How Bullshitters Not Just Survive But Thrive (2016) • Hacker News Board

Re: How Bullshitters Not Just Survive But Thrive (2016)

#31

Post by Apfel » Mon, Jan 23, 2017, 6:26 PM UTC

twic wrote: post #21

Apfel wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've tried the pomodoro technique. It's very good for deadlines. Academia doesn't tend to have genuine deadlines at the junior researcher level so it's basically just a matter of finishing the work whenever you can. What would be nice, is if there was a way to somehow gain intrinsic motivation to do stuff that interests you? I get extremely excited about projects at first and then tail off. I'm not a "finisher", and…

I had this problem when i was a PhD student. Towards the end of my time, i started doing something which fixed it, and which i could have been doing all along: make a list of the figures for my paper, and do whatever bit of work moves the next most important one towards being finished. I should mention that i was working in cell biology; in cell biology, you earn career points by publishing papers telling a new story…

This is such a wonderful reply. Thank you so, so much for this. It's so clearly actionable in my day-to-day life, too.

Hopefully you've saved my career before it implodes!

Re: How Bullshitters Not Just Survive But Thrive (2016)

#32

Post by thegayngler » Mon, Jan 23, 2017, 6:27 PM UTC

I comfortably and certainly fall into the first category. I'm not ever more than 90% confident...if you ask me directly what my confidence level is. I tend to be one who is labeled as not "smart".

Re: How Bullshitters Not Just Survive But Thrive (2016)

#33

Post by rplst8 » Mon, Jan 23, 2017, 6:33 PM UTC

I think people should stop trying to put others into categories to feel superior about themselves. People have a range of talents and shortcomings. No one is perfect.

Re: How Bullshitters Not Just Survive But Thrive (2016)

#34

Post by ryandrake » Mon, Jan 23, 2017, 6:34 PM UTC

mattdeboard wrote: post #27

I mean, I feel like everyone hating on this article either: 1. has never had the misfortune of working with one of these people. "poser" devs who care more about "communicating up" and making a show of their (often quite trivial) contributions 2. has worked with people like this, but doesn't perceive the behavior described in the article, for whatever reason. A couple times in my life, not just in software, I have wo…

I remember the first time in my career I encountered someone like this. I thought I was mistaken or crazy, or just naive since I was new to corporate work. This person MUST do something or he'd have been fired! But after watching for weeks, then months, as he literally accomplished nothing, instead spending all his time self-promoting, taking credit for other people's accomplishments, and "managing upward", I was convinced I wasn't crazy. His official job was to write code, but his real job was shaping the perceived reality of his boss and his boss's boss, and he was very very good at it. This person has, since, gone on to be rather successful (at least a successful sounding title at a well-known software company).

Re: How Bullshitters Not Just Survive But Thrive (2016)

#35

Post by johansch » Mon, Jan 23, 2017, 6:38 PM UTC

mattdeboard wrote: post #27

I mean, I feel like everyone hating on this article either: 1. has never had the misfortune of working with one of these people. "poser" devs who care more about "communicating up" and making a show of their (often quite trivial) contributions 2. has worked with people like this, but doesn't perceive the behavior described in the article, for whatever reason. A couple times in my life, not just in software, I have wo…

Maybe a majority of HN readers these days are fakers?

Re: How Bullshitters Not Just Survive But Thrive (2016)

#36

Post by mgkimsal » Mon, Jan 23, 2017, 6:40 PM UTC

mattdeboard wrote: post #27

I mean, I feel like everyone hating on this article either: 1. has never had the misfortune of working with one of these people. "poser" devs who care more about "communicating up" and making a show of their (often quite trivial) contributions 2. has worked with people like this, but doesn't perceive the behavior described in the article, for whatever reason. A couple times in my life, not just in software, I have wo…

> The work they do is all perception-management stuff. Shuffling around work tickets, setting up/attending meetings, etc., when they are supposed to be individual contributors. Meanwhile, they contribute nothing.

