[WhyOhWhyQ]

That's how it works for every organization. Not just corporate America. Want to play on the varsity baseball team? Better be popular with the coaches and other players. Otherwise you're on the bench keeping score. Want to go to Harvard grad school? Better be the right kind of popular. Want to be celebrated in machine learning? Better be popular by doing shallow work on lots of projects. The whole world is a scam, and the scammers always win.

[anonymars]

I don't think it's a scam, I think all too often people forget that people don't just automatically know things that are going on. It's an important life lesson: telling the story is as important as taking the action. "If you build it, they will come" is bunk

Marketing, publicity, networking, call it what you will. If no one knows a feature is in your app, it doesn't matter how good it is. You see this in politics too. That's why you have those signs on the road saying "your tax dollars at work"

I bet you can think of any number of poorly publicized success stories that didn't get the credit they deserved, or became victims of the invisibility of their success

[cal_dent]

FWIW, coming from another unknown internet person, this is 100% the best reply to this whole thread and the most pragmatic way in corporate life. If you think otherwise, you're an idealist and I wish all the best for you in what I suspect you might find a frustrating career. Unless you create your own company.

[drfranke]

Writing “I ignore the spotlight as a staff engineer” with a long description of how they’re better than the other person, is not something a leader that will rise in any company should be writing for the public, even if they’ve given up.

Someone else will always at some point will steal or deserve the spotlight.

You can’t have a successful show full of prima donnas that all vie for the lead role on stage. You can do your best, and have some way to promote yourself for compensation when the time comes, but if there’s this much of a problem that you feel you have to write a lengthy defense to the public, you’ve lost your way and should go elsewhere/

[lo_zamoyski]

Exactly. One shouldn't confuse the spotlight with communication. This is just a matter of letting the appropriate people know the things you want them to know or they need to know. We're social animals. We communicate. If someone doesn't know what you're doing, then, as the Captain says, we have a failure to communicate. Being able to communicate is a core life skill and part of what it means to be a functioning adult.

(I'm also willing to bet that the very same people who pout about not being "appreciated" would be the first to complain about someone "hovering" or "spying" on them, because that's what it would take for someone to know what you're up to in such cases. Like, make up your mind, bruh.)

And if you take a moment to think about it, those who expect others to just know what they've done are displaying the very narcissistic behavior they often claim to be avoiding. After all, why you? Why should anyone know what you, of all people, are doing? Do you know what others are doing? No, you don't. Not until they tell you or someone who has been told knows. You may think you know, but there is plenty that you don't know, and to be fair, perhaps don't need to know. The world does not revolve around you. Like you (I would hope), people have their own lives and tasks and concerns.

Think of something as everyday as a PR. Even if your manager looks at every PR, he doesn't know what you did to get there unless you communicate that to him. Unless you write it down and share it or tell him that you've experimented with three different approaches before settling on the chosen one, or done some kind of detailed analysis based on which you drew up your design, how the hell is he going to know?

And even if a manager should know certain things, it is pointless to make that appeal. So what if he should? Aren't there things you should be doing but aren't, like, say, communicating with clarity and coherence? "Shoulding" doesn't make things so. You have to deal with the world as it is, not as you would like it to be. Every manager is different. If your manager requires a huge banner and a neon sign to get the message, then that's what it takes to make him know things. Behave accordingly.

[SoftTalker]

There's an exception though if you're truly good. If you can hit home runs or throw a baseball with laser accuracy and speed you will be on the varsity team even if you're an introverted social misfit. You might not be team captain but bottom line is the coach wants players who can win games, not be prom king.

[marcinzm]

It’s not a scam. It’s a system that exists for people and made by people. Period. Money, outcomes and so on only have value because people assign them value. If you remove people then what you do has no value or concept of value. Life is not some video game with an omniscient score counter. Other people are the score counter.

[johnnyanmac]

In your lens: people are often horrible at keeping score, distracted by values that do no help them win overall.

Not necessarily a bad thing at times. Of course some chance encounter that builds a friendship or even family can be worth not winning that ball game. But actions have consequences and maybe someone else needed to win to get their goals fulfilled.

[marcinzm]

In my lens the only true score is the collection perception of the score. Not a number, not a formula and not what you think the score is. There is no external absolute counter you can point to because the collective view is the truth.

[johnnyanmac]

>In my lens the only true score is the collection perception of the score, not what you think the score is.

Am I not part of the collective? When does my perception matter or not? Is it majority rule and I'm just a pariah following my own beat?

Given the "collective view" of my country on 2025, I think I'll opt out of the score, thanks.

[cal_dent]

You are part of the collective, but that does not necessarily mean that your perception matters for the purpose of the score, what this thread is about. Sticking to thread, in terms of perspective on corporate world, are you a decision-maker? or do you have any significant influence on a decision-maker? if no then your perception simply does not matter for the game that is being played.

But also applies to politics you're alluding too. Every election cycle is strewn with the paper votes of much of the electorate because, although they're part of the collective, it turns out their perception didn't matter. You can pretend you opt out of the score but unless you're planning to live on in a different country/planet you cant really.

