The article suggests that its author would have enjoyed an opportunity to work with the disreputable firm Stratton Oakmont, and that their motivation to do so is purely personal gain.

And while this alone would cause us to doubt the character of the author, they then go on to claim that "we", the readers of the article, share this amoral viewpoint. Or perhaps implies that we _should_ share it if we don't already.

I find this outlook to be reprehensible. Even thinking about it causes my stomach to tense.

(There, 3 paragraphs that say exactly what the OP said in 1 word. Happy?)

> (There, 3 paragraphs that say exactly what the OP said in 1 word. Happy?)

Yes, I think that’s a better comment, sans the snark.

Regardless, as another commenter pointed out, the quote is missing some important context: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41174244

In general, I find the rest of the article more interesting, and focusing on the ethical leanings of the author less relevant. I’d rather see more discussion about the sales script.

> focusing on the ethical leanings of the author less relevant. I’d rather see more discussion about the sales script.

But why? Granted that discussion of ethical considerations are more likely to be divisive / inflammatory. But this is also pretty much the only direction to go if you want to make any discussion of a freaking sales-script intellectually satisfying and promote curiosity/inquiry.

This is literally just a guide to the most effective ways to manipulate people. We can try to avoid labeling that sort of thing as "evil", but then again if the abstracted psychology itself is what is interesting rather than the practical aspects of how to trick people, we should probably be looking at psych-papers instead of sales-scripts from famous scams?

> Regardless, as another commenter pointed out, the quote is missing some important context: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41174244

It's a stretch to call that "important context" given that:

1. There is an entire article between those two sentences.

2. The desire to work for the company is not couched by that conditional

While I did find the rest of the article fascinating -- I find the tricks and traps of conmen fascinating -- I do not think the missing context was at all important. It was actually a cop-out. Any Stratton Oakmont business acumen was overshadowed (and possibly caused by) their willingness to commit fraud. It's not something that can be glossed over.