|
|
|
|
|
|
by cgiles
2531 days ago
|
|
|
If the premise is that being a nice, team-oriented person and being a good programmer are not mutually exclusive, then of course I agree. And "Zuck was successful because he's an asshole" is something that seems like an obvious fallacy but the more I thought about it, the more I realized it isn't really. "Zuck was successful solely because he's an asshole" would be. A distinction should be drawn between a "good programmer" and "person good at startups and greenfield projects". I would maintain that the latter requires a certain amount of assholery. Really good products are not made by committee, at least not in the beginning stages. Committees and large groups of people also tend to slow things down, a lot. You have to be willing to be opinionated and self-assured to maintain a cohesive vision of where you want to go, and that necessarily means pissing people off. Steve Jobs, Linus Torvalds, and possibly Elon Musk are other examples. So while 10xers in terms of pure programming skill will not be enriched in assholes, the famous ones will generally be, because they got in on the ground floor. The ground floor is where it helps to be an asshole. Most of us here are not dealing with such situations though, so I would agree to the extent that for 99% of employers in 99% of situations, considering assholery to be a positive trait is very unwise. |
|
|
You mention Steve Jobs. What about Woz? Without Woz, Apple never would have gotten off the ground. I suspect most of us would agree that Woz is not only a 10x engineer, but probably a 100x. At least, he was in the early days of Apple, before the plane crash. And he’s a super nice fellow.
One thing being an asshole helps with is becoming famous. Everybody knows who Steve Jobs was. Approximately nobody outside the tech community knows about Woz. So naturally, if you go looking for examples, you’ll find lots of assholes. That doesn’t mean assholery correlates with (let alone causes) success.