Ask HN: Who do you respect, and why? | Hacker News Reader

Ask HN: Who do you respect, and why?

17 pointsh34t51 comments

People here seem to diverge from mainstream in how we value achievements -- in how we define what is truly 'prestigious' and what is merely faking / pathetic.

Google lets us make snap judgments on people dozens of times a day. When you google someone, what grabs your attention most? What do you consider to be prestigious, or worthy of respect? ...examples?

And the converse: What do you see people emphasizing about themselves over and over again, which actually signal they "just don't get it"? (What do people do in their online/public lives that you think are really stupid?)

View on HN

I really respect people who know their own shortcomings, and work hard to overcome them. In an effort to live up to my own ideal, I acknowledge that I often fail in this regard, and often catch myself dismissing something I don't immediately understand.

The converse of that is that it's always sad to me to meet someone who can't admit what they don't know, or can't acknowledge the achievements of others. All of the people I've known that I consider brilliant have also had an amazing amount of humility about what they didn't know, and have been fast to praise the achievements of others. It's a goal I strive for, but again, I know I often fall short.

"All of the people I've known that I consider brilliant have also had an amazing amount of humility about what they didn't know, and have been fast to praise the achievements of others."

I agree. I think this has something to do with the fact that a "learning attitude" is actually necessary to become brilliant in a field. If you haven't jigged your brain up to be really open and accepting to new ideas, you become too rigid quickly fall behind. By admitting what you don't know & praising achievements of others, you're not just doing the people around you a favour by being pleasant, you're also setting yourself up to become smarter.

I like how with this particular quality, "social" considerations (ie. being liked) overlap strongly with "mental/learning" considerations (ie. you become smarter). You win both ways.

I've definitely erred on this one too -- misjudged situations and thought they called for too much forcefulness/rigidity. Leadership and openness aren't mutually exclusive, but sometimes people make them out to be (eg/ "a good leader doesn't change his mind"). Probably because if you are in politics, you frequently have to abandon your intellectual ideals for pragmatic results.

(This is the reason why Meditations by Marcus Aurelius is one of my favorite books. He rose to the greatest position of power in the world of his day, without losing his ability to be thoughtful and aware, at least with himself.)

I respect only one thing: competence.

In fact, that breaks down into 3 things: competence, knowledge, and experience, but only because the last two are often indicators of the first, so it would be unwise to dismiss them.

Achievements are a symptom of competence, so I do respect people who have achieved what I consider great things.

However, even where someone is knowledgeable, experienced, and having apparently achieved great things, if they display something which indicates a severe lack of competence, my respect for them will automatically decrease - not to zero, of course, but still, it can take a severe hit.

The irony is that people who have competence, knowledge, and experience usually got that way by taking risks and pushing themselves out of their comfort zone. And if you observe them taking a risk that doesn't pan out, it looks like incompetence.

Everyone was a novice once, and even experts are novices when they enter a domain outside of their expertise.

Nostrademons, I think this is an important insight. I respect people who will go outside their domain because they feel a need to solve an important problem. It takes a lot of guts, for the reason you articulated.

>And if you observe them taking a risk that doesn't pan out, it looks like incompetence.

Maybe... but everyone makes mistakes. There has to be a difference between making mistakes, and making the same mistakes over and over again. I definitely think part of competence is how someone handles failures.

You don't get a chance to observe most people over and over again - that's usually limited to friends and immediate coworkers (team members). Not coincidentally, those are the groups you should tap for startup cofounders.

The original question seemed to be about celebrity personalities and casual acquaintances - "when you Google someone..." etc.

We're not talking about "like" or even "can bear the company of" here, we're talking about respect. I'm friends with many people who I don't respect in a work sense.

Perhaps my mistake was not to append "in a work sense" to the word "respect".

Also, part of being competent at evaluating other people's competence is not to base your evaluation on a single sample.

"More than three decades of research shows that a focus on effort—not on intelligence or ability—is key to success in school and in life"

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=the-secret-to-raising-sm...

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=297737

A guy was brought in to consult on a startup I've been contracting for. I googled him: He had done something fairly impressive and pioneering in the early days of the web, and he currently held a writing/editorial position at a fairly prestigious web publication besides whatever company he was with. He was supposed to be polyglot, writing in PHP, .Net, and Ruby. I was kinda impressed--I mean, I don't have a wikipedia page.