Your perception matters to you and your values. It's still important but it's a mistake to assume it has to matter to the rest of society/corporation overall

[QuantumFunnel]

People are terrible at keeping score for others, because they're usually only paying attention to themselves

[marcinzm]

There is no objective score and thus people are perfect at it since the score is by definition what other people think it is. Like the value of money or stocks. Once you realize that a lot of life is significantly less frustrating.

[johnnyanmac]

I'd say life becomes more frustrating of you really think this extreme. You realize your values and then realize certain people with contradictoryvalues aren't part of your community, hut obstacles to overcome. Now it's not a team game, it's a battle royale. Not necessarily winner take all, but overall a lot of people will lose more than they win.

A collective sense of "score" is needed to prevent that.

[marcinzm]

It’s got nothing to do with values but value. Are you doing things that provide value. Once you realize the only measure of that is how other people perceive what you’ve done it’s a lot less frustrating. It makes thing more cooperative as you now need to work with others and communicate with others and you know that versus clinging to a siloed invalid notion of value.

[awesome_dude]

Kind of no.

The example I am going to point to is TSMC/Morris Chang.

> During his 25-year career (1958–1983) at Texas Instruments, he rose up in the ranks to become the group vice president responsible for TI's worldwide semiconductor business.[19] In the late 1970s, when TI's focus turned to calculators, digital watches and home computers, Chang felt like his career focused on semiconductors was at a dead end at TI.

The guy was literal gold, and Texas Instruments pivoted away from him (I have also read that anti-Asian sentiment in the USA/TI created a glass ceiling where he could never be CEO

His ability to "hit home runs" was ignored in the USA, and only worked in his favour in the ROC/Taiwan. In both cases (positive and negative) it wasn't his ability, but who believed in him that made the difference.

Edit: At the risk of drawing (more) ire for making it political.

Almost all of the "isms" that the left are (in general) working to stop, are actually preventing economies from reaching their full potential - sexism, racism are the really big ones (because of the sheer numbers of people they affect)

[creato]

This might be a reasonable summary of the situation but I suspect it's vastly oversimplified. The trajectory of these businesses depends on more than who's name is at the top of the org chart. TI pivoting away from semiconductors and towards other goods may seem like a stupid move in hindsight, but even in hindsight it's not clearly the case. TI's move is basically them trying to be Apple or NVIDIA instead of Intel or TSMC. Because they failed at that, doesn't necessarily mean that attempting it was wrong.

And none of this necessarily has anything to do with Morris Chang personally. Many factors need to align for a company like TSMC to be successful. Morris Chang may be one of them, but there are other factors that may or may not have existed at TI. The claim that they didn't exist at TI because TI didn't like Morris Chang is not something we'll ever know for sure.

[awesome_dude]

> The claim that they didn't exist at TI because TI didn't like Morris Chang is not something we'll ever know for sure.

We do, though, have VERY GOOD evidence of what TI could have been had they provided the conditions that TSMC did.

[johnnyanmac]

>TI pivoting away from semiconductors and towards other goods may seem like a stupid move in hindsight, but even in hindsight it's not clearly the case

I think even by the turn of the 90's this could be seen as an extraordinarily stupid move. The PC was on the up and up and they abandon expertise on a resource that will only explode in demand? I'm sure there was some cushy educational deals with school supplies, but they literally left a gold mine for China.

[johnnyanmac]

Well yea. If you truly look at US history, you'll see the current situation in 2025 is ultimately a huge counter reaction to the idea of colored people and women being able to work alongside Caucasians, and some of the latter just couldn't stand that. "when you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression"

So. Tear down the unions and regulations, let the rich consolidate wealth, and everything else in between for 50 years. They are still moserable, but hey. They feel better than Enrique over there who just wanted his kids to love a better life.

[thwarted]

Sometimes achievements speak for themselves and provide the marketing for the actor. But that requires both the achievement to be extremely outsized, so as not to get lost in the noise, and very obviously the result of a singular actor. Only one person can step up to the plate and swing the bat.

[YetAnotherNick]

Depends. Look at the graph of month year of professional hockey player[1]. Player born in first quarter is twice as more likely to be in pro leagues than last quarter. Month of birth's only effect is that it gives 0.5 year extra during junior year to be in spotlight. It shouldn't affect player's performance in any other way. And the effect persists for decades.

If you get supported initially when you aren't the best, the effect of the small support can make you much better player.

[1]: https://www.lockhartjosh.ca/2017/11/hockey-birth-month-why-i...

[SoftTalker]

In the US, USA Hockey (by far the biggest youth hockey organization) groups players by birth year. So if you are born late in the year, you are among the youngest players on your team. You tend to be smaller, and less experienced, and unless you are exceptional you tend to play less. This impacts you from your first youth teams up until high-school.

[WhyOhWhyQ]

Where I went to school the coach distributed chewing tobacco to players he liked and bullied the nerds. The black kid who was extremely athletic got bullied and switched schools. The starting pitcher was an idiot who drove a big truck, and was not especially talented.

