I think in the Johnny-Ralphie case (I just watched it recently), it had something to do with the mismatch in currencies being exchanged. Johnny was in the position of trading a share of his honor and authority, which are vital and difficult to reacquire, for cash. It made him look like money was all you needed to make him look like a fool, even if you were subordinate to him.
Maybe this is just a different framing of the wrong reasons problem but it feels like a significant distinction.
I’d never heard of the wrong reasons problem before your post. There’s some really interesting implications there.
The illustration of paying someone to admire you is confusing to me. You can certainly pay someone to act like they admire you, but paying them will not actually make them admire you. Is this the point to the wrong reasons idea, or is it that even if the money did make them admire you there would be something off about it? Is it about the phoniness of the admiration, or about the source of the admiration?
One must consider that a little over a year or two later, Johnny Sack - in his capacity as Boss of the DeMaio Crime Family - overlooked the code of omertà by allowing Tony Soprano to pay "a tax" to Phil Leotardo (through Johnny) instead of being held accountable for his cousin Tony Blundetto's killing of Phil's brother Billy (who also happened to be a made soldier in the DeMaio Family). So in that case, Johnny Sack was willing to accept money and getting over the insult for the wrong reasons.
But, Jimmy, here's where the hypocrisy comes in - Phil Leotardo, and, his brother Billy Leotardo, were very **much** family to Sack. In fact, according to the code of omertà (a code that John swore his life on, on his father's patron saint at the ceremony in which he was "made"), one becoming "made" at such ceremony must swear to place his [mob] family above one's own other family at home [personal/biological family].
As the Roman historian Tacitus once observed, "Hypocrisy once revealed has little refuge but in audacity."
Yeah saying someone is family ain't the same thing as something actually being family, omerta or not. It's the difference between what economists call a started preference versus a revealed preference.
I think in the Johnny-Ralphie case (I just watched it recently), it had something to do with the mismatch in currencies being exchanged. Johnny was in the position of trading a share of his honor and authority, which are vital and difficult to reacquire, for cash. It made him look like money was all you needed to make him look like a fool, even if you were subordinate to him.
Maybe this is just a different framing of the wrong reasons problem but it feels like a significant distinction.
I’d never heard of the wrong reasons problem before your post. There’s some really interesting implications there.
The illustration of paying someone to admire you is confusing to me. You can certainly pay someone to act like they admire you, but paying them will not actually make them admire you. Is this the point to the wrong reasons idea, or is it that even if the money did make them admire you there would be something off about it? Is it about the phoniness of the admiration, or about the source of the admiration?
One must consider that a little over a year or two later, Johnny Sack - in his capacity as Boss of the DeMaio Crime Family - overlooked the code of omertà by allowing Tony Soprano to pay "a tax" to Phil Leotardo (through Johnny) instead of being held accountable for his cousin Tony Blundetto's killing of Phil's brother Billy (who also happened to be a made soldier in the DeMaio Family). So in that case, Johnny Sack was willing to accept money and getting over the insult for the wrong reasons.
Yeah that's a good example too. Perhaps he didn't care because it wasn't his family
But, Jimmy, here's where the hypocrisy comes in - Phil Leotardo, and, his brother Billy Leotardo, were very **much** family to Sack. In fact, according to the code of omertà (a code that John swore his life on, on his father's patron saint at the ceremony in which he was "made"), one becoming "made" at such ceremony must swear to place his [mob] family above one's own other family at home [personal/biological family].
As the Roman historian Tacitus once observed, "Hypocrisy once revealed has little refuge but in audacity."
Yeah saying someone is family ain't the same thing as something actually being family, omerta or not. It's the difference between what economists call a started preference versus a revealed preference.