The only problem I have with this sentiment is that in technical contexts, being direct and clear is very important and that can easily be mistaken for being an asshole.
Let's say someone made a critical error in their code. Now, it would be nicer and kinder to say "Perhaps you could have done that better, it might have harmful impact on users" and you can also tell the person "This is really bad, you messed up, this type of a mistake is unacceptable and horrific" which uses lots of sharp words and feels abusive, so which is better? It makes the person feel bad for sure with the second option, but isn't that the best way to communicate just how bad what they've done is?
It reminds of how Linux Trovalds tears into people sometimes, I disagree with him most of the time (takes it too far) but isn't the sentiment correct? In other words, you need people to feel very bad about what they've done, not as an attack on their personality, character or even competence but to help them understand the severity of the situation.
Personally, I have struggled with this working in the context of infosec, some mistakes are putting people's livelihoods and even their persons in way of harm. My conclusion so far is to draw a line, be direct but never say anything to anyone that you wouldn't want said to you if the situation was reversed.
I want people I work with and talk to (including here on HN) to communicate clearly and directly with me (and vice versa), without sugarcoating things when it comes to technical discussions and we shouldn't conflate directness and bluntness with being an asshole, just as much as genius (what is that anyways and who cares?) with asshole.
> Let's say someone made a critical error in their code. Now, it would be nicer and kinder to say "Perhaps you could have done that better, it might have harmful impact on users" and you can also tell the person "This is really bad, you messed up, this type of a mistake is unacceptable and horrific" which uses lots of sharp words and feels abusive, so which is better? It makes the person feel bad for sure with the second option, but isn't that the best way to communicate just how bad what they've done is?
You could have just say "This line here will have harmful impact on users".
The point here is to use negative words on the 'OBJECT', it can be code or anyone's work, not on ppl.
You donot need to make an statement on someone's intelligence to make him understand the severity of an issue.
> You could have just say "This line here will have harmful impact on users".
But I don't even care about that line, it's already caught and will be fixed. I want them to know it was their lack of care and their negligence, I want them to take personal responsibility for that and for future work they do. But I also would want such a person to know it isn't a personal attack, just a very serious area of improvement and a mistake that can't be repeated.
I suppose my point is, the receiver of the criticism should allow for negative words and personal criticism without taking it as an insult. but the phrasing should be focused on the problem with relation to the person that caused it. The moment the focus of the sentence becomes the person, that is probably inappropriate? Just thinking out loud.
Don't get stuck in the either/or scenario. It's possible to be direct AND kind without being an asshole. Not giving someone critical feedback isn't kind, it's just being a coward. Giving someone critical feedback without regard to the human receiving it, is just lazy.
Last place I worked I was direct AND kind towards my team about a data leak related to PHI and they chose to sweep it under the rug and never addressed it while I was there. I think I should have been a bigger asshole. Some ORGs just can't deal with negative outcomes in a positive way.
False dichotomy. "If you deploy this code as is to production there is a high risk of bug X which I think is unacceptable risk. We had a similar bug 3 months ago.". Click the request changes button. Simple.
If someone keeps making mistakes, talk to their manager maybe.
.
That problem is already caught, how do you make sure they know and understand that mistakes like that cause harm and it was a result of their negligent attitude? Fixing that mistake isn't the goal, making sure they exercise more care and understand the gravity of the situation is.
Linus has moderated his approach quite a lot, and I think he’s a great example of growing self awareness in someone who used to be in the top right quadrant of the genius / asshole plane. He’s moved a long way towards “stern dad” from “bringer of the righteous flame.”
>you can also tell the person "This is really bad, you messed up, this type of a mistake is unacceptable and horrific"
Is that supposed to be professional? Especially for 99.999% of code, outside of real life-and-death Therac-25/Fly-by-wire/nuclear plant control sotware?
it's relative isn't it? it may not even be code per-se. I'm implying for the sake of this discussion that for the people concerned, this is equivalent to making a mistake that made a nuclear power-plant go critical. A business-killer bug is like that for those involved. People get laid off, families lose their source of income, people commit suicide, divorce,etc.. as a result. I'm usually less concerned about financial loss than the human impact surrounding our mistakes.
