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

211–220 of 276 posts

Re: Why I Never Hire Brilliant Men (1924)

#211

Post by netcan »

nnq wrote: post #198

It's sad how this sounds so plausible and valid... because even today, we are incredibly bad at managing (or making use of or integrating into a team...) brilliant people and we fail to make use of them and we let them fail because we can only figure out how to make reliable profit by using readily available mediocrity. We should instead learn to recognize human diversity and accept that besides the "well rounded har…

These things might be backed into the social systems they exist in and therefore very hard to engineer.

Re: Why I Never Hire Brilliant Men (1924)

#212

Post by felix_xyk »

jib wrote: post #210
nnq wrote: post #198

It's sad how this sounds so plausible and valid... because even today, we are incredibly bad at managing (or making use of or integrating into a team...) brilliant people and we fail to make use of them and we let them fail because we can only figure out how to make reliable profit by using readily available mediocrity. We should instead learn to recognize human diversity and accept that besides the "well rounded har…

A lot of people want to be "the idea guy", because it's cool and relatively easy. The problem is that ideas are cheap. The value of any given idea is really low - I would argue that for many organisations ideas even have a negative value on average, because you are going to spend a lot of time dealing with the idea without it actually becoming something that generate value in the end. Even if you have an idea, that w…

"The idea guy" is not brilliant guy. From my understanding, the brilliant guy should clearly know when, what ,how to do the correct thing. The "correct" thing is which may suit for current business demand or for future business requirement.

Re: Why I Never Hire Brilliant Men (1924)

#213

Post by wisty »

TrainedMonkey wrote: post #14

It appears that men labeled as genius were simply men of high charisma capable of convincing and inspiring others.

Also, the guy ran a grocery store.

Funnily enough, you don't need to be a brilliant person to manage a 1920s grocery store. You need someone who's reliable, honest, and good at keeping minimum wage workers reliable and honest.

Re: Why I Never Hire Brilliant Men (1924)

#214

Post by watwut »

nnq wrote: post #198

It's sad how this sounds so plausible and valid... because even today, we are incredibly bad at managing (or making use of or integrating into a team...) brilliant people and we fail to make use of them and we let them fail because we can only figure out how to make reliable profit by using readily available mediocrity. We should instead learn to recognize human diversity and accept that besides the "well rounded har…

I love starting phase of a new projects too. However, I believe that working only on starting phase of many projects would be detrimental for the person. Later phases of the projects often gives you feedback on how well you have done in the beginning. If you participate only on beginning (design mostly), you will miss that feedback and you will not even know it.

What looks like great clever idea in the beginning sometimes turns out to be too difficult to maintain down the road. The new technology or approach that speeds you up so incredibly during first weeks can became huge drag withing few months. Smart clever hacks so cool first six weeks can make the system extremely fragile twelve months later.

Your projects rotating starter never involved in later phases of the projects may become problem on himself.

Second argument is about fairness. Finishers are not people who love to do all that less exciting work needed to actually finish the thing. Neither are they too stupid to work on design phase.

Most often, they are people who feel responsibility towards project completion. If you do not allow them to work on those interesting parts too and force them to fix other peoples bugs all the time, they are likely to leave for another company.

Re: Why I Never Hire Brilliant Men (1924)

#215

Post by dhimes »

jib wrote: post #210
nnq wrote: post #198

It's sad how this sounds so plausible and valid... because even today, we are incredibly bad at managing (or making use of or integrating into a team...) brilliant people and we fail to make use of them and we let them fail because we can only figure out how to make reliable profit by using readily available mediocrity. We should instead learn to recognize human diversity and accept that besides the "well rounded har…

A lot of people want to be "the idea guy", because it's cool and relatively easy. The problem is that ideas are cheap. The value of any given idea is really low - I would argue that for many organisations ideas even have a negative value on average, because you are going to spend a lot of time dealing with the idea without it actually becoming something that generate value in the end. Even if you have an idea, that w…

The value of any given idea is really low

I would agree if you mean average idea. Really great ideas are rare, difficult, and can change the world. The people who come up with those are rather special.

And, unfortunately, rare, and almost never (in my somewhat limited experience) think of themselves as 'idea guys.'

But this hivemind (nicely crurated by VCs- think that through) that ideas are worthless is very wrong. Unfortunately, discussions about it tend to start conflating ideas and execution- as, indeed, it is hard to separate them when you get down to it.

