Hacker News Reader

Comment by spolsky | Hacker News Reader

I don't get it. What was the ruthless thing he did? Making friends?

> "Saul also had a network of a few locations he frequented where he knew the people and the staff. At any social gathering, Saul would work to navigate the group to these 'safe' territories, where he would then be in control of the situation."

Honestly, if you don't have a list of these places in your back pocket (or your noggin), you're doing it wrong. Having your "regular" place is incredibly valuable when you're trying to make a good impression on new people - not only does is communicate a sense of worth (you know the chef?!) but also because it's a known quantity (you know you can get a table, you know the menu so nobody will be left out awkwardly, etc).

I think the ruthless part was dumping his friendships with "the little people" as soon as they were no longer aiding his advancement.

Isn't always necessarily a good way to stay ahead, either, unless you never guess wrong. If one of those little people you fake-befriended and then got rid of ends up in a position where you need something from them in the future, you're screwed. A lot of people end up in random places you might not expect, and often remember how people treated them when they were "unimportant".

"If one of those little people you fake-befriended and then got rid of ends up in a position where you need something from them in the future, you're screwed."

Or as my father put it, "The people you meet on the way up are the people you meet on the way down."

I picked on a kid when I was really young. Now he plays baseball for Stanford and I'm a desk jockey.

In some environments, that's an expected and positive thing. My dad was in the Marines between '45 and '69 and when you made corporal or sergeant, you weren't allowed to go out drinking with the privates and PFC's anymore. In a hierarchical system you don't fraternize with the people below you. It only gets in the way when you have to try and lead them.

I think that what I would say was ruthless was the way the relationship building was done for the purpose of moving him ahead, and not for any genuine need for a relationship with other people.

I think a number of people will not like that, but I of course recognize that people who want to move ahead quickly have to do this.

I read it as, nerds are bad at making friends and being friendly, so they write off friendliness as sociopathy.

I've found that being friendly and helping people get things done is the way you move forward in an organization because those are the skills you need in management.

There is no doubt that this guy would be good management material, considering that he knows how to get things done and knows how to be friendly with people in a manner that helps him out. But the point is: a lot of people who want to be in upper management are not willing to build their relationships with other people in the company based off a non-personal need. They want their friends to be real friends, and not just strategic short term allies.

I'm not picking a side here, I'm just pointing out the operating mode that has resulted (in my observation) in at least one person getting ahead pretty quick.

This...

"You need to have close friends that are at your stage in life and higher, and for that, you have to leave the ones that stayed behind back."

...is not the same as being friendly. It's actual sociopathy.

Please. Some people care about their career more than they care about their relationships. How is this any more "sociopathic" than (for example) someone who neglects friends and family because they're working 16 hours a day?

I think there's a difference between neglecting people and actively manipulating them by faking friendship.

One is neglect and the other is active manipulation for the purpose of using people as if they were hammers and screwdrivers.

It's not neccessarily sociopathy, but points to a lesson the be aware of who you hang around with.

I heard a stat last year that said that most people make within +-10% of their 5 closest friends salaries. It makes sense when you think about it. If you're hanging out with people who work dead end jobs and simply get blasted every weekend your most likely going to be doing similar things. Likewise, if you hang out with people are always coming with ideas for companies and following through you'll likely be doing same thing.

We have to beware of things that "make sense," especially where cause and effect come in. To me it seems much more likely that people hang around more with people who are in similar circumstances. Since the people you spend the most time with become your best friends, it's no surprise that people will have similar incomes to their best friends.

What's wrong with just calling it sociopathy? Using people as tools to get your way is the definition of sociopathy, regardless of whether they're being "friendly" or not.

The only reason "friendliness" works is because people think it's genuine, instead of a gimmick to get ahead.

Why do people have to pretend these guys have some kind of great virtue? They're getting what they want, no need to sugar coat their behavior and give them accolades they don't deserve. Call a spade a spade.

"He got friendly with the boss, and 6 months later, he was a manager. His old friends said that Saul would walk by them, chatting and laughing with the managers, and it would be like they never existed."

If this is how you define ruthlessness perhaps you need some tougher skin.

Maybe. Or maybe I just have a different preference.

Yeah I didn't really see anything he did as particularly ruthless. I think of ruthlessness as more akin to making it to the top by destroying those ahead of you and keeping a short leash on those below you, perhaps utilizing deceit, betrayal, and duplicitous manipulation. Everyone seemed to at least have a favorable opinion of this guy which is not how most people tend to feel towards someone described as "ruthless".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com