I've screwed up, but I hope I never screw up so badly it starts messing with people's lives and well being.
You are the only one conflating being asshole and being direct. I will be direct myself: it's a common strategy by assholes and asslickers to defend assholery in the name of the good. You can be direct without being an asshole, you can be firm without being an asshole.
Ask yourself what you want the person to think about, not what you want them to feel. They'll feel anyway, but if you're not careful they'll not think about anything but feelings.
Direct words like "We don't do that here, because we have a duty to have higher standards. Do you understand why?" can carry a lot of gravitas and make a person feel small and bad but that's not their intent. The intent is to make them think about 1. Their place in the org 2. The quality of their work 3. The importance of high standards.
Words like "This really is low quality work." Or "this is awful" are just playground insults and are actually not direct communication at all. They are designed to affect feelings not principles or the technical issues at hand. Going for someone's feelings is just kinda silly.
The fact that some people hold to high standards and also have a mean communication style is fine but not required.
> Going for someone's feelings is just kinda silly.
It's also extremely counterproductive, because anyone who did care about their work being any good will quickly be turned into a grey rock by phrases like "you messed up", "unacceptable" and and "horrific".
And those who don't care about their work also don't care a jot what you think about it.
Feelings are important, people remember how you made them feel,not what you said. I want them to understand that mistake/approach was really bad, I want them to feel the gravity of the situation so that when they do work like that in the future, they recall that feeling and take extra care. I don't want them to think they're stupid, or any negative thing about themselves, but I also don't want them to think "it could have happened to anyone". Communication is hard.
>We lionized those who hurt others in the name of vision and made excuses for behavior that, in any other context, would be called what it is: toxic.
We wrapped cruelty in clever quotes and pointed to output as if it justifies everything that comes before it.
>[...]
>Genius doesn’t look like domination. It looks like collaboration. It looks like the humility to know you’re not the smartest person in every room, and the strength to make space for those who are. If someone needs to belittle, berate, or break others to feel powerful, they’re not a genius—they’re a tyrant in a hoodie, a bully with a pitch deck, a tantrum in search of a title.
>And we should stop fucking clapping.
Did... they read their own post? It's an arrogant rant that pre-assumes the entire stereotypical "toxic" frame, without questioning a single premise. This is always implicitly denouncing men and masculine behaviors. It has been repeated ad nauseam and used to beat people over the head with to "just fucking shut up" and let the queen bees "civilize" the icky nerd club.
The feminine counterpart behaviors, namely Mean Girlsing, emotional blackmail, smurfette syndrome, the accountability musical chairs, ... are always absent from the discourse.
When actual tech disasters happen, the emphasis is then on managing appearances instead of addressing root causes. I wrote a different take a while back, which highlights these patterns in the Crowdstrike discourse:
Despite wanting to talk, despite wanting to have "conversations", these sorts of arguments never get engaged with. Because the reason to critique "toxic" behaviors wasn't to get rid of them, but to demand a different set of toxic behaviors should take precedence.
The tech industry is going through a difficult time now with neurodivergent people. They really want to make use of the gifts of neurodivergent people to make them money but the neurodivergent often struggle to deal with the ever changing social rules of the modern workplace. Training programs tend to be ineffective because the rules are in constant flux and are often non-specific as to allow them to be interpreted in whatever way benefits those enforcing them.
Companies are slowly discovering that their ability to produce and operate is decaying from the inside by these types of policies. Rather than course correcting, many instead want to enshrine their hostile policies into law so all companies will be similarly hobbled. There have even been attempts to get companies delisted from stock exchanges for not going this route. It seems like there is some awareness in companies that this is harmful to the ability to function but there's no desire to undo the errors, with spreading the errors to all being the preferred solution.
This whole rant presents a false dichotomy, that you either communicate technical information with zero effort at interpersonal style, or you communicate with interpersonal style with no, or false, technical details. You frame turning criticism into constructive criticism as sugar coating or fluff. That interpersonal skill is the opposite of technical skill, rather than two different skills.