I've got a colleague who worked someplace where there was a lot of this going on by most of the tech team. He got chastised in a review because he wasn't closing as many tickets as others. What most others were doing were inflating ticket count - taking one ticket, making 3-5 smaller tasks, doing those, then closing all 5. Sometimes there was more work in making 5 tickets than just doing the original work, but their numbers were "way up". My friend was counseled to do the same so everyone's numbers were "up". As it was, he was the only 'low' number and it was bringing down other numbers, and no one was happy about that. Didn't matter that the same amount of work was being done (or... actually more 'make work' was being done vs real productive fixes)... the numbers mattered to the whole place. And... I think they were trying to get lots of positive metric numbers to beef up the sale that happened less than 18 months later.

Re: How Bullshitters Not Just Survive But Thrive (2016)

#37

Post by Asooka » Mon, Jan 23, 2017, 6:41 PM UTC

CiPHPerCoder wrote: post #8

basseq wrote: post #5

Ironically, this article also reeks of bullshit. The massive characterization: the sloppy nerd (W-S), the consummate bullshitter (S-W), and the "rare" real talent (W+S). Which sets up the classic, "you're successful, so you must be a bullshitter" (because those S+Ws are sooo rare ). The "CB's" he's describing are so incredibly transparent, they might as well be strawmen.

> The "CB's" he's describing are so incredibly transparent, they might as well be strawmen. Strawmen or not, I've worked for two. Those aren't fond memories.

I feel the article is written in a way that's crystal clear for those who know what it's talking about, but looks like a strawman for those who don't. I understand instinctively the kind of people he means, but the wide brush he paints with makes it seem like he's going off stereotypes.

Re: How Bullshitters Not Just Survive But Thrive (2016)

#38

Post by johnbellone » Mon, Jan 23, 2017, 6:41 PM UTC

ryandrake wrote: post #34

mattdeboard wrote: post #27

I mean, I feel like everyone hating on this article either: 1. has never had the misfortune of working with one of these people. "poser" devs who care more about "communicating up" and making a show of their (often quite trivial) contributions 2. has worked with people like this, but doesn't perceive the behavior described in the article, for whatever reason. A couple times in my life, not just in software, I have wo…

I remember the first time in my career I encountered someone like this. I thought I was mistaken or crazy, or just naive since I was new to corporate work. This person MUST do something or he'd have been fired! But after watching for weeks, then months, as he literally accomplished nothing, instead spending all his time self-promoting, taking credit for other people's accomplishments, and "managing upward", I was con…

I work with someone like that right now, and it still baffles my mind. There are several people that even openly acknowledge it, but nothing is ever done about it. There are times I feel like I am in Bizzaro world.

Re: How Bullshitters Not Just Survive But Thrive (2016)

#39

Post by rebootthesystem » Mon, Jan 23, 2017, 6:41 PM UTC

The sad reality is that all too often these people end-up in management position. I've worked for at least a couple of such folks. They were technically incompetent yet could say enough in meetings to appear like geniuses to upper management and non-technical folks. Master manipulators at all levels. It is interesting to note this is the very thing politics is about.

Re: How Bullshitters Not Just Survive But Thrive (2016)

#40

Post by basseq » Mon, Jan 23, 2017, 6:44 PM UTC

IsaacL wrote: post #23

CiPHPerCoder wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The "CB's" he's describing are so incredibly transparent, they might as well be strawmen. Strawmen or not, I've worked for two. Those aren't fond memories.

Yup. It takes a while to see the abstract pattern underlying their behaviour. Once you see it, its very clear. But for a long time you're distracted by the details of day-to-day events and you think they're just another co-worker with some annoying habits. I'm confused why so many commenters are quick to shout "B.S" on this article (are they BSers in hiding?) but maybe he is oversimplifying too much. True S-W types a…

  maybe he is oversimplifying too much

I think that's it. Even distilled down to two variables ("smart" and "work"), you're talking about three "extremes": [1.0S,1.0W], [1.0S,0.0W], and [0.0S,1.0W]. Most people are probably in the 0.25-0.75 range on both variables.

There are almost certainly more variables, and "smart" and "work" are terribly named.