Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by emcq 3802 days ago
I can think of two people who might fit this bill. Both have a propensity to jump to conclusions and not fully understand various perspectives before passing judgements and weighting their judgements significantly more than others who are more knowledgeable and familiar with a problem (aka big ego). Brilliant by themselves but very difficult interacting with others.

Imagine a quick thinker from an accomplished competitive programming and math background who has a raging ego and a chip on their shoulder. From what I've observed some companies see this in interviews and won't hire despite solving the technical challenges significantly better than others.

2 comments

I work with people who, while smart enough, aren't mature enough. Common statements include why "(insert technology or platform or editor) is made by idiots" or whatever because they made a decision to look at certain design choices as strawmen in their argument.

HFS+ not supporting true case sensitivity was one example. Or "I hate spring/struts/etc." just because they once had to deal with a bad codebase.

A lot of it is just tripping over one's ego to me. I don't think you can become a mythical 10x by placing so many filters in front of your work.

Some of the people I've worked with who fit this description have this tendency to jump to conclusions. But they also love debating, and correctly feel no shame in changing their positions once proven wrong.

I have found that many people find debates uncomfortable. I love them. They create value.

(In fact, whenever I meet these people I've met from previous jobs, inevitably we end up arguing intensely about random stuff. And enjoying it...)

The no shame in changing positions is key; it describes the difference between humble and egotistical or science and religion.

I think you're right that many 10xrs like to debate, and that value can come out of debate. However the best 10xr Ive worked with was equally at home with a 3+ hour technical debate or collaborating with folks who don't give their best contributions during debates. Brilliant, efficient, effective, collaborative, quick, and humble.

Somewhat off-topic:

I'm not sure I can be described as "humble". I do however place extreme importance on sincerity, particularly in debates. (Being able to switch positions when proven wrong is another essential part, of course.)