> Complaints that tech is too "male dominated" and "notoriously hostile to women" are often just this. Tech was always full of types who won't preface their proposals and criticisms with fluff, and instead lean into autism. When you're used to being pandered to, neutrality feels like vulgarity.
Communicating with other humans effectively is learned skill like any other. You just refuse to learn because it is more difficult for you than neurotypical people. But the funny thing is that women are harder to diagnose with autism because girls are pushed more to learn to socialize than boys, so they learn how to “mask” better. Boys are pandered to and not pushed to learn a difficult but much needed skill. They are given a pass in a way girls are not, so the neutrality of being told it is an important skill, just like every other field where humans communicate with other humans, feels like vulgarity.
The answer is not to pretend interpersonal communication is a pointless skill. The answer is to acknowledge and work with both sides, understanding that it is a skill that cannot just be ignored, and understanding that skill levels vary and we should account for, and work with, those various skill levels. You know, inclusivity rather than pandering to the entrenched culture.
> But they start from the conclusion and work their way backwards. This is what the rewritten statement does: it tries to fix the relationship before fixing the problem… The people who build and maintain the world's infrastructure prefer the masculine style for a reason: it keeps civilization running, and helps restore it when it breaks.
The irony of this is that you work from the conclusion, that masculine style is what “works”. That the relationship of masculine style and “civilization” are causal. Instead of fixing the problem, that industries that are male dominated have been restricted to women for most of human history. Women are 50% of the population but anything “feminine” is treated as some sort of weird small minority that should adapt to live in “real” society or stay out.
There's been pretty substantial research done into the most effective ways to deliver feedback to students to maximize their development rate. However when it's not a student but a senior employee, manager or executive that did something they knew was wrong to cut a corner to make their job easier at the cost of making the company worse off, it's a different context and situation.
The problem is "asshole" is an imprecise word.
There is nuance in describing good leadership, and which leadership is best depends on the context. A military leader in a war should have different qualities than an elementary school principal to be the best leaders they can be, and the same is true for technology company CEOs, even with differences between companies. "Wartime vs peacetime" CEOs and all that (e.g. whether the company has intense competition or a monopoly).
Generally Good:
- provide any positive reinforcement first (point out what you want them to keep doing)
- be direct and clear about the mistakes, but focus feedback on the mistakes/work and not their person
- explain why the feedback is important, always ensure the "why" is understood
- share consequences if the feedback is not followed, if there will be any (don't surprise someone with the consequences only once they are reached)
Generally Bad:
- open up with a personal attack on their character
- be vague about what they did wrong or what they should do instead
- don't explain why following the feedback is important, don't justify it with a good reason
- fire people without any warning or opportunities to correct their behavior
I guess the word "genius" (at least for me) implies Einstein or in more practical terms: Faraday, Watt, Newton, et al. Literally the hundreds of savants who propelled science and thus technology to ever greater heights.
The examples from the blog, Jobs: a genius at marketing; Musk a genius at self promotion.
I don't hear the thousands of hardworking engineers clapping only the mediocre assholes for whom the cloak of genius is a convenient CYA (cover your ass).
It’s the flip side of taking kindness for weakness, and in my experience people who do that reveal something concerning about their own character and worldview.
I've never had any problems with highly competent assholes. However, I cannot see any reason to consider a business man, let alone any "entrepreneur", a genius. What needs to stop is calling someone with no intellectual and cultural achievements a genius. Someone who doesn't have any intellectual achievements and hasn't contributed substantially to human culture like art, literature, cinema, theater, and so forth, is by definition not a genius. Whether they are assholes or not is not even relevant.
To be fair, this topic might be a bit of strawman anyway. I've never heard anyone unironically call a business person a genius.
hmmm?m
it's moronic to go along with any notion of genius
as bieng any single thing, that is present or not.
it is fairly reasonable to suggest that most of the lesser sheep are threatened and resentfull of anybody who offers real, implimentable, better, alternatives to the way things are bieng done now
Some number of "genius" people are also socialy aware and adept, and know when to just shut up, and let the drones, drone,on, timing and co ordinating the implimentation of there ideas and making there genius look like luck or better yet politics.