So he helped us get off the ground with some new-to-us tech we were using, but it turned out that his Ruby code pretty much sucked. So maybe Ruby's not really his thing. He was supposed to be writing about PHP at that publication, so I looked up his articles. Not a single one with even a line of code. Just unfulfilled future plans and occasional business/culture musings. And really the problems with the Ruby code weren't just syntax or library unfamiliarity--there were smells there that should have been bothersome in any language.

So I start filing bugs against his code, and it turns out he's not interested in fixing them. In fact, if the startup has any more "architectural" consulting they want him to do, he'd be happy to weigh in, but he doesn't really like to code much anymore.

Yeah--my respect for him as a developer went way, way down. (I'm not comfortable saying respect generally here.)

It sounds like he might have some great talents, but they're obviously not in the areas the startup hired him for (so he's misrepresenting himself?).

I once worked with an amazingly talented, ambitious young guy who ended up causing extreme problems for the company and for himself, not because he was incompetent per se -- but because he misrepresented where his talents lay (as a political maneuver, a power play). I lost a lot of respect for him -- for his lack of awareness and integrity. (He wasn't humble either, but I think that could have been OK if only he'd have been able to make good on his big claims).

Actually he fulfilled his most important purpose perfectly.

What he was brought in for to begin with was because the three of us working on the project semi-long-term had finally all agreed (or, the other guys finally agreed with me--but I was just the UX guy, what did I know?) that we had chosen the wrong web platform in the beginning by selecting some enterprisey Java thing that none of us had used before and that now was the time to correct our mistake and port the web portion to RoR, which two of us knew pretty well. The idea of a port made the business founder nervous, and she wanted someone to tell her it was ok.

So in a conference call, architecture guy hedged and spoke in generalities and tentatively endorsed the developer consensus, which was the best he could have done if he'd been the greatest hacker on earth, since business founder was being silly about protecting the idea and wouldn't tell him what exactly we were doing or let him look at the code base.

It wasn't until after the important decision was made that he signed an NDA and produced the bad code. So I wasn't impressed with architecture guy, but (without knowing how much we paid him) I'd say he did little lasting harm and at the critical point he did nothing in the appropriate way to allow business founder to trust her developers' decision.

An architect whose code is bad is a bad architect. Anyone who doesn't know first-hand the capabilities and limitations of the tools, platforms etc has nothing to offer but opinions. Not even at the level of "advice". And we all know that an opinion and $2 will get you a cup of coffee.

Right. I should have said "my respect for him as a developer or architect" or something like that.

That's a typical programmer viewpoint. The problem is, competence usually displays itself in tactical solutions. Strategic and long-term planning do show themselves readily as so black-and-white, good-and-bad.

You admit it here, "even where someone is knowledgeable, experienced, and having apparently achieved great things, if they display something which indicates a severe lack of competence, my respect for them will automatically decrease"

I'm sorry, but everyone is incompetent somewhere or somehow. If you don't know where or how, you just don't know that person well enough.

How do you define competence? Competence seems like a word that can mean anything, just as long as the job is done. Do you respect certain kinds of competence (ie. coding) more than others (ie. political maneuvering)?

For a politician, being 'competent' might mean, at times, being the most ruthless, machiavellian snake in the room (with the smiling, innocent face of a bunny-rabbit of course) -- because at the end of the day, he's the guy who gets the laws made / votes plugged-in and thus furthers the mission of the party. (and that mission might be an honourable one.)

For an entrepreneur, it might mean being an amazing smooth-talking sales guy (the kind who actually makes sales, not the kind who turns everybody off with an annoying voice) who makes you uncomfortable with the promises he makes, yet allows the company to just-barely-survive through a tough spot.

If a guy starts a web app company and drives it to success by outsourcing the programming offshore, do you respect him less than the guy who codes it himself?

Just curious because you said that somebody can have "apparently achieved great things" yet still display a "severe lack of competence".

I once saw a street vendor in Thailand prepare a pineapple in his hand with a machete in a mere 20 seconds: from 'as nature made it' to 'skinned, cubed, on a stick, in a bag' - in 20 seconds !

