Fierce Nerds • Hacker News Board

Re: Fierce Nerds

#441

Post by yosito » Wed, May 19, 2021, 3:07 AM UTC

moolcool wrote: post #45

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…

>The useful follow on to this essay, I would think, is to give a list, as long as possible, of places where "fierce nerds" are wanted, demanded, needed - both well-known institutions and startups. "How to Deal with Difficult People on Software Projects" is a pretty good read in this vain https://neilonsoftware.com/difficult-people-on-software-proj...

This article promises "how to deal", but all it delivers is a list of difficult stereotypes, prefaced by reasons you are not allowed to disagree with the stereotypes, and never discusses how to deal with them.

Re: Fierce Nerds

#442

Post by philosopher1234 » Wed, May 19, 2021, 3:19 AM UTC

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.

This may be true for you, but not for me. I listen to many people who are not well known, and who are not rich, and who arae not startup founders. For instance, none of my friends are rich startup founders, neither is my partner, nor my therapist, nor my coworkers, yet I consider all their opinions valuable (more so than the rich "fierce nerds"). Most of the podcasts I listen to are not run by the rich and powerful, either.

Re: Fierce Nerds

#443

Post by irrational » Wed, May 19, 2021, 3:40 AM UTC

neilv wrote: post #429

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 re…

* Perhaps, humility from knowing how much you don't know. The older I get, the bigger the circle of what I don't know grows. I now know that there is no way in my lifetime I will be able to learn even a tiny percentage of all that I would like to learn. It is humbling to learn how little you really know, no matter how quickly you acquire new knowledge.

Re: Fierce Nerds

#444

Post by novosel » Wed, May 19, 2021, 4:09 AM UTC

cperciva wrote: post #401

novosel wrote: post #372

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a Russian saying: Who is a wise man? The one that always seeks to occupy the smallest place/room. Nota Bene: I am not a Russian, but simply encountered this formulation several times.

That saying, combined with the euphemism "smallest room in the house", paints an interesting picture.

edit -- I have misread Your comment.

Re: Fierce Nerds

#445

Post by rektide » Wed, May 19, 2021, 4:14 AM UTC

I greatly dislike the emphasis on competitveness. I think that's incredidnly wrong & not at all a part of fierceness.

many who have great vast deep activation potential (belief & knowledge & could mpetrncy, long & hard accrued) do not personalize themselves so.

Becoming comfortable with ambiguity, with not knowing, with mystery is one of the finest clearest signs of intellect to me. these folk are both deeply empassioned, fierce, but receptive able to be persuaded, not decidi ares to a side or themselves. they recognize the non-zero sum nature of reality, recognize that there are many lessons & potentials for improvement everywhere. to be fierce is to be hungry, to want to find the right & true & uncover & make use of as much as possible, to learn more, see more, experience more, much of which will be tainted & not right but in those failures equally constructive & establishing.

deeply dislike some of the characterizations here, but also grateful to have some persona of some kind of integrity that somewhat resembles the mensches I still identify the nerds as being strivers for.

Re: Fierce Nerds

#446

Post by Aeolun » Wed, May 19, 2021, 4:26 AM UTC

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…

> Ultimately, Onetto did not convince Bezos of his ideas. The blame for that can't rest solely with Bezos

I don’t think you need much information to understand that an un-airconditioned warehouse in a hot location is a disaster waiting to happen.

If someone is proposing a 52M dollar expense to install those, maybe it’s a good idea to ask more until you know why?

Re: Fierce Nerds

#447

Post by rektide » Wed, May 19, 2021, 4:29 AM UTC

Tomminn wrote: post #362

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…

it's frustrating to me that Paul conflated fierceness with competitiveness, because I see passion & vigor & energy as very decoupled from the forces of personization & ego that this part of the thread are wrapped around, that Paul linked together.

another comment mentioned that it's a matter of tamping down the inner asshole, having self awareness. this still allows for an enormous domineering ego but supposes it can be self regulated, held back.

I feel like even that is still a radical take. fierce nerds just see opportunity in the world. they want to strike, want to seize good, promote the paths everyone else disregards as too difficult too hard top unknown, to say, let's really find out. fiercely try. try to learn if we fail & try again next time too. thw competition is not with each other, not about who; it's a competition against mediocrity & safety & fragility. a competition to collaboratively find excellence & further truths.

you should remain fierce. there are not many other real big fish on the sea. most folk have narrow windows of experience, limited views, & your nerdly bigger picture takes of the fierce are direly needed. especially when we don't attach ourselves to the try, when we are all aligned to try greatly & learn & adjust as we go, with fierceness, but without ego.

Re: Fierce Nerds

#448

Post by spfzero » Wed, May 19, 2021, 4:58 AM UTC

steve_adams_86 wrote: post #349

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…

My favourite people to work with are the gentle geniuses. I love to be wrong around them because I get to learn, and I love opportunities to present something useful I've done and know it will become a valuable contribution. I avoid the other kind of person like a plague now. They ruin otherwise excellent teams. They might be fine to have a drink with or something, but in day to day work, they are sand paper. Another…

I have had that same experience with many people, re criticising other people’s timelines. But I don’t think that’s the kind of “fierce nerd” Paul is talking about. I rather think he’s talking about the person who is so involved in doing their own work, that they don’t spend the time to evaluate other people’s productivity.

Re: Fierce Nerds

#449

Post by wizzwizz4 » Wed, May 19, 2021, 5:44 AM UTC

jdlshore wrote: post #430

wizzwizz4 wrote: post #392

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's not a dichotomy; there are plenty of people who are doing okay. But there are definitely winners, and definitely losers, and it's a game for some and survival for others.

Re: Fierce Nerds

#450

Post by steve_adams_86 » Wed, May 19, 2021, 5:49 AM UTC

spfzero wrote: post #448

steve_adams_86 wrote: post #349

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My favourite people to work with are the gentle geniuses. I love to be wrong around them because I get to learn, and I love opportunities to present something useful I've done and know it will become a valuable contribution. I avoid the other kind of person like a plague now. They ruin otherwise excellent teams. They might be fine to have a drink with or something, but in day to day work, they are sand paper. Another…

I have had that same experience with many people, re criticising other people’s timelines. But I don’t think that’s the kind of “fierce nerd” Paul is talking about. I rather think he’s talking about the person who is so involved in doing their own work, that they don’t spend the time to evaluate other people’s productivity.

You’re right, I guess I’m pulling other qualities in here from people I’ve known who have overlap with the type Paul is describing. It’s not exactly in line.