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

Why I Never Hire Brilliant Men (1924)

en.wikisource.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 276 posts

Re: Why I Never Hire Brilliant Men (1924)

#41

Post by pdonis »

badman_ting wrote: post #28
deadfall wrote: post #27

"But if you blunder for words, punctuate incorrectly, spell incorrectly, and express yourself clumsily, I'm sure to believe you mind is cluttered and ill-disciplined." My mind is cluttered and I rely on spelling correction. Hard to say if I would get the position.

Ah yes, the school of thought that supposes the ability to distinguish between "your" and "you're" is the essence of intelligence.

That's not what the author is saying. He's saying that if you are either unable or unwilling to correctly use "your" and "you're", you are probably unable or unwilling to pay attention to the details that matter to success in his business. I agree that there's a fine line between proper attention to detail and nitpicking, but taking the author's statement in context I don't think he's on the wrong side of it.

Re: Why I Never Hire Brilliant Men (1924)

#43

Post by michaelochurch »

ilaksh wrote: post #17

Good writing and ok advice for someone who wants to run a grocery business. But it is absolutely untrue that "brilliant" men cannot also be careful, detail-oriented and have good business sense and skills. And certainly innovation and risk taking can be just as critical in business as following proven formulas and paying close attention to the bottom line. It depends on the business and circumstance. Overall I think…

His use of "brilliant" has little to do with IQ. It's a conflation of (a) creativity (which correlates, as he observes, with manic-depressive patterns and unreasonable expectations of others) and (b) superficial charisma (which correlates with narcissism and substance abuse). Those are two types of "flashiness" that he makes the mistake of conflating.

I'm category (a): creative, prone to mood swings, basically reliable but bad at the superficial reliability contests that determine advancement in most organizations. Yes, someone like me can be detail-oriented and show business acumen. We can be reliable. We're just not as competitive at being reliable (especially in the superficial ways, which are important in customer service) as others. If you need +3 sigma reliability-- someone who can work 100-hour weeks and not miss details or break rules or even become annoying-- you don't want +3 sigma creativity.

Re: Why I Never Hire Brilliant Men (1924)

#44

Post by badman_ting »

pdonis wrote: post #41
badman_ting wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah yes, the school of thought that supposes the ability to distinguish between "your" and "you're" is the essence of intelligence.

That's not what the author is saying. He's saying that if you are either unable or unwilling to correctly use "your" and "you're", you are probably unable or unwilling to pay attention to the details that matter to success in his business. I agree that there's a fine line between proper attention to detail and nitpicking, but taking the author's statement in context I don't think he's on the wrong side of it.

It makes sense, but that's the danger of it in my opinion.

If you think this way, it's worth going back and examining the writings of people you admired. You might be surprised! Or not.

Re: Why I Never Hire Brilliant Men (1924)

#45

Post by busterarm »

spinlock wrote: post #25
d23 wrote: post #19

What if you aren't a finisher? How can you become one?

Start finishing things. It sounds trite but it's true. Some of the best advice I've ever been given is: the way you do anything is the way you do everything. So, finish the smallest tasks consistently and that will carry over to the bigger tasks.

I really need to work at this. I definitely have always fit the "genius but doesn't finish things" description. I've been working at this hard for 8 years because it really has negatively affected my life. I'm making some progress but it's really slow and if I slack off even a little I tend to lose everything.

It's hard.

Re: Why I Never Hire Brilliant Men (1924)

#46

Post by maxerickson »

michaelochurch wrote: post #43
ilaksh wrote: post #17

Good writing and ok advice for someone who wants to run a grocery business. But it is absolutely untrue that "brilliant" men cannot also be careful, detail-oriented and have good business sense and skills. And certainly innovation and risk taking can be just as critical in business as following proven formulas and paying close attention to the bottom line. It depends on the business and circumstance. Overall I think…

His use of "brilliant" has little to do with IQ. It's a conflation of (a) creativity (which correlates, as he observes, with manic-depressive patterns and unreasonable expectations of others) and (b) superficial charisma (which correlates with narcissism and substance abuse). Those are two types of "flashiness" that he makes the mistake of conflating. I'm category (a): creative, prone to mood swings, basically reliab…

Does "+3 sigma creativity" actually mean anything?

(I'm aware enough of the rough technical definition, I mean in the sense that if you think there are 500,000 super special people in the U.S. can you do anything useful to find them?)

Re: Why I Never Hire Brilliant Men (1924)

#47

Post by DjangoReinhardt »

d23 wrote: post #19

What if you aren't a finisher? How can you become one?

People close to me used have told me on numerous occasions that I fall into the category of glib-talking, high-flying, never-finishing 'charmers' that the author mentioned in the prose.

It took me a while to understand that my going-off-on-tangents had nothing to do with impatience. It had more to do with me not realizing that the last mile is the hardest. I would start everything with gusto but as soon as I hit a road-block, I would dawdle and eventually lose interest as soon as something new came up.

I now decide a (feasible) finish line in my head before starting a new activity and consciously check myself whenever I feel like I'm about to give up on it. I force myself to look at the finish line until I re-convince myself that I need to cross it before I can even think of giving up.

I am not 'there' yet but I am beginning to see some results and that eggs me on further. :)

Re: Why I Never Hire Brilliant Men (1924)

#48

Post by exarch »

Very dated perceptions. We know now, for example, that those who stammer and struggle for words often simply possess brains that are more full of information, rather than possessing less efficient or organized ones.

In a knowledge economy built on creativity, I'll take Different Thinkers over Cogs of Constancy any day.

Re: Why I Never Hire Brilliant Men (1924)

#49

Post by csomar »

badman_ting wrote: post #23

Alternately, this is the story of a man who hired based on word of mouth, then when that didn't work out, learned the wrong lesson.

He's point is valid if you define brilliant men as famous/rockstar.

But let's not forget that he lived in different circumstances than today.

Re: Why I Never Hire Brilliant Men (1924)

#50

Post by DjangoReinhardt »

pdonis wrote: post #34
Tloewald wrote: post #18

If you include Sir Isaac Newton in a case against employing geniuses, your case is pretty thin.

Why? From all I have read about Newton, he would have been the employee from hell. A genius as a mathematician and physicist, yes; but a terrible employee.

C'mon, who wouldn't want an employee who boils a watch and looks at the egg while contemplating the basic nature and equations that make up the physical sciences? ;)
Post reply on HN