Unshowy competence brings drawbacks as well as benefits | Hacker News Reader

Unshowy competence brings drawbacks as well as benefits

economist.com

42 pointsxiaodai20 comments

  the boring would do well to raise their profiles, whether by speaking up in meetings or talking up their accomplishments. If they bag bigger jobs they will anyway need to master show-offy things like glad-handing clients, chairing meetings and holding forth on strategy

Feels like circular logic to some extent. Boring is good, just don't be so boring.

I agree with the implied idea that there is probably a cyclical demand for boring vs bombastic. Zero interest rates and lots of optimism favours loud, maybe obnoxious ideas. Fear and downsizing favors boring.

Looking at the article another way, it reminds me of the "why are all car dealers sleazy" discussions. It's because that's what the market optimizes for, and those that have tried differently have failed.

Don't hate the player, hate the game

Hate the player. There is always a player regardless what the game is. There is no such thing as a better game that avoids this problem.

If it became hipster to be more conscious about how you respond to hustlers and everyone started doing it, then the exact same slime molds would become expert at projecting humble authority.

It doesn't matter what the virtue is, the same people are always willing and able to signal that virtue.

Absolutely hate that player. They exist in any and all games, and so "hate the game" doesn't help.

There are better and worse games too, so you can hate bad games as well.

But what is the point you’re making here?

Hate everyone?

Who should we not hate then?

The point I'm making is exactly the point I wrote. I could only repeat myself with practically tgr same words to restate it.

I explicitly said there are some people who exhibit these qualities, not that all, or even most do. The point was, as I said already, that "don't hate the player, hate the game" isn't valid, because those players exist regardless of the game. "don't hate the player, hate the game" implies that there could be such a thing as a different game, and changing that would resolve the complaint. I am saying there is no game that doesn't still have the exact same problem, and so it makes no sense to "don't hate the player, hate the game". Nowhere in that expression does it say, or even imply, that everyone is one of those players.

What good does this ridiculous hyperbolic jump from no one to everyone do?

"don't hate the player, hate the game" is just some deflecting bs that douchebags say to excuse themselves for being exactly that sort of user parasite, or by merely hapless dupes.

Because everything is (arguably) a game. Everyone just has different strategies.

For some, it’s ‘pretend it’s not being gamed, be honest, forthright’, etc.

For others, it’s ‘game the shit out of it’ (Aka those derided as ‘players’).

But everyone is playing, even if they don’t realize it (under this model). Literally anything where there is some competition or limited supply it’s the case, and that is most things in life.

That’s work, housing, traffic, dating/marriage, you name it

I view this less as circular logic and more as a bell-curve. At the extremes, bragging and bravado likely come with limited to negative results. But identifying that there is a region of optimal show-offy-ness seems expected.

As for the market optimizing for this, i agree to an extent, but i think it might be more base than that. People in general seem attracted to this sweet spot in both business and romance. It follows that the market would similarly optimize for that.

> the boring would do well to raise their profiles, whether by speaking up in meetings or talking up their accomplishments.

That does not say "boring is good." It says "stop being boring."

> If they bag bigger jobs they will anyway need to master show-offy things like glad-handing clients, chairing meetings and holding forth on strategy

That says IF they progress in their careers, they'll need to be pretty un-boring.

There is no circular logic in that. It's all saying "stop being boring!"

> Don't hate the player, hate the game

This is a terrible slogan. If you hate the game, how can you not hate the people willing to play it? They're just keeping the game going, after all. No players, and the game would change.

As nice as it would be, I think it's a pretty high standard to hold people to, expecting them to go up against the system. That's what it means.

I'm sure most people see things they feel are ridiculous every day and end up having to participate at some level. Anyone who is able to live without feeling that way is either in a fantasy world or incredibly strong willed.

I'm not saying that everyone should go up against the system. Simply choosing not to play at all is an option, up to and including finding another place to work.

When I see this line trotted out, it's nearly always referring to someone being in a group of people that are doing things that are widely held to be unacceptable. I see that saying as an attempt at trying to have it both ways -- to continue to engage in unacceptable things without having to take responsibility for doing so.

Don't neglect to play the game of figuring out which game you're playing.

i imagine it like a prisoner's dilemma. no individual can change the outcome, so you can't blame really the individual for following incentives

Prisoners dilemma can be solved by communication and repeat interaction with the same people though.

https://archive.is/wiM4W

A rather short and kind of disappointing article. This sums it up:

> Though Mr Judge’s analysis revealed emotional stability and general diligence were crucial to managerial effectiveness, extrovert qualities such as sociability were also telling factors.

This article makes some pretty definitive conclusions based on a 20 year old meta-analysis. It feels like the author wants to justify their anecdotes and not actually discover anything true.

Part of the complete package of competence is intentionally managing how competent other people perceive you to be. Probably a good default is to present close to your true competence, and have some flexibility on either side as the occasion suits.

Sounds like it just describes the Dilbert Principle.

The underdog quietly fixes the problems caused by the show boater. Show boater earns the promotion for ingenuity, not the implementation (which is only seen as working).

Most high profile case of this Jobs and Woz early days.

This article came at the perfect time. My friend was just telling me how he doesn't feel appreciated at his job.

I'd bet that the only time most people (who aren't self-employed) feel really appreciated at their job is after a promotion or significant, out-of-cycle raise.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com