[SomeCallMeTim]

>So tell me, is this a good engineer ? Great ? Or a disaster ? He's not exactly a stabilizing force, that's for sure.

Sounds like he doesn't want to be working there. Sorry, but it's probably the right decision to encourage him to find a job that he wants. Elsewhere.

In a few of the behaviors he described, I find some sympathy. I do have a high opinion of myself, and at one job would end up in loud arguments with the CTO over how to do things. Sounds like this guy takes it farther, though, doing things that are spiteful when he doesn't get his way. That's a scary, pathological behavior, and that alone would make me think you'd be better off without him. I wasn't happy when I didn't get my way, but I'd suck it up and deal; that's the only professional response.

And speaking of pathological: It sounds like he's intentionally misinterpreting instructions when he can? Again, that speaks of passive-aggressive behavior. And he avoids other employees? Not to say that anyone is in danger, but you've painted a scenario that strikes me as the backstory for "the guy who cracked, came in to the office, and went on a shooting rampage."

Or he's just Aspergers. Can't really tell the difference from here.

[rhizome]

Not to say that anyone is in danger, but you've painted a scenario that strikes me as the backstory for "the guy who cracked, came in to the office, and went on a shooting rampage."

This is a highly irrational conclusion, even with the meaningless caveat.

[SomeCallMeTim]

>This is a highly irrational conclusion

I would admit to it being illogical, in that I didn't use logic to arrive at that statement. But it's an entirely rational statement: I arrived there via pattern matching, though, and not logic. Is it irrational when I look at a face and recognize it? If not, then why so with other patterns I recognize?

And it's not a conclusion at all; it's just an observation. People who are as obviously disgruntled as the employee in question often end up striking out. Some, a very few, strike out violently.

The employee in question has already shown evidence of "striking out," he just hasn't escalated past passive-aggressive behavior. I used an extreme example of striking out to throw it into perspective: He's not happy, and he's willing to do things out of spite, and that's a liability, even if he never ends up violent.

There are lots of scenarios that don't involve physical harm: Leaking confidential information. Cleverly hidden time-bombs in code that no one else understands. Lawsuits. Spreading discontent among employees.

[rhizome]

Generalizing through an extreme example is the problem. Risk analysis is about probability, and the probability of a face you recognize being that person is high; the probability of personality conflicts resulting in an office rampage are inconsequentially low. Should we extrapolate your support for illogical interpretations to a likelihood of psychotic behavior? After all, history tells us that they are correlated.

[SomeCallMeTim]

>Generalizing through an extreme example is the problem.

Why? It made my point that he was dangerous, though to an unlikely extreme conclusion, which I admitted was unlikely before I even said it. I would hope everyone reading comments here would be perceptive enough to recognize hyperbole when they read it, especially since I called it out as an exaggeration. Given that no one is likely to take it literally, what is the problem? What is the real danger you're warning against?

Not sure what your goal with these comments is, honestly. Seems like I hit a sore spot, given the temperature of your replies. Apologies if I somehow hit close to home.

[rhizome]

So, a hyperbole not to be taken literally. So why post it, boredom?