You Don't Have to Be a Jerk to Succeed | Hacker News Reader

You Don't Have to Be a Jerk to Succeed

wsj.com

43 pointsgoles33 comments

Nobody said you HAVE to be. But it's fairly obvious to anyone with more than one full hour of life experience around people that aggressive pushy people go farther simply because most people instinctively make way.

The article shows evidence for the opposite of this

I'm not sure I like the way these types of articles frame things, because they tend to create strawmen arguments.

I absolutely do not believe that "nice people finish last" as a rule, and I know people who have been very successful in part because they are good people.

However, I have also absolutely seen many cases where people do get ahead because they are jerks, or corrupt.

There are still third cases where I don't think the people are bad people, but I think the system rewards bad behavior, which they take advantage of without necessarily even being aware of the consequences. Or they benefit from a broken or random system, and then don't recognize how they got to where they did, or something.

I guess as I've become older I've become more upset at systems that reward bad behavior than the persons doing it. It's not that I don't care about them, it's more so that I think a well-functioning system should have checks and balances and structures to prevent it, and in every case where a "jerk" got ahead, I've come to realize I was more upset with the people around them who condoned it, rewarded it, or took advantage of it. There's also cases like the third case, were I don't know anyone should be punished, and they're not meaning to do harm, but they do it anyway, and should be prevented from being in that situation.

I think there's some corollary or something to "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely" that's along the lines of "corruption seeks power". People who are corrupt, or who do corrupt things, don't do things that aren't in their self interest, or are self-sacrificing, almost by definition. They might fail, but they still move in the direction of power or money. So on average, even if there are good deeds that are rewarded, if the system isn't tight enough, corruption or unnecessary harm will slip in. It's like some gas or thermodynamic law or something: sure you can find enough of one moiety somewhere, but the flow goes one way and not the other.

I've wondered this early in my adult life because I was unfortunate enough to come into contact with some predatory personalities early in my business career. It bothered me a lot because I was raised to be "good" by good people.

However over the years, I did find good people who made it. In my experience, you can be a good decent person and become wealthy and successful, but even more importantly, when you adopt this style, you make friends along the way.

The people that I know that have been predatory yet successful have found themselves alone at the top. As you get older, you realize that all the money in the world isn't worth sacrificing good relationships with good people.

In many ways, one is heaven and the other hell.

I think about this a lot. So many people I know who have net worths over $100MM are kinda jerks, or at least have been/appear to be. However, knowing them really well, knowing how they are with their family, friends, how they treat support staff etc... I actually know they're not jerks, so what is it?

imo: They're just really good at driving outcomes for themselves.

That can be seen a selfish and often manifests as "that person is a jerk" - but if you follow along next to or behind them, you're in for a great ride with more often than not, good people.

Basically, they are jerks but not to everyone and you can profit off it if you keep yourself in group of people they are not jerks to.

Ive had this same thought. However, some (not sure me) would argue that this is still unethical as you should put other less fortunate strangers over ones self, or your immediate group.

I think if you live in America, this is lost on many of us and many of us have drifted into hyper-selfish, "i got mine fuck you" worldviews, and our communities have suffered for it.

My friend, you don't need to think about that second point at all, that is absolutely true, unfortunately. In America, it is lost on many of us and many of us have drifted into hyper-selfish, "i got mine fuck you" worldviews, and our communities are suffering for it.

You do generally need to be far more direct/candid than most people are comfortable with, and that oftentimes makes you seem like a jerk. Takes a lot of finesse to do it right.

In my job I notice the opposite: people who are successful dont hold back but are diplomatic and are never seen as jerks

blatantly diplomatic

Assertive is not aggressive. But for some reason this statement angers a good many people, because I’ve made this statement multiple times on here in the last decade and seen that response repeatedly.

For me, I'm not a particularly assertive person, so when I have to be or decide to be, it often becomes aggressive for some reason, it's like somehow I don't know how to be assertive without being aggressive...I'm not sure why... I'd like to learn how to learn this, tbh.

I think I know what you mean. For me personally: aggressive only happens when I start to go limbic; assertive is when I am calm. I can prevent the transition when I can feel myself getting defensive or scared, which turns to anger, and then aggression. But that takes patience and practice! Still working at it.

It's great advice. Thank you kindly! :)

> The message sent by popular culture is clear: If you want to get ahead, you’d better be a jerk.

Next article: You Don't Have to Take Popular Culture Messages Seriously to Succeed

Succeeding as a nice person is much more probable. The general view is just skewed by the successful assholes, because they are the ones who we talk about.

Then again, I don't define success as merely having a lot of money. Financial independence is one facet, but any money beyond that doesn't contribute to overall success.

Ironic that the WSJ is saying that greed actually isn't good, while 37 years ago, Wall Street's (the movie) Gordon Gekko was saying the opposite.

It was a movie but people took it to be gospel

Even if you're nice, once you get rich enough you're going to hire jerks to do your dirty work for you. Everyone with money needs lawyers.

There is this idea I see from jerks all the time, that being a jerk is about "the survival of the fittest", that their jerkiness is a strength that helps them succeed.

But humans didn't evolve to be the fittest organism through strength or individualism. We're in our position through social cohesion and cooperation.

The most successful people I've seen got there through cooperation, coalition building, and community development. Some jerks also succeed, and are used as examples of why being a jerk is necessary or easier, but it's fallacious to think every local jerk is following the footsteps of bezos or musk.

So the next time you find yourself thinking, "the best engineers are jerks, because it's a social Darwinian landscape", remember that the strategy that seems to be winning today is "strength through social cohesion".

Problem is we need that as a species, but success is individual, and the playbook is not the same.

It's really not. The successful individual is an illusion, literally no one succeeds alone. The best strategy for individuals to get ahead is still social cohesion.

That's where you see people manipulating/using others to get ahead. You don't need to actually help others, you just need to let them believe that long enough to get ahead. Manipulation is easier, but social norms favor the other. So you see fewer people with the courage to go against the norm, and because it also works, you see disproportionate amount of success in those people.

Cohesion is an old pre-industrial strategy in my opinion. With the advent of industrial scale tech and no limit to the amount of currency one can have..I think things are somewhat social darwinistic now.

I disagree. Or agree, perhaps. The Darwinism is there, but collective behavior and social bonds are still the winning strategy.

No, but it helps.

The world has givers and takers. Givers know they are givers.

Is this a welfare/ tax payer thing? Not sure what you’re going for.

I assumed they meant in the “Ishmael” sense

Taking the initiative and going against the hive-mind is often risky and jerks seems to be only type of people willing to risk it. Nice guys just meekly compromise with status quo and follow the paradigms.

I disagree with this. I think this is confusing being a jerk vs being decent with being assertive vs being passive.

Such a strange false dichotomy. There is the ability to use this thing called "tact."

Reply on news.ycombinator.com