Re: Why I Never Hire Brilliant Men (1924)

#217

Post by mattlutze »

dhimes wrote: post #215
jib wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of people want to be "the idea guy", because it's cool and relatively easy. The problem is that ideas are cheap. The value of any given idea is really low - I would argue that for many organisations ideas even have a negative value on average, because you are going to spend a lot of time dealing with the idea without it actually becoming something that generate value in the end. Even if you have an idea, that w…

The value of any given idea is really low I would agree if you mean average idea. Really great ideas are rare, difficult, and can change the world. The people who come up with those are rather special. And, unfortunately, rare, and almost never (in my somewhat limited experience) think of themselves as 'idea guys.' But this hivemind (nicely crurated by VCs- think that through) that ideas are worthless is very wrong.…

Really great ideas also have low value. Even the most brilliant idea will have been had by countless people before it is known to the world.

The truly rare, difficult and world-changing is the realization (production, enactment, what have you) of a really great idea, and the luck of that realization occurring in the right context.

Re: Why I Never Hire Brilliant Men (1924)

#218

Post by jib »

dhimes wrote: post #215
jib wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of people want to be "the idea guy", because it's cool and relatively easy. The problem is that ideas are cheap. The value of any given idea is really low - I would argue that for many organisations ideas even have a negative value on average, because you are going to spend a lot of time dealing with the idea without it actually becoming something that generate value in the end. Even if you have an idea, that w…

The value of any given idea is really low I would agree if you mean average idea. Really great ideas are rare, difficult, and can change the world. The people who come up with those are rather special. And, unfortunately, rare, and almost never (in my somewhat limited experience) think of themselves as 'idea guys.' But this hivemind (nicely crurated by VCs- think that through) that ideas are worthless is very wrong.…

Yeah I mean "If I am operating a business and someone brings an idea for something we should do inside that business, the expected value of that idea is close to 0, and for some business it may be negative".

That doesnt say that all ideas are useless. Huge businesses are built off of ideas all the time. Whether it be by accidental timing, cutting edge research, new synergy opportunities or actively spotting a hole that can be filled, the businesses start with an idea and they are not useless for sure.

Once you are up and operating a business however, if an idea is not about something you can trivially do as part of daily operations (continuous improvement has amazing value) but rather is something you need to divert significant resources or attention to in order to potentially realize some other values, then the value of the idea itself, on average, is low, because you will have a lot of these ideas, and you will not be able to dedicate your resources and attention to more than a few of them at a time.

It is far more valuable (on average) to be able to effectively choose WHICH of the already existing ideas have the best return than being able to add another idea to the pile.

Re: Why I Never Hire Brilliant Men (1924)

#219

Post by espeed »

nnq wrote: post #198

It's sad how this sounds so plausible and valid... because even today, we are incredibly bad at managing (or making use of or integrating into a team...) brilliant people and we fail to make use of them and we let them fail because we can only figure out how to make reliable profit by using readily available mediocrity. We should instead learn to recognize human diversity and accept that besides the "well rounded har…

See this Charlie Rose interview with Jim Collins on his new book, Great by Choice: Uncertainty, Chaos, and Luck -- Why Some Thrive Despite Them All, where Jim talks about what it takes for a genius/artist to thrive (http://www.hulu.com/watch/298461).

Maybe these "always starters" and "distracted geniuses" are in search for truth and purity -- for meaning -- and are continuously iterating on and refining their value system in such a way that their values change between the time they start exploring an idea until the time they understand the idea. Or maybe their values don't change during the process, but once they fully understand the idea they were exploring, they find it's not valuable enough for them to commit more time to, even though others might find it valuable.

Jim's research reveals that the big things happen at the rare cross between creativity and discipline. It's the genius/artist who when they see and set their hands on the big thing, they grab it by the throat and don't let go.

Maybe the path to this intersection of creativity and discipline is for the genius/artist to first focus on peeling back the layers within themselves -- to spend time contemplating until they find their core values -- to "know thyself" -- and then once they have gotten to the root, they'll have the clarity of purpose needed to align their core values with their work and will be able to pursue their life's purpose without being distracted by frivolous matters.

Re: Why I Never Hire Brilliant Men (1924)

#220

Post by pradocchia »

aaron-lebo wrote: post #72
cbp wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

This is an interesting comment. My visceral reaction was that it was a huge generalization, but when I think about it more, I do have a difficult time thinking of people that are both charismatic and tech-savvy. The obvious example is Jobs, but even he wasn't the "tech" guy in a sense, we always associate that with Woz or others. I guess for a lot of people here Musk is maybe an example of it? Is there some left/righ…

my own charisma is inversely proportional to the hours I spend each day coding. more coding -> less charisma. so I don't think it is just a stereotype at all, but rather an emergent phenomenon of how we spend our time, and where our interests lead us.
Post reply on HN