Hacker News Reader

Comment by ramphastidae | Hacker News Reader

I am convinced that this idea of people who are just too smart for society is way overblown and quite damaging.

I see it so often in tech — the “10x” engineer who is just too smart for social norms like polite communication or hygiene. They are not held to them same social standards as others because they are “just different.” In reality, these folks just use the fact that no one else knows how their code works as an excuse for antisocial behavior.

Here’s the thing. If you’re so brilliant, you should be able to learn basic social skills, manners, and hygiene. It’s not that hard. And if you do find it hard, maybe it’s not because you’re a savant who is above these things, but because you have simply neglected to develop that skill set.

View on HN

One can be obsessive about a thing without being offensive about that thing or anything else. I think you are equating two separate issues. Social awkwardness is just not the same thing as anti-social behaviour.

And in my industry experience, having an encyclopedic knowledge of an obscure subject around a bunch of imposters does not go well, doubly so if their career depends on convincing others that they have skills on par with yours despite never putting the time into acquiring them.

To me it's like they demand everyone be fungible when the real power move is using comparative advantage to build a winning team.

> it’s not because you’re a savant who is above these things, but because you have simply neglected to develop that skill set.

The problem isn't that savant's are above these things, but that they matter very little to them. They aren't helpless geniuses who don't know the path to learning social skills, but understand that the reward of those skills just isn't high enough for them personally as it is to most people.

Its hard to relate to that because most human beings are wired to feel good in social situations, but there are those who feel good only when they obsess over the things that they're interested in (and find deep satisfaction from). Put differently, the reward centers that guide most people don't guide them as much. They understand what they're "giving up", but while for others that might be something of great value, it means very little to them.

> The problem isn't that savant's are above these things, but that they matter very little to them.

Then, the savants need to learn that the world doesn't revolve around them.

I might agree with you. People who are successful are able and willing to push that EQ bound, because they recognize all implementation achievements (e.g. businesses) are multi-person efforts. People who are "geniuses" oftentimes don't connect those dots.

I think the key to understanding insanity is that it's a visceral, primal thing. It is difficult for one to recognize, let alone control, let alone master. Insanity from genius even more so, because people are socially conditioned to "want to be smart" and that "bad things happen to people who are not smart", even though "being smart" is multivariate. It takes a lot of work to let go. Being able to understand the mental models of these people and empathizing with them is how we can build a kinder world, and maybe capture some of the surplus these people have to offer as a nice bonus.

10x engineers thing is a lot lot simpler than that. In vast majority of cases, it's just one normal engineer surrounded by a crowd of people who should have been flipping burgers, but ended up working as 0.1x engineers because of "talent shortage" which is in fact just some bosses being too greedy to pay normal wages. Over time, abysmal productivity and quality of their work becomes the norm, and one normal guy who randomly happened to be there is seen as a semi-deity.

Yes, and it's often enabled by the manager and the rest of the team who allow the 10xer to work from home several days in a row on a sprint until he's changed the code so drastically that only he can understand it

To be fair, if someone really does produce useful code that none of their peers or coworkers can understand, I wouldn't dismiss the notion that they are somehow "different."

I know you're railing against the Linus Torvalds man-child types, and I agree that I wouldn't really enjoy working with a person like that. The parent comment wasn't really about excusing poor treatment of others though, it was just describing the isolation that can be felt.

What makes you think it would be easier for that person to develop the social skills than for their peers to learn to understand their work? Maybe those people just neglected to develop their reasoning/coding skills? Or maybe people's brains actually can work in profoundly different ways.

I see it so often in tech — the “10x” engineer who is just too smart for social norms like polite communication or hygiene.

I have met a number of programmers that could be very well defined as 10x and not a single one of them were unpolite or lacking hygiene.

I have met a number of programmers that were rude and lacked hygiene and they were more like fractional or negative.

I agree. The common definition of genius seems to be one who is imbalanced, but still produces something of value.

These 10x engineers are smart, but they aren’t geniuses. Genius is more rare

The people who dominate the stereotype of "genius" are also those who have debilitating mental disorders, and far too many people can't separate those two things.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com