[BoorishBears]

>your tolerance for bullshit of any kind rapidly falls to zero

I've seen this sentiment and I don't get it.

I've worked with older people in tech who had plenty of tolerance for "bullshit" like showing a modicum of cordiality in a situation like this, on a public forum especially.

To me this mentality just sounds like... inverse ageism? I mean, most people I know would not want to work with someone who acts like this.

The brilliant but abrasive people are usually the ones we hear about the most, but are plenty of brilliant people who aren't proudly proclaiming "Problematic Guy" in their twitter profile.

So if you convince yourself it's ok to act like this because you've just dealt with so much "bullshit" over the course of your career, and you've been doing it so long, are you just saying you don't want to be hired because of how old you are (or how long you've been in tech) unless people are ok with a toxic work partner, in a round about way? It sure sounds like that to me.

I'd rather work with someone 8 tenths brilliant and not problematic, than someone 10 tenths brilliant and problematic, and in my experience, the team with the 8 tenths guy will be a more fulfilling environment to contribute to.

[toomuchtodo]

You might get it eventually, you might not. Everyone's life experiences will be different. It's not a problem if you work someplace where they care about the skill more than your bedside manner (which is a lot of places!). If you're brilliant and abrasive, you're still brilliant. If you're kind but not so skilled, you're still not so skilled. Enough employers to go around for those who want to work with cordial people, brilliant people, or cordial brilliant people (if you can find them).

People with dark histories of abusing their coworkers get hired into positions of power because they deliver results (not good of course). It should be no surprise that someone who is only abrasive will always be able to find work if they are a domain expert. If you generate revenue (or in a non-revenue role, are a subject matter expert), and can pass a background check (and sometimes even not!), someone will hire you.

Disclaimer: None of this comment is about an individual, only workplace logistics in general and my opinion on the topic. If a mod ventures into the thread, consider detaching this entire subthread as it's off topic.

[BoorishBears]

The problem is:

a) A lot of kind people are skilled people. There are so few roles where the pool of skilled people is so small you just have to settle for someone abrasive, yet there are so many people using the excuse of "I'm old so I get to be abrasive", or "they're old so they get to be abrasive".

b) Abrasive people take away from everyone else. More time will be spent building up "thick skin" against each other than needed and at the end of the day it's easy to drain any additional benefit of this "10x guru who doesn't know how to interact with people"

So much of value generation at a workplace is in "meatspace". Having the most technically brilliant product ever isn't enough to make it work. If the "genius" behind all of it is so abrasive your ability to react to needs is being cut down, you don't necessarily have a stronger product just because you have a domain expert and stronger tech.

-

> People with dark histories of abusing their coworkers get hired into positions of power because they deliver results. It should be no surprise that someone who is abrasive will always be able to find work if they are a domain expert.

I have optimism that this is changing. More and more companies are putting a stronger emphasis on their core values and actually defending them. And I'm not naive enough to think it's just out of the goodness of their hearts or a suddenly growing of a conscious.

It's because more and more companies are figuring out these people are not generating as much value as they appear to be. Spiking turnover, being difficult to integrate into teams, giving workplaces a bad name, even the compensation they receive combined with these other factors, the numbers just don't add up. They make very impressive and flashy output, but then take away from the ability of the company to turn that output into a strong product.

The realization being made is a team that meshes well can execute better than a "cult of domain knowledge", even if the team that meshes well is not as technically strong. The same way the realization is coming about CEOs who work based on a "cult of personality".

Similarly between CEOs and engineers, some of the most well known players end up being those that lead a cult of personality, so outsiders start to assume that's what works, even though it only works when the stars align and is a serious detriment when it doesn't...