There really is nothing quite like competence..

tom saffell

N.B. From http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html:

Please don't sign comments, especially with your url. They're already signed with your username. If other users want to learn more about you, they can click on it to see your profile.

Interesting. So if a guy can learn how to do something quite inconsequential but extremely well -- is that a faster path to respect than doing a more difficult task in an average manner?

Reminds me of a study I read some time ago about how when you give a gift, get the most bang-for-the-buck by purchasing the most expensive product in a cheap product category. ie. You get a lot more credit in their mind if you give them a $100 scarf than a $150 dress.

I think that what I respect is anyone who is unpretentiously humble. People who just do their thing, do it the best way they can, and do not constantly introspect about how good they are, or how they are in a better class that other people.

The difference is that if a humble person who has a lot of experience in a field talks to someone who is new to the field, once he realises that the knowledge of the person does not match his, and it would be impossible to have an interesting conversation, he just switches the topic to something else. But the non-humble person will insist on trying to teach the other person, or tell the other person how things should be done, even when his opinion is not solicited.

Isn't that a harmful effect of humbleness? Less teaching happens!

I can tell you, most of what my parents and teachers and mentors and peers and students have taught me was completely unsolicited. I didn't know they had something to teach me. But I sure am glad to have their wisdom with me now. Even in the dim light of memory, I've had things people taught me decades ago finally flower to utility in recent years.

I agree.

The whole idea of 'humility' needs to be unpacked (anyone know of a good essay or book on the subject?). It's one of the most frequently mentioned values in this thread, so obviously it's important to people (and to me)... but it can also cause a lack of self-expression or action based on fear of being seen as egotistical.

I prefer to avoid the word "humble" and instead use "pretentious" to describe its lack (pretending to be someone you're not, to know more than you do, or to be more important than those around you), and "open-minded, eager to listen to criticism and change your mind" for its positive side. I enjoy people who express their opinions strongly, but are good listeners and quick to change their mind as the winds of reason and evidence change direction.

That's an interesting point you bring up. There is nothing wrong with people giving you advice, but there is a fine line between people telling stuff because they want to show how much they know, and peope telling you stuff because they care for you and want you to progress in life.

I don't think there's a line between them, really. There's a gradient. People have egos, but what they do is not solely for self-aggrandizement, nor solely for altruistic motives.

If you don't introspect, you won't know why you succeeded or why you failed and you won't learn.

This is exactly the type of person I am trying to be.

> What do you see people emphasizing about themselves over and over again, which actually signal they "just don't get it"?

Hard to answer, "it" has many values...

That the have the or all the answers. That they know and they have nothing to learn on a given topic.

Hubris, ego.

Also anyone who worships "personalities" like PG, joel, Jobs, Greenspan, Rand, etc.

In other words I care little about prestige, can't stand celebrity and value achievements lightly(which are often little more than being at right place at right time and not totally sucking). A person's character is vastly more important.

Character is something you can only discover up close. So, I personally know the people I respect and you have no reason to have ever heard of them.

I respect people who, on at least one occasion, have been right when I'm wrong and think I'm right. The only way to really get my attention is to defeat me. Other qualities like kindness and honesty earn my regard and I'll do things to help that person, but that's not the same as hesitating to disagree with them.

Regardless of what this reveals about my personality, it's true.

"Regardless of what this reveals about my personality, it's true."

Interesting. One thing I've seen in my personality -- something I didn't consciously choose to do, but I've observed enough times to know it's a part of me -- is that I am attracted to people who others typically view as intimidating. The more "intimidating" the person is -- the more attention in the room they command -- the more I seem to expect that I can learn something from them, and so I do the opposite of what most people do and address them directly and confidently.

I try to respect everyone, because I've found my own happiness seems to vary directly in proportion with how well I do this. In both directions.

I think you're also asking about who you admire, and what achievements you admire. Great questions, need some thought.

Hmm. Do you try and respect everyone purely for personal happiness reasons, or do you really believe that everybody should be respected, no matter what kind of person they are?

It's not a "should", but a belief that everyone is the same, in some sense; an identification. By happiness, I mean an experience of freedom and clarity that tells me this is the right way: that to think less of another human being is to think less of this one.

