Why I Never Hire Brilliant Men (1924) • Hacker News Board

Re: Why I Never Hire Brilliant Men (1924)

#171

Post by jrs235 » Fri, Mar 21, 2014, 2:21 AM UTC

npsimons wrote: post #128

cbp wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And since those qualities are so out of reach for techies they're looked down on.

False: http://www.paulgraham.com/nerds.html Techies could easily game the system; but that's a boring game for boring people, and in the grand scheme of things does not matter . There are much more important things to spend time on.

Like cat picture projects.

Interesting how people think the OP story is real and many people mistakeningly think Steve Yegge quit Google (he just quit the project).

http://steve-yegge.blogspot.com/2011/07/hacker-news-fires-st...

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vKmQW_Nkfk8

Re: Why I Never Hire Brilliant Men (1924)

#172

Post by refurb » Fri, Mar 21, 2014, 2:28 AM UTC

npsimons wrote: post #128

cbp wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And since those qualities are so out of reach for techies they're looked down on.

False: http://www.paulgraham.com/nerds.html Techies could easily game the system; but that's a boring game for boring people, and in the grand scheme of things does not matter . There are much more important things to spend time on.

That seems like a bit of a stretch.

Re: Why I Never Hire Brilliant Men (1924)

#173

Post by ZenoArrow » Fri, Mar 21, 2014, 2:33 AM UTC

michaelochurch wrote: post #60

One of the things I find irksome about the business world (and this won't seem relevant to the OP till I explain it) is that, while it places a premium on "finishing" and "delivery" (by the way, if you use "deliver" intransitively I will punch you in the face) it also makes it really rare that one can finish anything . It claims to have a culture of "shipping" but employs these people called "executives" whose functi…

Yes, michaelochurch, you are correct that the shifting priorities of the work place often make finishing anything hard.

But there is another way, and that is to work in secret, and fit this secret work into natural breaks in your normal work. For example, part of my job is running a suite of reports on a monthly basis. Every time I run these reports I do a little work to make them easier/quicker to run next time. Over the space of a year this kind of work can really pay off, and frees up more time to do more satisfying work, but the key is to improve in secret, it's rarely appreciated at the time.

Re: Why I Never Hire Brilliant Men (1924)

#174

Post by michaelochurch » Fri, Mar 21, 2014, 2:48 AM UTC

Kluny wrote: post #118

michaelochurch wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I don't think it's a mistake. That was correct usage of the word "brilliant" in 1920.

Which one? Creativity or charisma? They're two entirely separate traits.

Re: Why I Never Hire Brilliant Men (1924)

#175

Post by aye » Fri, Mar 21, 2014, 3:10 AM UTC

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 agree. It's more about developing good habits, so pick a small activity and see it through to the end. Bake a loaf of bread. Take out the garbage. Heck, even deciding you're going to do ten pushups and then doing them can help get you back in a finishing mindset.

Re: Why I Never Hire Brilliant Men (1924)

#176

Post by Kluny » Fri, Mar 21, 2014, 3:22 AM UTC

michaelochurch wrote: post #174

Kluny wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it's a mistake. That was correct usage of the word "brilliant" in 1920.

Which one? Creativity or charisma? They're two entirely separate traits.

Based on books I've read that were written in the 10's, 20's or 30's, I think charisma is closer.

Re: Why I Never Hire Brilliant Men (1924)

#177

Post by bennyg » Fri, Mar 21, 2014, 3:29 AM UTC

wavefunction wrote: post #153

gregw134 wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that's actually his point: that its better to hire an ordinary employee who will work hard at a realistic goal than to hire a flighty genius, whether self-appointed or not. "Does he finish what he starts? Geniuses almost never do." "These are quite simple rules...No Edison could ever qualify."

Edison was not a genius. He was good at sales and marketing, however.

I hate thinking like this. You can't say Edison didn't have a monumental impact in getting electricity to proliferate at reasonable prices across the country.

Re: Why I Never Hire Brilliant Men (1924)

#178

Post by bennyg » Fri, Mar 21, 2014, 3:35 AM UTC

edraferi wrote: post #109

thebokehwokeh2 wrote: post #87

Working at a startup helmed by a "brilliant" man as mentioned in the article, I wholeheartedly agree. So much hand waving. So little execution. One month, we were doing one thing that "had to be in the app". Another month, something else. Neither would get the actual attention that needed for them to be implemented properly, and nothing of value was produced. Society places too much importance on the buds of ideas. T…

This is exactly what I took away from the article. Execution matters.

So does the idea.

It's almost like they both have to be in tandem or something.

Re: Why I Never Hire Brilliant Men (1924)

#179

Post by Spooky23 » Fri, Mar 21, 2014, 4:04 AM UTC

brownbat wrote: post #91

"The continual use of slang expressions is an evidence of mental laziness, and I will not hire a man who depends upon slang to express his meaning. It is a substitute for exact thinking." I found this to be an unusual warning. Is "proper speech" really just a proxy for class in that time period? I'm now very curious about 1920s slang, especially its frequency of use in business settings.

It's a conscious decision to appear different than the blue collar folks.

The point stands though. Slang is often used as an attention grabber or distractor. Like a comedian who curses a lot to shock you, which conceals that he doesn't really have anything to say.

Re: Why I Never Hire Brilliant Men (1924)

#180

Post by graycat » Fri, Mar 21, 2014, 4:09 AM UTC

Two points:

First, the OP claimed

"Does he finish what he starts? Geniuses almost never do."

but gave no evidence.

Second, on finishing, we can consider I. Newton, W. Mozart, C. Darwin ('Origin of the Species'), R. Wagner (operas, especially 'The Ring'), J. Maxwell (E&M), A. Einstein (general relativity), J. Oppenheimer (A-bomb), S. Ulam (H-bomb), J. Salk (polio vaccine), D. Henderson (Smallpox eradication), J. Heifetz (violin), W. Gates (Microsoft), A. Wiles (Fermat's last theorem), J. Bezos (Amazon).