Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

No Brilliant Jerks

leadershipnow.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 66 posts

Re: No Brilliant Jerks

#21

Post by wayneftw »

keenmaster wrote: post #17

Edited [1]: Ironically, one sign of brilliance is the ability to hold two seemingly contradictory ideas in your head. I think many people who interacted with Steve Jobs would classify him as a jerk. However, if Apple was more inclined towards mitigating his jerky behavior, it might not be where it is today. Reality is complicated. You don't get at the truth by finding the absolutist statement that is correct most of…

> ...Apple was more inclined towards mitigating his jerky behavior, it might not be where it is today.

Do we really want more companies like Apple? They’re the Monsanto of tech IMO.

Re: No Brilliant Jerks

#22

Post by minitech »

keenmaster wrote: post #17

Edited [1]: Ironically, one sign of brilliance is the ability to hold two seemingly contradictory ideas in your head. I think many people who interacted with Steve Jobs would classify him as a jerk. However, if Apple was more inclined towards mitigating his jerky behavior, it might not be where it is today. Reality is complicated. You don't get at the truth by finding the absolutist statement that is correct most of…

> There are "No" brilliant jerks? Absolutely none? What evidence is that based on?

"No" here is used in the sense of "no pets", "no solicitors", "no outside food or drink beyond this point"

Re: No Brilliant Jerks

#23

Post by LordFast »

keenmaster wrote: post #17

Edited [1]: Ironically, one sign of brilliance is the ability to hold two seemingly contradictory ideas in your head. I think many people who interacted with Steve Jobs would classify him as a jerk. However, if Apple was more inclined towards mitigating his jerky behavior, it might not be where it is today. Reality is complicated. You don't get at the truth by finding the absolutist statement that is correct most of…

The world we're going to needs no nuance and critical thinking.

I'm not even sure that's a joke anymore.

Re: No Brilliant Jerks

#24

Post by finnthehuman »

Every leader you love or hate is a jerk. You only call the ones you hate "jerks".

If there was an accurate adjective for Steve Jobs, even those who adored him would acknowledge that "jerk" is too kind of a descriptor. But he held onto more goodwill than this article's sacrificial lambs of Musk, Kalanick, Neumann, and Winterkorn.

This "no brilliant jerks" reminds me a bit of the anti-bully sentiment. Real bullies are popular, socially calibrated and powerful. The condemnation of "bullies" is for leaping hate on social failures with the temerity to lash out at their betters.

Re: No Brilliant Jerks

#25

Post by keenmaster »

minitech wrote: post #22
keenmaster wrote: post #17

Edited [1]: Ironically, one sign of brilliance is the ability to hold two seemingly contradictory ideas in your head. I think many people who interacted with Steve Jobs would classify him as a jerk. However, if Apple was more inclined towards mitigating his jerky behavior, it might not be where it is today. Reality is complicated. You don't get at the truth by finding the absolutist statement that is correct most of…

> There are "No" brilliant jerks? Absolutely none? What evidence is that based on? "No" here is used in the sense of "no pets", "no solicitors", "no outside food or drink beyond this point"

If you don't want brilliant jerks, you are inherently negating their brilliance. A simple chain of logic, extrapolating from that headline, would lead to "if they truly were all around brilliant, they wouldn't act that way. They would be more brilliant if we replaced their non-brilliant side with our brilliant behavioral prescriptions."

Re: No Brilliant Jerks

#26

Post by goatherders »

wayneftw wrote: post #21
keenmaster wrote: post #17

Edited [1]: Ironically, one sign of brilliance is the ability to hold two seemingly contradictory ideas in your head. I think many people who interacted with Steve Jobs would classify him as a jerk. However, if Apple was more inclined towards mitigating his jerky behavior, it might not be where it is today. Reality is complicated. You don't get at the truth by finding the absolutist statement that is correct most of…

> ...Apple was more inclined towards mitigating his jerky behavior, it might not be where it is today. Do we really want more companies like Apple? They’re the Monsanto of tech IMO.

I tend to agree. I also would have bet my life that the first comment would reference His Holiness, Steve Jobs. Good times.

Re: No Brilliant Jerks

#27

Post by crimsonalucard1 »

>“Often the board does not act sufficiently suspicious. Only a small percentage of directors are good at pushing back. They tend to trust the CEO too much”

It's not about trust. It's about politics. They may not actually trust the CEO but to keep their position and good standing they have to pretend to trust the CEO.

Re: No Brilliant Jerks

#28

Post by sn41 »

KKKKkkkk1 wrote: post #20
hirundo wrote: post #5

I have a problem with Nassim Taleb. On the one hand I think he has been a colossal jerk to many good people who don't deserve it. On the other hand he keeps dropping pearls of wisdom that I value highly. If I were an employer I wouldn't want an employee with his level of toxicity laying waste to morale. But it could be exactly that kind of employee who could make the company profitable with the power of one brain. So…

It's very difficult for me to separate the brilliant from the jerk in Taleb's writing. When he says "you can't make that inference because the distribution has a fat tail and you're a dumb fuck" I can't tell whether the sentiment embedded in this statement is clouding his judgement. So ultimately all the drama surrounding the brilliant jerk makes him far less useful than you might initially think.

I sometimes wish I have the presence of mind to add the dry remark -"I agree that that's your opinion." The one time I was able to actually pull it off, it deflated the jerk.

Re: No Brilliant Jerks

#29

Post by minitech »

keenmaster wrote: post #25
minitech wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There are "No" brilliant jerks? Absolutely none? What evidence is that based on? "No" here is used in the sense of "no pets", "no solicitors", "no outside food or drink beyond this point"

If you don't want brilliant jerks, you are inherently negating their brilliance. A simple chain of logic, extrapolating from that headline, would lead to "if they truly were all around brilliant, they wouldn't act that way. They would be more brilliant if we replaced their non-brilliant side with our brilliant behavioral prescriptions."

> If you don't want brilliant jerks, you are inherently negating their brilliance.

??¹

> A simple chain of logic, extrapolating from that headline, would lead to "if they truly were all around brilliant, they wouldn't act that way.

???²

¹ Valuing non-jerkiness more isn’t “negating brilliance”. Brilliant non-jerks are available.

² Er, no.

Re: No Brilliant Jerks

#30

Post by seanmcdirmid »

kaybe wrote: post #7
hirundo wrote: post #5

I have a problem with Nassim Taleb. On the one hand I think he has been a colossal jerk to many good people who don't deserve it. On the other hand he keeps dropping pearls of wisdom that I value highly. If I were an employer I wouldn't want an employee with his level of toxicity laying waste to morale. But it could be exactly that kind of employee who could make the company profitable with the power of one brain. So…

If the jerk is brilliant enough maybe you can buffer it somehow and include it in the structures, eg a dedicated jerk handler etc.

That is what is called a 10x people manager, and they are even more rare than 10x engineers. Not to mention they tend to get promoted too quickly to stay in jerk handling roles for very long.
Post reply on HN