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

Fierce Nerds

paulgraham.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

361–370 of 482 posts

Re: Fierce Nerds

#361

Post by b3morales »

elteto wrote: post #352
ziziyO wrote: post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why can’t we have both? A job where we can “actually do stuff” without getting mistreated by psychotic billionaires. There’s a lack of compassion in tech.

Assuming you are in the US: I’d say that, if anything, tech is a fantastic little bubble when compared to the rest of corporate America. We, the “nerds”, exert a level of control over our work/careers that is unparalleled in other industries. We have plenty of opportunities available if we dislike our current situation. Tech companies provide excellent benefits and compensation. Maybe only doctors have the same level…

Speaking as someone who has come to my tech career later in life (and after another career), this is absolutely correct. All industries have their problems: software is no exception, there are things that could be better. There are bad days, even bad months.

But at nearly 6 years in I still wake up every day amazed that I get paid as much as I do to do this thing that I really enjoy. With overall reasonable hours. Without having to deal with the general public. Considered an asset despite the fact that I cost so much and write bugs. And with people banging on my door constantly to get me to work for them. I feel extremely fortunate.

Re: Fierce Nerds

#362

Post by Tomminn »

greyhair wrote: post #347

I worked with a number of brilliant people at Bell Labs through the 1980s/1990s. The most comfortably competent among them, the most productive among them, were also the least abrasive. They were also the most self deprecating. Not just one or two, but the majority of them. To the point that the aggressive geniuses stood out. And I worked for/with two abrasive ones as well, so I know the difference. The same was true…

If I had to guess, I would guess these would often be "fierce nerds" who mellowed with age.

I think this "fierceness" is an expected sign of intellectual dominance of your peers at 15-20. At 25+, it's a sign that you've either never entered a pond with genuinely big fish, or you've never managed to recognize that big fish are swimming around you.

Of course, you could just be dominating big fish at 25+. It's logically possible. But the incident of "fierceness" is muuuuch higher than the incidence of that level of genius.

Re: Fierce Nerds

#363

Post by mjfl »

greyhair wrote: post #347

I worked with a number of brilliant people at Bell Labs through the 1980s/1990s. The most comfortably competent among them, the most productive among them, were also the least abrasive. They were also the most self deprecating. Not just one or two, but the majority of them. To the point that the aggressive geniuses stood out. And I worked for/with two abrasive ones as well, so I know the difference. The same was true…

This is like the cow talking about how they don't like mean other cows while Paul Graham was probably talking about the farmer.

Re: Fierce Nerds

#364

Post by getpost »

bumby wrote: post #319
getpost wrote: post #294

Since pg's essay is of a psychoanalytic nature, I'll reply in a psychoanalytic frame, for the sake of conversation, not criticism. [Protip: never psychoanalyze anyone! This likely applies even to psychoanalysts.] During the last year or two pg has written more than a few essays and tweets which appear to be of a defensive nature. People like him contribute more than other people, it's alright to to be fierce, can't s…

> Whenever there is dichotomous thinking, cognition has moved away from clarity. Can you expand on this?

This is a deep topic worthy of an essay, the kind of essay pg might write! The concise reply is, when you catch yourself in dichotomous thinking, you should assume you have misunderstood or oversimplified.

Sometimes you have to go with your misunderstanding or oversimplification to make a decision or to make progress, but keep in mind you are doing so based on beliefs which are unlikely to correspond to reality.

It's striking that so many mental health difficulties are characterized by dichotomous thinking. [1]

Rationality itself can be profitably critiqued at the meta-level.[2] So, don't be an asshole, unless you need to be. Do you see the world as consisting of assholes and non-assholes? How does that feel? What are the advantages of that view? What are the disadvantages? Is considering that question worth your time?

[1] https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/she-comes-long-way-b...

