[SyberShock]

> This community especially can be very toxic to people that are starting out, that aren't geniuses

The toxic ones are especially cruel to people that have special genius.

And the toxic ones usually consider themselves the deep well of genius. Anything that threatens that perception incurs ire.

You can find this in places where there is a, "pecking order" and someone who comes along with a new inspiration gets beat down viciously.

[AlbertCory]

"Consider the source" is always good advice.

In interpersonal life, you have more to go on about the source. He or she is obviously an opinionated know-nothing loudmouth. Online, you either have to know the sender, or guess from the community.

StackExchange is especially infested with those, so you can safely assume anyone trashing your idea is one of them. Reddit, too, pretty much. HN has some of those, but not everyone is like that.

[csydas]

I can understand how this conclusion is reached, but I would position that it's less about the specific skill in any given subject and more just about a person's own perception of what is and is not appropriate for interpersonal actions. I know a lot of incredibly smart and gifted people in the programming sphere who are the most gregarious and kind persons you might ever meet, ready to help on just about any problem they're able to -- I've also met the types you're mentioning, and I'm not sure that their way of handling themselves is a requirement or even characteristic for such genius.

Bumping into such personalities when it comes to their subject matter of expertise might be a challenge, sure. They are sure of themselves, direct to a fault, and it takes a lot to get them to reconsider their point of view or even explain it sometimes as they tend to get pretty dogmatic about it. It can be tempting to associate this with their skill level in the subject matter, but I see the same boisterous bravado from the C-levels and VPs when they decide there is something they _must_ opine on without having any knowledge in the domain.

In my experiences, those who just react "screw you guys I'm going home" when challenged aren't quite the superstars they present themselves as; the real superstars are far more open to their ideas being challenged because, in my experience again, they _like_ that sort of challenge. It's not earth shattering for their ego to be corrected, it's a moment of embarrassment, then a moment of appreciation as their mental model adjust and they begin to realize how many axioms they've held based of their previously incorrect logic begin to change/drop away, and they are unburdened by this correction, not harmed.

That is to say, I'm not sure that it's at all related to the skill level or special geniuses, it's just too easy to fall into a perception for oneself of "smart people are always right and when someone challenges them, the only correct path is to assert dominance above all else"; I don't think you need to tie such behavior to any particular industry or skillset, I can guarantee you that this happens in virtually all spheres.

With regards to the article, I think the author maybe has the start of a well developed idea that is marred by trying to associate it with success in the tech world; Steve Jobs may have bucked trends in the industry by going all-in on a nascent technology which ended up making Apple the household name for smartphones; I don't think it was out of any particular inspiration except that "this is coming anyways, and it's gonna make us a shitload of money"; Jobs might have known when he was wrong, but from the stories available, doesn't seem he was often humble about it.

But I would propose don't associate that kind of toxicity with the field; there are a lot of things that encourage such behavior, sure, but I think a lot of this is just the same outdated/ineffective ideas of leadership and decision making that have plagued the world for some time -- it's quite fast to see that this is in just about any community that gets big enough, and it's not exactly a game we _have_ to play, it's just one we continue to play for whatever reason...†

† Addendum: This is not to speak of workplace hierarchies and the ridiculousness that is the structure of a Corporation. From personal experience, such hierarchical power is absolutely a farce, the same in my mind as a pyramid scheme. My reasoning for this is that despite my very fancy title and rapid rise to this title, I know that the title is only useful so long as the person I'm talking with is willing to give it power. My colleagues will absolutely "go over my head" instead of discussing items with me if they don't get the answer they like right away, and our clients will do the same. I think the sooner we can do away with such stringent and pointless hierarchies the better, as it's hard for me to see them as anything but a show to allow the people with real power in such hierarchies to get their way.

[barrysteve]

Steve had the kind of ego-less pride that has existed in the US since time immemorial. He pushed his image much more than normal, though.

The power in heirarchies, is not the title, but the relationships between 'brothers' inside it.

Titles are closer to recognition of your 'mission' or 'role' in the organization.

Being part of a heirarchy in name only, being part of a heirarchy only for the title, is a slippery slope downwards.

Commitment to dogma, commitment to the mission, has no direct relation to competence. It can help, it can hinder, the person's ability matters more.

[csydas]

> The power in heirarchies, is not the title, but the relationships between 'brothers' inside it.

I would disagree to an extent -- for those in the brotherhood, yes it's about the relationships; for the rest, it's about the title(s). The hierarchy exists as an exclusionary barrier ensuring those outside it respect the hierarchy, while those inside play with the hierarchy of the brotherhood.

From my experiences across many businesses, this is an accurate representation of hierarchy and titles; they are a tool of force against those without the title, except for those who are close with someone else within the hierarchy who is willing to forgo the hierarchy and mission/purpose of the org. It's wildly inconsistent, prone to errors and really bad decision making, and it's quite hard to unravel for virtually anyone who wants another way of doing things.

[barrysteve]

Businesses and corporations need a heirarchy to withhold knowledge and information from outsiders and 'insiders hungry enough to be dangerous'.

But the natural state for a heirarchy is in an institution, or a military, or a government.

As soon as you make money, your final measure of existence, heirarchy is crippled (to varying degrees) as a concept.

Heirarchy in a business is nearly identical as keeping people 'on a shelf' ready to be deployed onto the storm and stress of work. Businesses heirarchies are flatter, often chaotic and lose rigour and discipline, anytime someone sees financial benefit in bending the rules.

A pure heirachy like something seen on a british navy frigate, or in a religious instution, is a better mental model for the concept. Business needs, flatten out what the ideal concept is capable of producing.

[csydas]

i get what you’re saying, but i don’t see those as true hierarchies either. they suffer the same issues and problems as described above.

the simple idea of implicit authority because of rank or position does not seem to work as soon as there is an incentive to misuse it; i don’t know what the answer is to this but i don’t really subscribe that the majority of the hierarchies matter so much.

the open source model of “just fork it if you don’t agree” isn’t great, but i would say it’s a start. maintainers define the goal and purpose of the project, but if you don’t like the rules, fork and go your separate ways. this is vastly simplified of course, but i think it better represents a model that would be reasonable for a hierarchy.

[jordanreger]

well said