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

How Bullshitters Not Just Survive But Thrive (2016)

linkedin.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 99 posts

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

#41

Post by fizixer »

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 mean, I feel like everyone hating on this article either:

You're ignoring the third possibility: S-W and CB types are more likely to say negative things about this article, and upvote criticizing comments (like one by basseq).

Personally, I largely agree with the article (I relate to the W-S type). However I didn't really understand the difference between S-W and CB (highly distilled version? author didn't expand on that). To me, all S-W types look like bullshitters.

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

#42

Post by startupdiscuss »

There are four reactions to this article that I can see right now:

1. It is incorrect, and the author misunderstands the nature of management

2. It is neither correct, not incorrect, but is vapid and superficial

3. It is basically correct, but poorly written and reasoned

4. It is correct

Let me respond to category #1 and #3, and try to unpack the claim made in the article.

I assume that there is no debate that some people do not add value.

Most people may also agree that there are some people who do not add value on purpose. That is, they are not interested in adding value. What might be more controversial is that there are many such people, and they are successful.

If you believe that there are people who purposefully don't add value but exist and thrive, then who are they, how do they thrive and why aren't they caught?

I think you will end up with some version of the argument presented here.

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

#44

Post by JamesBarney »

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.

I think in organizations you have people who craft their messages to different degrees. I imagine almost all of our manager's have said "Oh we can't say that in that meeting" or "how do we put a better spin on that". And I totally believe people who do this more, and better tend to rise to the top.

Competence as perceived by your boss and boss's boss are driven by your results and perception management. And this problem gets worse because they higher you go the less control you have over your actual results. i.e. A developer has a lot more control in delivering a solid piece of performant maintainable code than a V.P. does in delivering revenue growth. And eventually you end up with CEOs who sit around and play roulette while explaining to the board how the losses were unavoidable, and the wins solely driven by his leadership.

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

#45

Post by johansch »

Jurden wrote: post #30
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 work with a person like this now. He actually doesn't delegate a great deal despite being a project lead. He snows people with jargon, is often late to meetings, rarely comes into the office, and has produced no usable contributions in years. If I had acted as he does at any of my previous jobs, I would have been fired. I truly don't understand why he still has his position. The sad thing is that he'll probably get…

I have worked with similar people. It can be fun to take them down, if you're so inclined. It takes patience and discipline but it's oh so satisfying.

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

#46

Post by Apfel »

chairleader wrote: post #20
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…

You could also try the Getting Things Done approach to todo lists, particularly project-specific lists and only writing items that are the next actionable items. With both Pomodoro and GTD, ideally you'd learn to switch more quickly between the planning brain and the doing brain. This allows you to decide what to focus on, acquire full confidence that it's the right thing to do now, and act on it. This helps you tie…

Just bought the GTD book. That's the planning brain part accomplished, right?

Here's hoping I can actually find the motivation to read it and then apply the lessons!

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

#47

Post by manmal »

rplst8 wrote: post #33

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.

I agree. I do think though that author does want to feel superior, but has been burned/exploited by a person with those negative traits, and is now frustrated or outraged.

IMO this is similar to the player/cheater categories. There are people who cheat in online games, and ecosystems suffer from it - anti-cheating precautions make games more expensive, and after playing against a cheater, you feel, well, cheated. It can ruin your experience.

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

#48

Post by Apfel »

fizixer wrote: post #41
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 mean, I feel like everyone hating on this article either: You're ignoring the third possibility: S-W and CB types are more likely to say negative things about this article, and upvote criticizing comments (like one by basseq). Personally, I largely agree with the article (I relate to the W-S type). However I didn't really understand the difference between S-W and CB (highly distilled version? author didn't expand…

I am an S-W, 100%. This article basically describes exactly how I act. I know what I am and I hate it and desperately want to change.

He's absolutely bang on that when a bullshitter hits a performance-based situation they're screwed (I'm an early career academic in exactly this situation, it sucks).

S-Ws who don't want to change may well be criticising the article, but there are hopefully some other self-aware ones too!

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

#49

Post by switchbak »

ptero wrote: post #26
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.

I think that many good, effective managers would end up in the "bullshitter" basket by the definitions of this article: they delegate work (they better!), they do not work themselves if you define work as writing code or spending time in the lab, etc. IMO effective managers should be doing exactly that -- surround themselves with smart people, delegate and make working conditions fulfilling and enjoyable for their te…

Effective managers don't steal the credit that their team members have done. Quite the opposite in fact, they make a point of highlighting exemplary work and rewarding those that have made important contributions.

Management is also much more than _just_ delegating (of course), and I think I'd be pretty clear the difference between a good manager and a bullshitting manager, unless the higher ups are easily fooled in the ways the article describes.

Personally, I've seen a lot of this kind of behaviour, and I thought the article pretty much nailed it. Tangentially related to the highly cynical Gervais Principle: http://www.makingitanywhere.com/escape-your-job/

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

#50

Post by Spooky23 »

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.

You're fortunate. My colleague and I almost spat out our drinks laughing, because we were literally sitting in a discussion with all three archetypes locked in a similar struggle.

In many scenarios, it's easy for a person to be in the "S-W" role and get a great deal of success. I've watched the career of one in a large organization. At first they stumbled a few times and were "outed" as idiots. Then this person found the right role, and is now a senior leader. The true master bullshitters are insecure & smart and surround themselves with pliable people who will work like donkeys.

The tell for these people is vanity. They seek self validation by advertising credentials, announce any promotion and are forceful about projecting whatever title or responsibility they possess. Usually they are attracted to "hot", high growth areas. (easy to hide sins in growth) Infosec is a breeding ground for these people.

Post reply on HN