No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friend's or of thine own were. Any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind; and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.

That's an interesting perspective.

So... if I think along the lines of "some ideas and actions are much better than others" instead of "some people are much better than others" ... I can retain my ability to differentiate from good/bad or better/worse, without heaping judgment on human beings themselves... I can retain the ability to empathize with others, even when how they act disagrees violently with my personal values? Makes quite a lot of sense to me.

It seems that we have our natural way of thinking working against us on this one... from Fundamental attribution error on Wikipedia: "People have an unjustified tendency to assume that a person's actions depend on what "kind" of person that person is rather than on the social and environmental forces influencing the person"

Great insight, I wish I could upvote you more.

Like everything else that we feel, I sense that we don't have a lot of control over who we feel great respect for... we only have the opportunity to justify it in hindsight.

I think that the people that I respect the most are people that I feel are honest and trustworthy. I have no patience for those who play politics or talk out of both sides of their mouths.

You could be the most talented coder or illustrator or kung-fu master or whatever fits the bill for the project that I'm working on... and if you're not honest and trustworthy, I really can't build any kind of working relationship with you.

Well-roundedness. Programmers who can write, designers who can code, and so on.

I respect people who can silence the the inner voice that fears embarrassment--people who can "dance like no one is watching." I've been working on this personally. I'm convinced it is one of life's great keys to success.

More than anything, I respect awareness. I respect people who are self-aware, and cognizant of the world around them. I respect people who appreciate themselves and other people and the universe around them as the mystery they are, yet who still try to make inroads of understanding.

Compared to awareness, creativity, determination, and integrity, awareness stands alone.

> people who appreciate themselves and other people and the universe around them as the mystery they are, yet who still try to make inroads of understanding

I like this sentence. Accepting and appreciating mystery seems to be a real key to unlocking openness and understanding... maybe because reason, as powerful as it is, often fails to capture all of what is meaningful and valuable in life? So many people seem to put 100% of their faith in a form of "reason" that is demonstrably incomplete... they think they're being rational by leaving out mystery, but I think it's the opposite.

I've learned that if I hold the belief that "reason is my only god, and I possess it entirely" I miss out on a huge chunk of what I actually care about. But when I accept that there's a vast swath of important stuff (relating to people and relationships and meaning-of-life in particular) that I currently have no way of adequately describing my thoughts on, or fully understanding, but that I want to experience and discover -- then I seem to be able to live in a much healthier way.

The guy who stood up to those tanks in Tiananmen Square.

Hmm. How do you draw a line between respect for standing up for morals vs. pragmatic action that drives results?

I'm not criticizing the Tiananmen Square students -- I just spent a year in Beijing and I sympathize with their plight as much as you can imagine. But sometimes I think people are too quick to justify any action so long as it is done for honourable/high purposes, even to the point of setting themselves up to lose. For awhile now I've been wrestling with this balance between standing up for rigid moral codes vs. pragmatic getting-things-done. If you make something big and important happen, almost any means can be justified in retrospect. And if you do something with a high moral purpose, almost any pragmatic failure can also be justified in retrospect. What's more acceptable: justifying poor performance as 'honourable loss', or justifying questionable means with 'I made something important happen'?

He got the world's attention.

Once a year or so, I look up the picture of that online and ponder. It brings a tear to my eye.

It's the only poster in my room.

I respect people who go above the call of duty. Sure you may be great at X, but if you only do whats assigned to you, it shows me that its just a job for you and not something you truly enjoy.

Collectively, HN posters and commenters seem to 90% get it. Unbelievable for a website like this.

Reddit runs at about 50%

Metafilter runs at about 40%

Digg at 5%

Slashdot is into negative figures.

I think the people that I most respect are the people that inspire me to be better. So in no particular order:

Steve "Woz" Wozniak, Sir James Dyson, Yuri Gagarin & Fred Hollows are the ones that I could name off the top of my head.

People who are diligent, intelligent and most importantly, compassionate.

I respect those that have found a job they truly enjoy doing.

I respect demonstrated performance.

Is is done? Does it work? Does it bring value to others?

Anything less is just posing.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com