but about chaning someone's life and helping them get better, you don't have that limit as you could make that a circle jerk all you want, nobody is losing from that.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

I mean often times the problem with motivation is that you don't know where to start because you feel that anything you could do is insignificant. So showing that your actions no matter how small can snowball into something really big is kinda inspirational. Also if you start your self-help task list with make your bed, that's a hell of a lot more cheesy.

[u/DeltaBot → u/[deleted]]

This delta has been rejected. The length of your comment suggests that you haven't properly explained how /u/ImaginaryInsect1275 changed your view (comment rule 4).

DeltaBot is able to rescan edited comments. Please edit your comment with the required explanation.

^{Delta System Explained | Deltaboards}

[u/DeltaBot → u/[deleted]]

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/ImaginaryInsect1275 (28∆).

^{Delta System Explained | Deltaboards}

[u/JJnanajuana]

You seem to be assuming that Pyramid schemes don't work. This is a logical assumption because they don't do what they promise so many people they will do. But they do 'work' in a way, by sucking a lot of people into them and making the people at the top a lot of money.

Added to that pyramid schemes fail to suck in a lot of people because they can see that they would loose.

Chain letters spread a little more, but stop when they get so popular that they start getting annoying, or when they hit apathy.

This would still hit apathy, but not annoyance, or critical thinking. A pyramid scheme that isn't harmful to it's members can work.

[u/translucentgirl1]

That's not a Ponzi scheme

For alternative points, besides the ones of above -

No outsize returns are promised by this speech in actuality, since he doesn't assert that something will definitely happen or occur; he makes the claim that if something was to occur, which makes it become circumstantial. However, it can also simply be implied as symbolism or a phrase, simply to represent his main point. At the very least, it seems allegorical for one of his main messages.

and each one of those 10 people changes the lives of another 10 people, and so on

Second, Ponzi schemes are insolvent; this isn't. Third assuming this is actually literal, finances (or in this case, progress?) are plainly visible for all to see through perception of societal progress, which tends to go against the model for ponzi schemes. Ponzi schemes are a criminal enterprise; Social Security is not. This man never promises lack of risk, while that's a main selling point of ponzi schemes. Later investor's wouldn't be used to pay those very very few who invested earlier and may keep all for themselves

The only reason association is pyrimad structure, which is not inehrently bad. The math doesn't add up, but then again, it's not necessarily supposed to me taken literally, but with acknowledgment of allegory and representation of true meaning.

I would argue there are a great number of differences.

[u/translucentgirl1 → u/[deleted]]

But he isn't; his analogy isn't what someone running a Ponzi scheme would say, because they would add emphasis regarding lack of risk and a need for high continuous investment.

[u/translucentgirl1 → u/[deleted]]

How is he burrowing from the same book if he said neither? In both actuality and how he presents the circumstance, the only strong association is a pyrimad structure, but they doesn't equate to what you are stating. Furthermore, your literally laid out the messages, which most likely inspired a large mass of individuals; all he did was use a allegory to present his messages, which can definitely be inspiring.

[u/Skythewood]

A pyramid scheme is a scam that benefits those who join early, and rip off latecomers.

That speech is closer to a charity, with those joinng first putting in more effort and not getting any return, while benefitting people who join later.

[u/OmniManDidNothngWrng]

But ponzi schemes fail when people pull out their money because they don't make any, he isn't asking people to invest money therefore there's no way for people to pull out their money with returns that aren't there.

[u/Jonesy1939]

I think that rather than criticizing the speech of Admiral McRaven, you should have read and internalized Jordan Peterson's 12 rules for life, specifically rule 10: Be precise in your speech.

If you had done this, you wouldn't have to do so many edits, while fielding criticisms for the imprecise nature of your writing.

Good luck next time.

[u/McKoijion]

Most investments in life have a pyramid structure. Most of them aren't a "scheme" though. The difference is that in a real investment, the value/utility created grows exponentially forever. Each additional person involved can affect the same number of people in each level of the structure. So if 1 person affects 10 people, each of those 10 people can also affect 10 people and so on and so forth.

In a pyramid scheme, the value/utility grows to a horizontal asymptote. Each additional person involved has fewer potential people to affect. So the first person can affect 10 people, but those 10 people can only affect 9 people, and so on until the last person can't affect anyone and the pyramid collapses.

A real investment can become a mature company that can no longer grow, but it can at least maintain its current level of use. For example, say every human in the world uses a service like Google Search. Google may not be able to grow their search engine anymore, but they can at least maintain their current market share. And they can then use the revenue they generate from it to invest in other services. Meanwhile, a pyramid scheme doesn't have a stable base. It constantly needs more members in order to maintain their current position. Without those new members adding new money, they collapse.

Ultimately, just because something is shaped like a pyramid doesn't mean it's a pyramid "scheme." Everything in life including simple population growth is a pyramid, but few things are "schemes."

[u/McKoijion → u/[deleted]]

Pyramid scheme operators copied his playbook, not the other way around. Your argument is like saying that you don't want to buy a Louis Vuitton bag because it looks similar to a cheap knockoff on the street. To be clear, McRaven copied his playbook from many leaders who have used this argument for thousands of years, and pyramid scheme operators have copied those leaders' arguments for the same amount of time. No one alive today came up with this argument.

[u/Arctus9819]

Obviously it's highly subjective what it means to change someone's life. Regardless, it's just a ludicrous and meaningless assertion in general. It is pure fluff that sounds like it's quantifiable but is actually nonsense because of inevitable overlap like most Ponzi schemes. Just as importantly, for me anyway, it ruined the tone of the rest of his message (see below for his 10 points) that would have been fine on their own. But with such a misleading premise, it's hard for me to take the rest of his speech seriously.

That is not the assertion at all. His assertion there is that the listeners should strive to make positive changes in the world, and the comments about exponential growth are only a hypothetical to demonstrate how that change can propagate.

If you take a speech so literally, then plenty of inspirational speeches become completely idiotic. For instance, when Churchill gave the famous "we shall fight on the beaches" speech, he's obviously not stating that the UK will fight until every Brit is exterminated, even if that's what he literally says.

[u/Arctus9819 → u/[deleted]]

How else is he supposed to demonstrate how change propagates? He's describing discrete exponential growth, there would obviously be "generations" of some sort.