Comment by keiferski

It kind of depends on your definition on high-performing people. The definition you seem to be operating by might work for the sort of the lone, cantankerous academic genius, someone who’s work is largely dependent on their ability to focus, study, and have certain output. I imagine a lot of people on HN have this definition of success.

But if your definition of success is remotely related to any form of leadership, then your suggestions are extremely flawed. To be a good leader, you need to manage people, have empathy, sympathy, tact, charisma, and so on.

Adding to that - many things in the real world end up being a mix of both, which means you need both to get to the top. Tom Brady or Michael Jordan don’t become the best in the world by being assholes to their teammates. Significant political / activist figures don’t start movements by belittling people. And so on.

Which means that the attitude you’re displaying here really kind of locks you into the upper middle class overachiever definition of success as a doctor, lawyer, etc. and not into the class of the truly successful.