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

421–430 of 482 posts

Re: Fierce Nerds

#421

Post by xiaodai »

wiggumspiggums wrote: post #278

"Will you be clever at the expense of others, or will you be kind?" -Jeff Bezos https://www.princeton.edu/news/2010/05/30/2010-baccalaureate... "Fierce nerds" can be valuable. Sure. But the folks who truly stand out in my mind are a level higher. They're the ones at the top of their game, who know how to demand & command excellence, without being jerks about it. I'm reminded of this episode of "The Chef Show" where J…

Will you be kind to your wife of 30 years or will you try to chase some journalist.

Re: Fierce Nerds

#422

Post by [deleted] »

username90 wrote: post #300
wiggumspiggums wrote: post #278

"Will you be clever at the expense of others, or will you be kind?" -Jeff Bezos https://www.princeton.edu/news/2010/05/30/2010-baccalaureate... "Fierce nerds" can be valuable. Sure. But the folks who truly stand out in my mind are a level higher. They're the ones at the top of their game, who know how to demand & command excellence, without being jerks about it. I'm reminded of this episode of "The Chef Show" where J…

Once you have achieved significant status and money you no longer need to be fierce since people listen anyway. But most people worth listening to doesn't have significant status and money, instead we wait until they found their own companies and become rich before we listen to them.

[deleted]

Re: Fierce Nerds

#423

Post by lazide »

lawrenceyan wrote: post #418

Though there is room for fierceness as an engine for motivation, generally kindness/understanding over bluntness/abrasiveness is the way to go for meaningful long term impact. There’s a reason, for example, why Sundar Pichai became CEO instead of anyone else. This is also an argument against Paul’s proclamation of “fierce” leaders being required for successful businesses. Overall though, I agree with the general sent…

Eh, as in all things 'it depends'. Sundar could not have built Google to be what it became (and he ended up running), anymore than Tim Cook could have done that for Apple. Larry and Sergei could not run what Google became, but it would not have gotten there without their leadership (As many problems as there were).

It takes different kinds of leaders to be successful in different kinds of environments/challenges. Especially early on, you rarely win by making everyone happy or following the rules. You can rarely run a huge megacorporation if you aren't a master of keeping people on message and motivated across a huge swath of expertise and experience, and if you aren't following (or making) the rules in a wider sense you're going to get stomped by lawsuits and other legal issues once you reach a certain size. Before that, you often can't make much progress if you're not willing to do that (and can often get away with it).

The list of people who can be the best effective leaders in both environments is even smaller than the list of billionaire tech founder CEOs and giant megacorp unicorn FAANGs.

Re: Fierce Nerds

#424

Post by lawrenceyan »

lazide wrote: post #423
lawrenceyan wrote: post #418

Though there is room for fierceness as an engine for motivation, generally kindness/understanding over bluntness/abrasiveness is the way to go for meaningful long term impact. There’s a reason, for example, why Sundar Pichai became CEO instead of anyone else. This is also an argument against Paul’s proclamation of “fierce” leaders being required for successful businesses. Overall though, I agree with the general sent…

Eh, as in all things 'it depends'. Sundar could not have built Google to be what it became (and he ended up running), anymore than Tim Cook could have done that for Apple. Larry and Sergei could not run what Google became, but it would not have gotten there without their leadership (As many problems as there were). It takes different kinds of leaders to be successful in different kinds of environments/challenges. Esp…

Those are good points. Given Paul’s focus on startups, his perspective makes a lot more sense.

Re: Fierce Nerds

#425

Post by Asymmetryk »

deanCommie wrote: post #385
imraj96 wrote: post #383

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the feel I get from reading Brad Stone's "Amazon Unbound" .There were multiple instances where Bezos appear devoid of kindness towards employees. E.g '...In 2009, Onetto’s human resources deputy, David Niekerk, wrote a paper titled “Respect for People,” and presented it at an S-team meeting. The paper drew from Toyota’s proven Lean ideology and argued for “treating people fairly,” building “mutual trust betwee…

Sounds like a very one-sided story based on an interview with Onetto and nobody else...[1] > people in top jobs who can’t articulate their ideas clearly and support them with data..." That IS a legitimate problem. Through the lens of Hindsight, and based on an interview with Onetto it's easy to retell this story as "Bezos was told upfront, had all the available information upfront, and chose to do nothing until it wa…

I actually think this is worse for Onetto because the "one-sided story based on...Onetto..." has Onetto extolling high abstract ideas for the ostensible wellbeing of employees when he obviously needed to be presenting hard cause and effect realities to his boss and caring for employee welfare directly on the ground. If you are discussing the lives of warehouse workers I just don't see how it's being responsible to spend your time writing academic papers only possibly able to affect very much more privileged employees if at all.

