Live data from Hacker News

Toxic Workers Are More Productive, But the Price Is High

tlnt.com

201–210 of 229 posts

Re: Toxic Workers Are More Productive, But the Price Is High

#201
post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's... scary sometimes, reading comments like these. On one hand, I identify with what you've written here. I too had issues (still have) with working on a team. On the other hand, I find myself identifying with someone with clear narcissistic tendencies, or at the very least is supremely unaware of themselves. Why write this little confessional here, a place that's clearly not about you or your specific issue? Why…

It's... an anecdote. It's very related to the linked article, and adds insight into what the industry is considering toxic. You must be very easily scared if a personal anecdote causes this kind of a reaction from you.

I vouched for this comment — previously it was flagged and you had to have showdead enabled to see it. The last sentence is a tad aggressive, but no more rude than statements from the person they're corresponding with.

Re: Toxic Workers Are More Productive, But the Price Is High

#202
post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If more than one person has thought you are a jerk, especially more than one at a single job, and you don't know why, you're probably a jerk. The classic sign of a jerk is someone who can't pinpoint why someone would think they are a jerk in the first place. Or worse, you know why but you just don't care. As far as toxic workers go (jerks included), there are a lot of reasons they are toxic: * They are negative all t…

Maybe. (Actually, no, not, but for the sake of discussion). I have worked with people that would be considered "brilliant jerks" as in, they were amazing but they were so hard for most people to get along with that they actually were fired for being difficult to work with. It's never happened to me, but I've seen it happen maybe a half-dozen times to other people. What I couldn't help noticing about each of them was…

The cost of "just being honest" over learning some subtlety.

I'm smart, I'm competent, I know what I'm doing, and, most importantly, I know how to get you to come along with me willingly.

If that fails, well, I know how to say something that only becomes devistating once I leave the room and I'm better friends with all your co-workers anyway. Come at me.

The people you saw fired lacked that final quality. They bought into the narrative that our field is a meritocracy and that's a downright lie. They poured all their effort into their skills and ego and left zero room for learning to navigate office politics. They deserved to be fired.

Re: Toxic Workers Are More Productive, But the Price Is High

#203
post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you consider the hens in the analogy to be companies (rather than people) I think it holds. If you consider a fern to be an alligator then it's an example of a deadly reptile. > We select for companies that can outcompete other companies rather than ones that contribute the most to the system. I think that the whole point of our system is to ensure that firms which outcompete other firms are the ones which contr…

I've played a minor support role in numerous fraud and antitrust lawsuits. Although experts and counsel said a great deal about economic and social welfare, the key evidence involved what people intended and planned (based on documents, email, etc) and what they did (based on business records). Determining which firms "contribute the most total value to the system" is just too hard to be a useful strategy. Translatin…

> Determining which firms "contribute the most total value to the system" is just too hard to be a useful strategy.

Yes, it is — which is why we have a free market instead of a central authority trying to determine who contributes the most. Wisdom of crowds & all that.

Re: Toxic Workers Are More Productive, But the Price Is High

#204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not just our economy. It's the duality of human nature. We function better as a group yet we are competitive at the same time. As a result in practice a hybrid system of capitalism and communism tends to work the best aka socialism. See Scandinavia.

Work best according to whom? Just because something works in a tiny and homogenous country, under the shadow of a few hegemonic superpowers, does not mean that same thing will work in a super power like the US, which is larger, more heterogenous, and already contributes expenses to world society that benefit Scandinavia. Take the military for example. In any real world war, Scandanavia would depend on the help of NAT…

If the country is too large and heterogeneous to be governable then the obvious solution is to break it apart, not to accept horrible outcomes.

Re: Toxic Workers Are More Productive, But the Price Is High

#205
post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but wait... our entire economical system is based on this. Hence our problems. If there's something I've learned to notice recently is that most world issues are or were very profitable for someone. I think we're past the point where "nature" is really that big of an issue, and now it's mostly just us pecking each other down either in the smaller scale, or in large, systematic ways.

> most world issues are or were very profitable for someone Can you elaborate a bit more?

We offload to others the externalities of our activities as much as possible. We are not sustaintable, and nobody is eager to bear the costs of whatever they are doing.

This is a result of our narrow vision.

Slavery - treating people as property, like we treat animals - is an extreme example of this, and to this day we are still facing the consequences. But we still treat animals that way - as things that are bought and sold and exploited to death. Even after such animal slavery is abolished, we will still experience its consequences, for a long time.

Re: Toxic Workers Are More Productive, But the Price Is High

#206
post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Work best according to whom? Just because something works in a tiny and homogenous country, under the shadow of a few hegemonic superpowers, does not mean that same thing will work in a super power like the US, which is larger, more heterogenous, and already contributes expenses to world society that benefit Scandinavia. Take the military for example. In any real world war, Scandanavia would depend on the help of NAT…

If the country is too large and heterogeneous to be governable then the obvious solution is to break it apart, not to accept horrible outcomes.

Let's extend that obvious line of thought: what would the basis of this division be?

What about the benefits reaped from the heterogenous nature of giant countries like USA? Are you willing to give all that up for this single goal?

All said and done, I strongly believe USA as it is moves the humanity forward considerably in the mid-long outlook. Hence my questions.