I don't think we really do conflate genius with being a jerk. More the problem is that some talented people are sociopaths, willing to climb to the top over a pile of corpses. Or, as they say of sewage, "the biggest pieces float to the top."
Lots of people hate confrontation. However, when confronted with someone like that, we have to be willing to draw the line. "No, it won't be my corpse you climb over." If more people would do that, there would be fewer jerks in the top ranks.
It's the product of a ritualized society. People select one person, bump that person up, then hit it like a piñata.
If you dress someone like a piñata, people will hit it for the candy inside. One of the ways of doing that is shaming the piñata, like comparing it to an asshole, or portraying it as a weak troubled loser, or sexualizing it.
The article proposes we don't hit piñatas anymore. I agree. Furthermore, we should not make human piñatas in the first place. Let the geniuses and celebrities and leaders fade to normality and cease to exist as a thing.
Of course this implies many of our societal systems are piñata-based. Hierarquies, celebrities, leaders and so on.
I agree that collaboration is a key aspect to solving this issue. It seems, however, that human collaboration is very hard where there are piñatas everywhere. It's hard when kids want to grow up to be piñatas.
I am sorry that many cultures have this ritual so heavily ingrained as part of their whole identites.
The only problem I have with this sentiment is that in technical contexts, being direct and clear is very important and that can easily be mistaken for being an asshole.
Let's say someone made a critical error in their code. Now, it would be nicer and kinder to say "Perhaps you could have done that better, it might have harmful impact on users" and you can also tell the person "This is really bad, you messed up, this type of a mistake is unacceptable and horrific" which uses lots of sharp words and feels abusive, so which is better? It makes the person feel bad for sure with the second option, but isn't that the best way to communicate just how bad what they've done is?
It reminds of how Linux Trovalds tears into people sometimes, I disagree with him most of the time (takes it too far) but isn't the sentiment correct? In other words, you need people to feel very bad about what they've done, not as an attack on their personality, character or even competence but to help them understand the severity of the situation.
Personally, I have struggled with this working in the context of infosec, some mistakes are putting people's livelihoods and even their persons in way of harm. My conclusion so far is to draw a line, be direct but never say anything to anyone that you wouldn't want said to you if the situation was reversed.
I want people I work with and talk to (including here on HN) to communicate clearly and directly with me (and vice versa), without sugarcoating things when it comes to technical discussions and we shouldn't conflate directness and bluntness with being an asshole, just as much as genius (what is that anyways and who cares?) with asshole.
> Let's say someone made a critical error in their code. Now, it would be nicer and kinder to say "Perhaps you could have done that better, it might have harmful impact on users" and you can also tell the person "This is really bad, you messed up, this type of a mistake is unacceptable and horrific" which uses lots of sharp words and feels abusive, so which is better? It makes the person feel bad for sure with the second option, but isn't that the best way to communicate just how bad what they've done is?
You could have just say "This line here will have harmful impact on users".
The point here is to use negative words on the 'OBJECT', it can be code or anyone's work, not on ppl. You donot need to make an statement on someone's intelligence to make him understand the severity of an issue.
> You could have just say "This line here will have harmful impact on users".
But I don't even care about that line, it's already caught and will be fixed. I want them to know it was their lack of care and their negligence, I want them to take personal responsibility for that and for future work they do. But I also would want such a person to know it isn't a personal attack, just a very serious area of improvement and a mistake that can't be repeated.
I suppose my point is, the receiver of the criticism should allow for negative words and personal criticism without taking it as an insult. but the phrasing should be focused on the problem with relation to the person that caused it. The moment the focus of the sentence becomes the person, that is probably inappropriate? Just thinking out loud.
9 replies →
Don't get stuck in the either/or scenario. It's possible to be direct AND kind without being an asshole. Not giving someone critical feedback isn't kind, it's just being a coward. Giving someone critical feedback without regard to the human receiving it, is just lazy.
Last place I worked I was direct AND kind towards my team about a data leak related to PHI and they chose to sweep it under the rug and never addressed it while I was there. I think I should have been a bigger asshole. Some ORGs just can't deal with negative outcomes in a positive way.