Re: Fierce Nerds

#426

Post by solidasparagus »

Bukhmanizer wrote: post #75
javajosh wrote: post #31

The first rush of comments are all negative, mostly of the ad hominem sort, accusing PG of publicly psychoanalyzing himself. And yet, I really liked the essay because it reads like a lifeline to those who doubt themselves, perhaps profoundly. To PG the same qualities that alienate a "fierce nerd" in so many contexts are precisely the same qualities that could lead to success (even dominance) in other contexts. The us…

> And yet, I really liked the essay because it reads like a lifeline to those who doubt themselves, perhaps profoundly Do they? I mean one of the define characteristics is an overconfidence in themselves. I think PG is trying to justify some kind of assholish behaviour in his past by reframing it as a virtue. Really, I think the “fierceness” is incidental. Do immensely successful people need to be somewhat competitiv…

I went to school at MIT with tons of people who had world-class intelligence, productivity and even accomplishments, but imposter syndrome was still rampant.

Even if someone happens to be exceptional at everything you choose to do and thus have confidence, they can only do so many things. And that means that for every thing they are exceptional at, there are a thousand things where they are unimaginably outclassed by others. MIT was awful for that.

For me personally, the more I learn about my areas of expertise, the more I realize how clueless I am about so many other areas. But if the knowledge of your general cluelessness makes you timid outside of your domain of expertise, it limits how much you can accomplish.

Also, I didn’t really read ‘fierceness’ to mean ‘assholeness’. I’ve been around some people who had ideas that they desperately wanted to see out into the world. They were fiercely passionate and they did have a tendency to interrupt, but they definitely weren’t assholes.

Re: Fierce Nerds

#427

Post by [deleted] »

davidhunter wrote: post #13

Although questionable as a psychometric test, he is describing the Myers–Briggs INTJ [1] or INTP [2] personality type here. In terms of the Big-Five [3], I would suggest: Moderately-high Openness, High Conscientiousness, Average-to-Low Extraversion, Low Agreeableness, Average-to-low Neuroticism. [1]: https://www.16personalities.com/intj-personality [2]: https://www.16personalities.com/intp-personality [3]: https://en…

[deleted]

Re: Fierce Nerds

#428

Post by peterthehacker »

The “fierce nerd” sounds a lot like what Reed Hastings (Netflix, Founder) calls “brilliant jerks.” To quote his recent book:

> Sometimes really talented people have heard for so long how great they are, they begin to feel they really are better than everybody else. They might smirk at ideas they find unintelligent, roll their eyes when people are inarticulate, and insult those they feel are less gifted then they are.

At Netflix, they say “no brilliant jerks” because they will “rip your organization apart from the inside”.[0]

A lot of this sounds like justification for a brilliant jerk’s behavior. While it’s tempting to take the “fierce nerd” badge and wear it proudly, ferocity can turn into jerkiness pretty quickly.

[0] https://www.amazon.com/No-Rules-Netflix-Culture-Reinvention/...

Re: Fierce Nerds

#429

Post by neilv »

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…

Maybe factors in someone good at something being humble about it includes:

* Confidence of not needing to prove something to themselves.

* Comfort with their situation, aka not needing to prove something to others -- for practical reasons, separate from validation of own security/insecurity. (In your Bell Labs example, having gotten into there, getting to do the kind of work they want, presumably having sufficient respect of others for a pleasant environment, not feeling like they have to fight their way to opportunity and respect.)

* Intellectual humility that comes with experience, having realized how easy and frequent it is to be mistaken.

* Maybe differences of personality wiring. (I know nothing of the psychological research, but, anecdotally, there seems to be variation among people in how problem-solving interacts with emotions, for example, and maybe how that affects their interactions in that context.)

Also, taking a step back, I don't know how good our perceptions of humility. (Of course, different people express themselves differently, which I suppose affects perceptions of those people's humility. And maybe, when we're characterizing humility of others, we're usually basing that on perceptions, rather than some more objective criteria.)

Re: Fierce Nerds

#430

Post by jdlshore »

wizzwizz4 wrote: post #392
fungiblecog wrote: post #376

I think the problem with Paul Graham's writing is that it always comes down to talking about getting rich. A lot of people - including very intelligent people - have other things they'd rather do than play such a stupid game. Unfortunately the world is pushing everyone in that direction which will create a lot of bitterness because most people necessarily lose that game.

I still fail to understand how we've organised society so that the losers of a particular game don't eat . It's virtually decoupled from helping other people with stuff (which is what the economy purports to represent); you have old money, and nth-generation new money, and people working two jobs to afford rent. “Invest” in the stock market in X way, and you can stop working earlier – that is, if you had enough savin…

You've presented a false dichotomy. There's a lot of room between "get rich" and "don't eat." I'd wager that most software developers fit very comfortably between the two.

I agree with GP's dislike of Graham's emphasis on getting rich. There's more to life.

Post reply on HN