251–260 of 270 posts
I consider myself to be an anti-bullshitter. I once said in a job interview that I knew nothing about the technology they were hiring for, but I was pretty sure I could take a decent stab at it. I was telling the truth. I got the job.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I always interpreted 'fake it till you make it' as 'promise what you could do with sufficient resources'. That is fundamentally different from people who just make up random shit that sounds good to whoever has money, without any idea or plans to materialise it or whether it's even possible. You do raise a good point with Uber/theranos/dao.
I'm sure that's what every person who deploys that phrase tells themselves (and everyone else) that this is what they means. The problem is that when "making it" is a huge long-shot (most tech ideas) and "faking it" is really easy (most tech ideas) then you end up with a whole lot of fakes that never make and a bunch of people who either need to come to grips with the fact that they are basically frauds or who will s…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, but I find I usually take a social hit by asking the question. A good 80% of those listening will think that you simply don't understand something. The other 20% are either indifferent or actively threatened by the observation. It doesn't pay to speak up about anything, you just get talked down to by those who are bullshitting.
I was kind of the same, very shy to ask questions and "look like a fool". That was until I got my PhD. I still realize that I don't know jack shit, but for some reason now I don't care, I now feel I don't have anything to prove to anyone. So, if I don't know something I just ask. Do you think I am stupid? that's your problem, not mine. Hopefully you don't need a PhD to realize that like I did.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How tf is Fyre Fest on the tech industry, that was 100% entertainment and hospitality.
Completely fueled by Instagram tho. It's on the tech industry the same way Trump election is on Facebook.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> “what other industry is there where the top decision-makers have never done the basic work of the company?” Isn't the answer... most industries? My understanding is that large companies in all domains are heavily populated with executives and managers who came straight out of business school and into a leadership position. There are those who rise through the rank and file up to the executive position too. I don't…
Yes a prime example is the NHS. Much management will have no experience attending to patients.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm familiar with this scenario. It took a while to find the right approach and build the confidence to challenge a room of people with this mindset. It is definitely possible to stand up to this mentality and succeed in a workplace, but it is a constant challenge. After a long time fighting these battles I realised I had gained a lot of skills in dealing with narcissists and sociopaths in the mission to simply be go…
Thanks for sharing your story. What screening methods would you recommend for identifying those great companies / micro-societies?
For me personally the logical starting point is identifying what is important to ourselves. I won't say a "wolfpack" organisation that tears shit up and thinks about consequences later is any less valid than a more open and considered organisation. So any method, to me, starts with identifying our own values and goals.
I made a spreadsheet (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/18frXcsVnPoa8tIxdVCqf...) to help identify my value "pillars", quantify their meaning to me in terms of fulfilment, then guide the process of satisfying those values. I try to explain it here https://medium.com/@aparker/spreadsheets-for-the-mind-de1c19...
Whatever method is used, figuring out what you actually desire is the hardest part, I find. Maybe I'd be happier herding cattle in northern Australia? I wouldn't know if I didn't take the time to lay it out.
I think once you know what it is you actually want, then it's much easier to answer your question, because until you know yourself, you're just bouncing from one situation to the next without full agency.
Assuming you know your goals, desires, pillars etc, then a lot of it comes down to experience. Investigate the history of the company you're interviewing for - do they align? Ask questions in the interview that put them on the spot regarding your values, they probably won't call back but that's a bullet dodged. Talk to people who have worked there before.
Do your research, search for local meetups, startup companies, be active in the community, stay in touch with colleagues and friends and always be ready to meet with someone new for a coffee. Hard to do between the 9-5, there's no instant formula, but chip away at it and build up a network of people you trust and respect, and who trust and respect you.
It has taken me the best part of 40 years to get to this point though, sometimes you just have to swing it but knowing yourself is the first step I think, as you're no longer walking into interviews as the "candidate", instead you're walking into interviews as the guy who they need (and if they don't need you, that's fine, everyone dodges a bullet).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thanks for sharing your story. What screening methods would you recommend for identifying those great companies / micro-societies?
I like the thread so I’ll pitch in my ¢2. :) If you end up looking for it you do so because you’ve learnt what you need. “Different people, different needs”, to quote the great leader David Brent. If you end up here eventually — interview the hiring manager and members of the team. You are the one looking! For me personally I’ve realized that a company being listed or near IPO is usually a problem. I’ve recently turn…
It comes down to knowing yourself and what you're worth, and going into interviews with an eye to interviewing them too.
You get to a point where you don't mind anymore if you don't get that call back, because that's a mutual bullet dodged. You probably do have to have built up an industry reputation first, so there is that initiation to go through, after which people should be telling you why you have to work for them and not the other way around.
I have anecdotes of working for CEOs, unlisted, who were absolute sociopaths, which I think is a great demonstration that there's no single rule or method other than investing more time in understanding ourselves first, so we're appropriately armed when deciding whether or not we want to work for a company.
Turning down an offer or saying no to an interview is often the best thing for both parties, which is an odd concept when everyone is supposed to be grateful and enthusiastic to be employed.
The notion of bullshitters needs to be brought to the front of our industry's consciousness. Our industry is one where the impostor complex is rife and anyone who sounds confident must know what they're talking about, since even the PhD's aren't half as confident in their field of expertise as a bullshitter is at anything. The tech industry is increasingly inundated with these types of people who manage to get placed…
> but something needs to be done about these types of people I've been thinking a lot about this. Why doesn't capitalism take care of this. what is the fundamental flaw in capitalism that allows this.
It's important to note that this study focuses on data from 15-year-olds taking a math test. I assert that drawing broad conclusions based on that sample is suspect and may be, in fact, bullshit itself.
The authors only claim to have strong results for the studied demographics, make further remarks about other possible biases, and argue these results provide some insight and encourage further research. This is perfectly fine. Not all fields have the luxury of perfectly controlled lab experiments. If we applied the methodological discipline of experimental physics to social sciences, we might as well give up now. In…
Bullshit!
The authors wrote an article entitled "Bullshitters: Who Are They and What Do We Know about Their Lives?"
That's the title of the piece. Not "some possibly generalizable observations about the behavior of 15 year olds"
Sure, the paper's contents contain the massive CAVEAT EMPTORs, but that's exactly how bullshit works in academic writing.
Bold titles, sweeping statements in introductions and conclusions. But enough profuse caveats sprinkled around that you can always say to anyone who takes a closer look "no see I mentioned exactly what I meant on page N"...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A colleague of mine put the problem more succinctly “what other industry is there where the top decision-makers have never done the basic work of the company?” Most executives in finance have done some form of financial analysis and reporting, construction company owners have almost always done a hard day’s worth of labor, and a lot of directors have had to do some acting / camera work and whatnot. In tech (especiall…
>“what other industry is there where the top decision-makers have never done the basic work of the company?” Not to belabour a point sibling comments have already made but I think it's the other way around, actually. Much more common to have a CEO in tech who has been in the trenches than in other industries. Compare the likelihood of a tech CEO having some software engineering/programming experience to the likelihoo…
Jeff Miller of Halliburton was a field manager.
Mike Wirth at Chevron is a chemical engineer and Chevron lifer.
Ben can Beurden of Shell is a chemical engineer and a Shell lifer.
Clay Williams at NOV is a petroleum in engineer.
Bob Dudley at BP is a chemical engineer and a BP lifer.
Paal Kibsgaard at Schlumberger is a petroleum engineer.
Ryan Lance at ConocoPhillips is a petroleum engineer.
I could go on, you get the idea. These CEOs have definitely been in the trenches.