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

Assholes: A Probing Examination

nomachetejuggling.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–197 of 197 posts

Re: Assholes: A Probing Examination

#191

Post by woodandsteel »

deanmoriarty wrote: post #60
rodhilton wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I linked to as much hard evidence as I could but I'll agree that it's a little light. My hunch, just based on my own observation doing this for 20 years, is that an asshole is like a black hole of productivity, draining it from everyone else to such an extent that they're simply not worth having around, and that no matter how Brilliant they are, the rest of the team can figure out their areas of expertise with the mo…

I have seen that a couple times, mostly in startups: a highly functioning brilliant jerk was doing a pretty good job leading teams, but they had no patience towards poor performers and that caused morale issues. Eventually the person got managed out (not fired, just isolated from the teams) and upper management thought the team would just eventually thrive after some short loss of productivity, but that never happene…

The author is not saying that firing assholes is all you need for a successful company. Obviously hiring good people is also essential.

Re: Assholes: A Probing Examination

#192

Post by gnull »

pnutjam wrote: post #179
gnull wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's easy to "imagine" what you would do if you were a minority. Especially when you haven't lived it. A better way to run the argument would be to address the substance of raxxorrax's argument here, for example by pointing out any specific problem with the way he imagines what minorities feel. Instead, you doubted his ability to imagine it, despite you don't know him at all. This is just an ad hominem attack.

From Wikipedia: "Ad hominem (Latin for "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument" I pointed out that he is complaining about the "diversity crowd" and at the time asking for us to embrace his diversity. I'm not sure…

I also wasn't sure about the exact meaning of ad hominem. But I found this definition (which is a bit more detailed than Wikipedia's) on Rational Wiki [1], and it seems to match our situation:

> Premise 1: Person A makes claim X

> Premise 2: There is something objectionable about person A

> Conclusion: Therefore, claim X is false

raxxorrax made a claim on what he would feel if he was a minority (probably implying that this is how some of the minorities might feel right now, I'm not sure if this was part of his point). My understanding is that you objected to his claim by saying that he can't imagine what minorities think because he isn't a minority.

[1]: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_hominem

---

A couple of times I had similar arguments with my friends, when I said something about how I think minorities should think or act, and my friend would say that I can't understand minorities, because I'm not one. My friends had a reason to think I'm not a minority, because I'm a white male living in a country where my ethnicity is prevalent (> 80% of the population).

The thing they didn't know is that I grew up in a different place, where my ethnicity was a minority, and I went to a high school where > 90% percent of kids were of different ethnicity and religion. And this all happened in a provincial town in Central Asia, where people don't care much about diversity and tolerance, especially if they are your teenager classmates in a boys-only high school. So I think in some points of my life I did experience certain stress and discomfort because of being a minority, although right now I don't feel myself being a victim or anything of that sort.

This is why I got triggered by your first comment, and made that remark about ad hominem. Because of its resemblance to a situation I was in a few times. And actually, for me it isn't such a big deal to start a new argument about whether it's an instance of ad hominem or not.

Re: Assholes: A Probing Examination

#193

Post by pnutjam »

gnull wrote: post #192
pnutjam wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From Wikipedia: "Ad hominem (Latin for "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument" I pointed out that he is complaining about the "diversity crowd" and at the time asking for us to embrace his diversity. I'm not sure…

I also wasn't sure about the exact meaning of ad hominem. But I found this definition (which is a bit more detailed than Wikipedia's) on Rational Wiki [1], and it seems to match our situation: > Premise 1: Person A makes claim X > Premise 2: There is something objectionable about person A > Conclusion: Therefore, claim X is false raxxorrax made a claim on what he would feel if he was a minority (probably implying tha…

Thank you for responding. Many of these threads end up being shouts in the dark.

I truly felt like the "you're not a minority" part of my comment was incidental. My larger point was that in asking people to accept an opinion that is outside the mainstream, or to consider how different your upbringing was, you're asking people to respect a diversity of opinions.

I tried to point out the a big part of the diversity movement is recognizing these diversities, which often come with different genders or different ethnicity.

Maybe I did a poor job of communicating this.

Re: Assholes: A Probing Examination

#194

Post by t176 »

Firstly, what's the opposite of asshole. Is there a name for that?

Secondly, this: >Really, you can’t afford to keep assholes around - it’s better to have a hole in your team than an asshole.

That may not always be true. It may actually be better to have an asshole than a teamhole, particularly if project delivery is dependent on the asshole. It may be unpleasant but unavoidable - at least temporarily. It may also be a financial issue and financial issues affect shareholders, and shareholders can be assholes. You win some, you lose some.

The closing section made it all worth while. Probably the best 3 paragraphs I've read all year.

Re: Assholes: A Probing Examination

#197

Post by lunias »

glangdale wrote: post #59

This article is overly fixated on overt assholery. Much of the worst asshole behavior I've encountered has been done by people who are outwardly polite and high functioning and have often never had a cross word for anyone. I would much rather get a tersely worded group email (ooo) than have to do someone else's job for them. Let's be frank. The #1 asshole thing not mentioned here is (shouting and swearing alert) NOT…

This. I've been made to feel like the asshole in situations like this for "not helping" them figure out how to do their own job. Some people are beyond help (within the context of project) because they do not possess the requisite knowledge to qualify themselves for the position and we don't have the time to bring them up to competency. They were probably interviewed by an overseer of their craft rather than a practitioner or perhaps concessions were made in order to "save" money. I've seen this worsening throughout my career, but I believe that it's largely growing pains. When demand is high and supply is low, quality suffers.
Post reply on HN