[2] https://metarationality.com/introduction

EDIT: Fixed link, spacing

Re: Fierce Nerds

#365

Post by haswell »

dataflow wrote: post #357
greyhair wrote: post #347

I worked with a number of brilliant people at Bell Labs through the 1980s/1990s. The most comfortably competent among them, the most productive among them, were also the least abrasive. They were also the most self deprecating. Not just one or two, but the majority of them. To the point that the aggressive geniuses stood out. And I worked for/with two abrasive ones as well, so I know the difference. The same was true…

> The difficult people were never stupid, far from it, but they felt like they needed to defend everything they did, every decision they made, and that made working with them less productive. I assume the implication here is that the productive folks didn't necessarily defend everything they did, and thus went with other people's solutions sometimes even when their own was better? Is that what you're trying to convey…

I interpreted this differently. My takeaway was that the abrasive ones constantly defend everything they do, even when it’s not necessary, and the gentle genius doesn’t feel the need to be defensive at every step.

It doesn’t have to mean that the gentle genius never defends their viewpoints, but highlights the key differences in how these personality types operate on a day-to-day basis, and the resulting impact on the team around them.

Re: Fierce Nerds

#366

Post by Tomminn »

mjfl wrote: post #363
greyhair wrote: post #347

I worked with a number of brilliant people at Bell Labs through the 1980s/1990s. The most comfortably competent among them, the most productive among them, were also the least abrasive. They were also the most self deprecating. Not just one or two, but the majority of them. To the point that the aggressive geniuses stood out. And I worked for/with two abrasive ones as well, so I know the difference. The same was true…

This is like the cow talking about how they don't like mean other cows while Paul Graham was probably talking about the farmer.

Absolutely, the best people at Bell labs in the 80's were "like cows".

Re: Fierce Nerds

#367

Post by pseudalopex »

dang wrote: post #218
mcguire wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He certainly started that way; his Common Lisp stuff is interesting, although I don't usually agree that it's the best approach. But as far as I know, the only technical thing he's done since selling Viaweb is ... this forum. You apply to YC for money and for contacts---exactly what dealmakers do.

He worked on this for several years after leaving YC: http://www.paulgraham.com/bel.html Not sure how that doesn't count as technical.

They said as far as they know. More likely they never heard of it.

Re: Fierce Nerds

#368

Post by [deleted] »

getpost wrote: post #364
bumby wrote: post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Whenever there is dichotomous thinking, cognition has moved away from clarity. Can you expand on this?

This is a deep topic worthy of an essay, the kind of essay pg might write! The concise reply is, when you catch yourself in dichotomous thinking, you should assume you have misunderstood or oversimplified. Sometimes you have to go with your misunderstanding or oversimplification to make a decision or to make progress, but keep in mind you are doing so based on beliefs which are unlikely to correspond to reality. It's…

[deleted]

Re: Fierce Nerds

#369

Post by pseudalopex »

watwut wrote: post #133
pattusk wrote: post #18

> Most people think of nerds as quiet, diffident people. [...] In fact some nerds are quite fierce. That someone would think nerds are not competitive is, to me, the strangest thing about this article. Perhaps because I'm one, but whether it's Magic the gathering, Demoparties, rubics cube solving, chess, Counterstrike LANs, academia, or any of my tech jobs, every "nerdy" activity I've ever engaged with has always bee…

> Perhaps because I'm one, but whether it's Magic the gathering, Demoparties, rubics cube solving, chess, Counterstrike LANs, academia, or any of my tech jobs, every "nerdy" activity I've ever engaged with has always been overly competitive. I think that is little bit you choosing very competitive things to engage in. People who were obsessed with start trek for example did not build competitive societies. And I work…

LAN parties are nerdy for sure.

Re: Fierce Nerds

#370

Post by pseudalopex »

nitrogen wrote: post #332
HeyImAlex wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I knew many people who fit that description, but with even a little social intelligence it seemed to me their experiences in highschool were pretty great; they weren’t nerds, they were just smart and studious and many were very well liked. Our homecoming king was on the academic decathalon team. Im not saying that smart, introverted folks with underdeveloped social skills don’t exist, just that they don’t exist oppos…

There is a pretty wide variance from school to school, town to town, and state to state/country to country. Maybe you were in a particularly well-adjusted school, and other schools and communities are still more judgmental of non-blessed interests? Or maybe the nerds remain, but they had different interests from the new main-stream. I'd hardly call Halo a nerd thing, for example.

Halo isn't a nerd thing. Pro gaming is.
Post reply on HN