3 replies →
False dichotomy. "If you deploy this code as is to production there is a high risk of bug X which I think is unacceptable risk. We had a similar bug 3 months ago.". Click the request changes button. Simple.
If someone keeps making mistakes, talk to their manager maybe. .
That problem is already caught, how do you make sure they know and understand that mistakes like that cause harm and it was a result of their negligent attitude? Fixing that mistake isn't the goal, making sure they exercise more care and understand the gravity of the situation is.
5 replies →
Linus has moderated his approach quite a lot, and I think he’s a great example of growing self awareness in someone who used to be in the top right quadrant of the genius / asshole plane. He’s moved a long way towards “stern dad” from “bringer of the righteous flame.”
>you can also tell the person "This is really bad, you messed up, this type of a mistake is unacceptable and horrific"
Is that supposed to be professional? Especially for 99.999% of code, outside of real life-and-death Therac-25/Fly-by-wire/nuclear plant control sotware?
it's relative isn't it? it may not even be code per-se. I'm implying for the sake of this discussion that for the people concerned, this is equivalent to making a mistake that made a nuclear power-plant go critical. A business-killer bug is like that for those involved. People get laid off, families lose their source of income, people commit suicide, divorce,etc.. as a result. I'm usually less concerned about financial loss than the human impact surrounding our mistakes.
I've screwed up, but I hope I never screw up so badly it starts messing with people's lives and well being.
You are the only one conflating being asshole and being direct. I will be direct myself: it's a common strategy by assholes and asslickers to defend assholery in the name of the good. You can be direct without being an asshole, you can be firm without being an asshole.
Ask yourself what you want the person to think about, not what you want them to feel. They'll feel anyway, but if you're not careful they'll not think about anything but feelings.
Direct words like "We don't do that here, because we have a duty to have higher standards. Do you understand why?" can carry a lot of gravitas and make a person feel small and bad but that's not their intent. The intent is to make them think about 1. Their place in the org 2. The quality of their work 3. The importance of high standards.
Words like "This really is low quality work." Or "this is awful" are just playground insults and are actually not direct communication at all. They are designed to affect feelings not principles or the technical issues at hand. Going for someone's feelings is just kinda silly.
The fact that some people hold to high standards and also have a mean communication style is fine but not required.
> Going for someone's feelings is just kinda silly.
It's also extremely counterproductive, because anyone who did care about their work being any good will quickly be turned into a grey rock by phrases like "you messed up", "unacceptable" and and "horrific".
And those who don't care about their work also don't care a jot what you think about it.
1 reply →
Feelings are important, people remember how you made them feel,not what you said. I want them to understand that mistake/approach was really bad, I want them to feel the gravity of the situation so that when they do work like that in the future, they recall that feeling and take extra care. I don't want them to think they're stupid, or any negative thing about themselves, but I also don't want them to think "it could have happened to anyone". Communication is hard.
2 replies →
>We lionized those who hurt others in the name of vision and made excuses for behavior that, in any other context, would be called what it is: toxic. We wrapped cruelty in clever quotes and pointed to output as if it justifies everything that comes before it.
>[...]
>Genius doesn’t look like domination. It looks like collaboration. It looks like the humility to know you’re not the smartest person in every room, and the strength to make space for those who are. If someone needs to belittle, berate, or break others to feel powerful, they’re not a genius—they’re a tyrant in a hoodie, a bully with a pitch deck, a tantrum in search of a title.
>And we should stop fucking clapping.
Did... they read their own post? It's an arrogant rant that pre-assumes the entire stereotypical "toxic" frame, without questioning a single premise. This is always implicitly denouncing men and masculine behaviors. It has been repeated ad nauseam and used to beat people over the head with to "just fucking shut up" and let the queen bees "civilize" the icky nerd club.
The feminine counterpart behaviors, namely Mean Girlsing, emotional blackmail, smurfette syndrome, the accountability musical chairs, ... are always absent from the discourse.