Re: Toxic Workers Are More Productive, But the Price Is High

#207

I have recently been labeled a “brilliant jerk” at a FAANG company and threatened with termination. In actuality I now know that I have acted like this (not always but sometimes) and I take ownership of it. In trying to come to terms with it, I’ve been doing a lot of research and I think the research is overly simplistic particularly when it comes to motivation. I am not a psychopath and I am not purely self interest…

[deleted]

Re: Toxic Workers Are More Productive, But the Price Is High

#208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I found the guy. If I try as hard as I possibly can and output 20% of an amazing individual. do I have no place in this world? Listen, this is the basic level of human interaction. manners are oil for bodies at friction, and respect is a gateway to team participation. If you cant see the value in that, then you are the problem. You can output a million times the output of your team, but if you dont have a team then y…

As someone proclaiming that "manners are oil for bodies at friction", the ridiculousness of your rudeness is only surpassed by the unbelievable strawman you just set up. blue1379 brings up some very valid questions. If a snobbish, but highly talented employee builds toolkits/engines that double or triple the production of the average employee, does the same equation used in the study apply? On the other hand, what co…

> If a snobbish, but highly talented employee builds toolkits/engines that double or triple the production of the average employee, does the same equation used in the study apply?

What if we fire Mr Snobby Pants and hire someone who's both socially and technically competent?

Re: Toxic Workers Are More Productive, But the Price Is High

#209
post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's imagine you and I play Roshambo - rock, paper, scissors. The game theory optimal solution here is easy - I randomly pick one. This means I will never score better than 50% (in the longrun), but I will also never score worse than 50%. Now if I actually tried to play and beat you then I could, in theory, win every single time if I somehow I just managed to really get into your head. But at the same time, I now op…

"Probably" applied to catastrophic outcomes isn't particularly reassuring. It also requires a certain wilful denial of the mounting evidence that catastrophic outcomes - including starvation, oppression, and worse - have already happened for many people , and are likely to happen for many more people in the near/medium future. Having said, it's true that this is the Number One problem that humanity has to fix now - h…

The reason you have to say probably is because nothing is 100% certain in situations like this. Imagine some virulent agricultural disease spread among large areas of production driving a sharp decline in production. It doesn't matter what economic system you have there - even if everybody is a 'real' millionaire, people are going to starve simply because there isn't food to feed everybody. The Irish Potato Famine [1] is a good example of this.

Things like this are pretty improbable, but far from impossible. The odds of catastrophe are probably higher than utopia, but your concern for catastrophe should still be at least somewhat comparable to your enthusiasm for the odds of a utopia emerging from capitalism. Neither is at all likely.

----

As for bad actors, I imagine at one point the vast majority of politicians probably thought about getting involved in politics to try to make the world a better place. They were likely good people, like I think most tend to be. But at the same time I think we are all probably alot more 'morally flexible' than we'd like to admit.

Imagine I tell you I'll give you a million dollars a year if you agree to spend an average of an hour a day to engage in divisive trolling online. I somehow have a mind-reading device to ensure you will genuinely and actively work to do this and further my malicious ends. Regardless, unless you're already quite rich, you're probably going to agree after approximately 0 seconds of thought. What's one more troll even matter, right?

Now imagine you're in power and I want you to do something awful. So I give you a nice long power point presentation, more than enough to ensure you can convince yourself it's a good thing to do, and then offer you a very enticing sack of incentives as well. You're suddenly going to do a great job of convincing yourself that that snazzy powerpoint was right on point. I mean if you hold the banks accountable the economy will really collapse, and people will starve, it'd be catastrophic. The only way to save the world is to not only not hold the banks accountable, but to give them billions of dollars instead and work to actively re-empower them. Yes, Mr. Sachs, I see your point. I completely agree with you! Now hand me those sacks!

----

So the whole issue isn't about getting rid of bad actors. You need to somehow elevate people to power that cannot be swayed by self interest. I don't think this is, or ever will be, possible. Even in a time where we have Star Trek style replicators that can pump anything out in an instant there will still be incentives - ego, sex, power, fame, legacy, desirable appointments, ideological victory, etc.

I do fully agree with you on your pointing out the quite hypocritical distinction between behavior of employer and employee. Our entire economy is increasingly be driven by culturally regressive business endeavors. I think there are some solutions there, but this is another topic altogether.

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_(Ireland)

Re: Toxic Workers Are More Productive, But the Price Is High

#210

This reminds me of a story about hen breeding: Selecting the hen who lays the most eggs doesn't necessarily get you the most efficient egg-laying metabolism. It may get you the most dominant hen, that pecked its way to the top of the pecking order at the expense of other hens. Individual selection doesn't necessarily work to the benefit of the group, but a farm's productivity is determined by group outputs. Indeed, f…

The moral of the story is not that the needs of the many (group selection) outweigh the needs of one (individual selection). The moral of the story is that some incentives come with perverse effects.

In India, the British government issued a law paying people by the weight of cobras they killed. They came back next year and found cobra farms nationwide. That was a perverse effect of their incentive system.

And Yudkowsky jumped to a conclusion prematurely: group selection must be immune to perverse effects because switching from individual selection to group selection eliminated the perverse effects in one singular instance. There are ways perverse effects can emerge from and supervene over group selection.

Post reply on HN