[SoftTalker]

Yeah I'm assuming the coach is a normal person who's goal is to build a team and win. If his goal as an adult is to have a lot of teenagers for friends because he himself is still stuck in that mentality, then there's not much you can do but get away.

[raw_anon_1111]

But you will never make it to the MLB if you are the best baseball player in the MiddleOfNowhere Nebraska and no one knows you exist

[johnnyanmac]

That ideally what scouts are for. Digging deep for treasure.

But talent correlates too. It's rare to see someone self taught that can be competitive with years of conditioning. So there's arguments both ways.

[raw_anon_1111]

True, but how many skip managers are going to go scouting in a large tech company for a great developer who is working on the internal performance review system?

The skip manager has a lot to do with promotions in my experience.

[johnnyanmac]

Yeah I agree. For sports, that player may end up being a spark for a billion dollar campaign. For a dev, not so much. They want to try and commoditize that role anyway.

[mh2266]

I don’t think being popular with the players is entirely irrelevant for players in team sports. Locker room cohesion matters.

[TimByte]

But calling the whole world a scam feels like letting the worst parts define the whole yet it can feel like the game is rigged in favor of the loudest or most connected

[micromacrofoot]

It is a scam, it's objective. If you live in ignorance of this you will eventually be taken advantage of. There is nowhere on the planet you can live where you can take people or systems of people at their word.

[fragmede]

If it's only an eventuality, then doesn't that imply that you can mostly take people at their word? If you do nine deals, and get scammed on the the tenth, then doesn't that mean those first nine people are honest and could be taken at their word?

[micromacrofoot]

lol no the eventuality is because a lot of people are just too poor to even be allowed to engage in deals — they're largely living in faceless systems where they're pre-scammed by faceless corporations

[venturecruelty]

Sorry, but this feels like a very American take. There are places in the world that still have high social cohesion and high trust. Not everyone is out to get you everywhere all the time, just in societies which encourage that sort of relating to others.

[theplatman]

there are high trust societies where you still cannot take people at their word because it might not be a culture of being direct to others. thinking of japan which is high social cohesion and trust, but still difficult to navigate business contexts due to how problems would be communicated.

[micromacrofoot]

Which one would you recommend? because AFAIK most of them are consuming the American products that are constantly scamming you... I've experienced this as a resident of the EU as well.

[fsckboy]

thank you, venturecruelty, for your take on who might be out to get me. do you think choosing a username says nothing about what comes to your mind?

[zeroonetwothree]

It works that way sometimes but I have found that merit and skill does get rewarded. The best case is when you have both.

[landedgentry]

When merit is easy to define and measure. I have a lot more respect for athletes than tech leaders.

[bdangubic]

with all due respect, every word you wrote is wrong. michael jordan was and still is biggest a-hole that every teammate hated - the best to ever do it. getting into harvard - nothing to do with popularity. mom&pop alumni perhaps or you can just be a great student, I know several harvard grads who are about as popular as wahington generals. machine learning - most celebrated are ones pulling 7-8-figure salaries no one has ever heard of (I’ve heard of one through a colleague).

[WhyOhWhyQ]

"with all due respect, every word you wrote is wrong. michael jordan was and still is biggest a-hole that every teammate hated - the best to ever do it." Bronnie James is in the NBA... ... .. . Michael Jordan was terrible at baseball and got to sign up for a real chance at the MLB.

"most celebrated are ones pulling 7-8-figure salaries no one has ever heard of"

You've got a direct contradiction in the span of one sentence... I've directly worked with people like the ones you're referring to and most of them were frauds.

"I know several harvard grads who are about as popular as wahington generals"

You didn't understand what I wrote. It's all about the dynamics of the environment. Academia is as much about fitting in just as much as any other place.

[FromTheFirstIn]

I think your definition of popular is holding you back. If popular just means other people like you, you’re obviously wrong- plenty of people are very successful even though they are disliked. Often this will happen multiple times on a single team at a company. If popular means you’re perceived as valuable, you’re obviously right. All institutions are social institutions and operate on social understandings of value. So to be successful you have to be perceived as valuable by these social structures. I think calling this a scam misunderstands the non-quantitative metrics of worth. There isn’t actually a Best Academic, a Best Engineer, or a Best Coworker in some measurable objective sense. Those are all social evaluations and they’re valuable because of that, not despite it

[Libidinalecon]

This is completely delusional lol.

No one that played high school sports can possibly believe this.

Everyone knows by day two who the gifted players are, who is average and who sucks. The good players are never bench warmers because everyone wants to win.

The world is made up of a bunch of average people by definition but there is a percentage of those average people that think they are gifted when they are not.

Then they blame the world for not understanding their "genius".

The most brilliant person I know dropped out of medical school and just raced up the corporate ladder. It took her about 2 months in any role for management to see she should move up. Myself on the other hand have had to really grind it out, constantly learning and networking to improve my luck because I am just so very average.