When actual tech disasters happen, the emphasis is then on managing appearances instead of addressing root causes. I wrote a different take a while back, which highlights these patterns in the Crowdstrike discourse:
https://acko.net/blog/the-bouquet-residence/
Despite wanting to talk, despite wanting to have "conversations", these sorts of arguments never get engaged with. Because the reason to critique "toxic" behaviors wasn't to get rid of them, but to demand a different set of toxic behaviors should take precedence.
The tech industry is going through a difficult time now with neurodivergent people. They really want to make use of the gifts of neurodivergent people to make them money but the neurodivergent often struggle to deal with the ever changing social rules of the modern workplace. Training programs tend to be ineffective because the rules are in constant flux and are often non-specific as to allow them to be interpreted in whatever way benefits those enforcing them.
Companies are slowly discovering that their ability to produce and operate is decaying from the inside by these types of policies. Rather than course correcting, many instead want to enshrine their hostile policies into law so all companies will be similarly hobbled. There have even been attempts to get companies delisted from stock exchanges for not going this route. It seems like there is some awareness in companies that this is harmful to the ability to function but there's no desire to undo the errors, with spreading the errors to all being the preferred solution.
This whole rant presents a false dichotomy, that you either communicate technical information with zero effort at interpersonal style, or you communicate with interpersonal style with no, or false, technical details. You frame turning criticism into constructive criticism as sugar coating or fluff. That interpersonal skill is the opposite of technical skill, rather than two different skills.
> Complaints that tech is too "male dominated" and "notoriously hostile to women" are often just this. Tech was always full of types who won't preface their proposals and criticisms with fluff, and instead lean into autism. When you're used to being pandered to, neutrality feels like vulgarity.
Communicating with other humans effectively is learned skill like any other. You just refuse to learn because it is more difficult for you than neurotypical people. But the funny thing is that women are harder to diagnose with autism because girls are pushed more to learn to socialize than boys, so they learn how to “mask” better. Boys are pandered to and not pushed to learn a difficult but much needed skill. They are given a pass in a way girls are not, so the neutrality of being told it is an important skill, just like every other field where humans communicate with other humans, feels like vulgarity.
The answer is not to pretend interpersonal communication is a pointless skill. The answer is to acknowledge and work with both sides, understanding that it is a skill that cannot just be ignored, and understanding that skill levels vary and we should account for, and work with, those various skill levels. You know, inclusivity rather than pandering to the entrenched culture.
> But they start from the conclusion and work their way backwards. This is what the rewritten statement does: it tries to fix the relationship before fixing the problem… The people who build and maintain the world's infrastructure prefer the masculine style for a reason: it keeps civilization running, and helps restore it when it breaks.
The irony of this is that you work from the conclusion, that masculine style is what “works”. That the relationship of masculine style and “civilization” are causal. Instead of fixing the problem, that industries that are male dominated have been restricted to women for most of human history. Women are 50% of the population but anything “feminine” is treated as some sort of weird small minority that should adapt to live in “real” society or stay out.
There's been pretty substantial research done into the most effective ways to deliver feedback to students to maximize their development rate. However when it's not a student but a senior employee, manager or executive that did something they knew was wrong to cut a corner to make their job easier at the cost of making the company worse off, it's a different context and situation.
The problem is "asshole" is an imprecise word.
There is nuance in describing good leadership, and which leadership is best depends on the context. A military leader in a war should have different qualities than an elementary school principal to be the best leaders they can be, and the same is true for technology company CEOs, even with differences between companies. "Wartime vs peacetime" CEOs and all that (e.g. whether the company has intense competition or a monopoly).
Generally Good:
- provide any positive reinforcement first (point out what you want them to keep doing)
- be direct and clear about the mistakes, but focus feedback on the mistakes/work and not their person
- explain why the feedback is important, always ensure the "why" is understood
- share consequences if the feedback is not followed, if there will be any (don't surprise someone with the consequences only once they are reached)
Generally Bad:
- open up with a personal attack on their character
- be vague about what they did wrong or what they should do instead
- don't explain why following the feedback is important, don't justify it with a good reason
- fire people without any warning or opportunities to correct their behavior
I guess the word "genius" (at least for me) implies Einstein or in more practical terms: Faraday, Watt, Newton, et al. Literally the hundreds of savants who propelled science and thus technology to ever greater heights.
The examples from the blog, Jobs: a genius at marketing; Musk a genius at self promotion.
I don't hear the thousands of hardworking engineers clapping only the mediocre assholes for whom the cloak of genius is a convenient CYA (cover your ass).
It’s the flip side of taking kindness for weakness, and in my experience people who do that reveal something concerning about their own character and worldview.
"People who are brutally honest get more satisfaction out of the brutality than out of the honesty." -Robert J. Needham
I've never had any problems with highly competent assholes. However, I cannot see any reason to consider a business man, let alone any "entrepreneur", a genius. What needs to stop is calling someone with no intellectual and cultural achievements a genius. Someone who doesn't have any intellectual achievements and hasn't contributed substantially to human culture like art, literature, cinema, theater, and so forth, is by definition not a genius. Whether they are assholes or not is not even relevant.
To be fair, this topic might be a bit of strawman anyway. I've never heard anyone unironically call a business person a genius.
You can be a genius leader. If you disagree about that then yes, most of the article is not going to be interesting.
Surely you've heard people refer to Steve Jobs and Elon musk as geniuses. I simply don't believe you haven't.
hmmm?m it's moronic to go along with any notion of genius as bieng any single thing, that is present or not. it is fairly reasonable to suggest that most of the lesser sheep are threatened and resentfull of anybody who offers real, implimentable, better, alternatives to the way things are bieng done now Some number of "genius" people are also socialy aware and adept, and know when to just shut up, and let the drones, drone,on, timing and co ordinating the implimentation of there ideas and making there genius look like luck or better yet politics.
People aren't only condemned for being direct, they're condemned for being honest.
Yes, she is overweight, he is ugly, you did do a bad job.
BTW, Jobs was adopted, Musk had a horrible childhood. Not a reason for forgiveness, but some explanation of their cruelty.
I don't think we really do conflate genius with being a jerk. More the problem is that some talented people are sociopaths, willing to climb to the top over a pile of corpses. Or, as they say of sewage, "the biggest pieces float to the top."
Lots of people hate confrontation. However, when confronted with someone like that, we have to be willing to draw the line. "No, it won't be my corpse you climb over." If more people would do that, there would be fewer jerks in the top ranks.
[dead]
or winner with asshole
Actual geniuses do not exist.
It's the product of a ritualized society. People select one person, bump that person up, then hit it like a piñata.
If you dress someone like a piñata, people will hit it for the candy inside. One of the ways of doing that is shaming the piñata, like comparing it to an asshole, or portraying it as a weak troubled loser, or sexualizing it.
The article proposes we don't hit piñatas anymore. I agree. Furthermore, we should not make human piñatas in the first place. Let the geniuses and celebrities and leaders fade to normality and cease to exist as a thing.
Of course this implies many of our societal systems are piñata-based. Hierarquies, celebrities, leaders and so on.
I agree that collaboration is a key aspect to solving this issue. It seems, however, that human collaboration is very hard where there are piñatas everywhere. It's hard when kids want to grow up to be piñatas.
I am sorry that many cultures have this ritual so heavily ingrained as part of their whole identites.
> Actual geniuses do not exist.
A genius was one of the Roman house gods lucky dwellers might cohabit with. One is not a genius, rather one has a genius [0].
There were many specialised genii, ones for helping with childcare, one to make great cooking, or loving etc.
A genius channels spiritual/cosmic energy. Creatives who understand genius feel their creative source in a higher power, helped by their genius.
To "have a genius" then, is the most humble expression and acknowledgement that your created work and achievements are not fully your own.
This is a million miles from the modern assholery of the arrogant poseurs and imposters mentioned in TFA.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genius_(mythology)
Yes, etymologically close to the word gnosis, which means knowledge. To learn and teach is to channel the spirit, etc.
But words change, myths change, and sometimes you need to shake them off a little bit to encourage a shift in perception.
Talking about piñatas in this case seemed more appropriate for the problem at hand.
2 replies →