On Technical Entitlement

"they're usually nerds, geeks, and other socially alienated people who have always felt below everyone else (jocks, popular kids in hs) and finally have some sense of superiority so they revel in it and you combine that with their already stunted ability to socialize or interact with people and it becomes a fucking mess"

I feel like this is the problem. When I was in the Air Force, we had the same issue with people who had been picked on as kids or who had never been in a leadership role. You could tell they had a chip on their shoulder and just loved the fact they now held superiority in some small way over the same type of people that used to pick on them. This generally made them the worst leaders, by far, and made them incredibly difficult to work with because their smugness alienated everyone else.

That was a pretty big leveler back then, because most students, even those who had used a lot of computers in grade school and elementary school, were mostly exposed to Apple II's and TRS-80's and Microsoft Basic. Lisp would have been new to most students. (I had learned PDP-8 assembler around age 7 or 8, and FOCAL a few years earlier, and later some Pascal and C code, and Z80 assembler, but Lisp was pretty new to me.)

These days, it's a lot harder. I suppose the rough equivalent would be handing freshmen a problem set using ML. But I'm not sure Universities could get away with that today. Back then, we had too many people trying to get into computer science, so handing out a problem set w/o any prior instruction and expecting you to learn a new language from the reference manual was part of the filtering process so we wouldn't have too many people trying to become CS majors....

This could be about Chess, audio-video club, Warhammer or D&D, any subject that attracts males of a certain inclination that make up for their woeful lack of skills in other areas by boasting their encyclopaedic and often ultimately wisdomless knowledge of an area that they have little actual experience in.

This reminds me of walking into a Games Workshop when I was in my late 20s for a trip down memory lane and getting accosted by an extremely social awkward 16 year old who harangued me for having a terrible army, even though I'd not played for 8 or 9 years!

My advice to the author. That's life, stop lamenting it. These people didn't get on the sports team, they didn't get a girlfriend at 14, they really are struggling to find themselves and they're struggling in so many other areas, so let them revel in their actual skills for god's sake and grow up and accept it, even if they can't. Because emotionally you're so much older than they are.

I am getting a little annoyed with the 'women in tech' meme, we can't all be rounded individuals at 18 because society, almost deliberately, is failing a large section of males. If this is making tech a male dominated arena then so be it. It is refreshingly simple and without the emotional nuance that many young males find hard to comprehend, IF this THEN that. Our society brought it on ourselves.

Men are different to women. Women are different to men. What you are describing in this article, almost heart breakingly, is many a male geeks first steps into a social world. To expect them to be able to function as effectively as you with other people is wrong. They can't yet. Some of them will flower. But that's just how men work.

But you seem to want to emasculate them all.

Me too. I think that for most people, that feeling will never fully go away. It's a common enough sentiment across all disciplines that we have a name for it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impostor_syndrome

But, I was confused by this paragraph:

People often cite social ineptitude as a reason for unpleasant behavior in tech. But, frankly, I’m tired of that excuse. The fact is, the behavior that comes from technical entitlement is poisonous.

My confusion is that I don't think of it as an excuse, but as the fundamental reason. The remainder of your post discusses how we can fix the fundamental reason.

Let's be serious now, we all understand that showing off is rude. A great majority of developers both male and female are good enough human beings to avoid being rude. But as with any community, you will have assholes who you'll have to either deal with harshly (e.g kick them out of the event they disrupt) or ignore (as you would when reading Youtube comments).

I think a related problem is that this form of bragging is often rewarded (I've seen this myself for pretty much my entire life) because for whatever reason it's seen as a form of merit rather than privilege.

I agree with other posters that there's some impostor syndrome at work here. (see http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Impostor_syndrome ) It is possible to catch up with the boy wonders, so we need to stop saying otherwise.

There is the issue of "loud" people, but what does it have to do with technology? There was a psychological experiment that showed people will assume people who talk/brag more are more competent, even if they aren't. The existence of that psychological effect implies that such braggarts do exist, in all walks of life.

But wouldn't it be better to work about your own issues of confidence than complain about unimportant bystanders. I don't think those loud people are very popular anyway. (loud == entitled from the article).

The author should read the book "The No Asshole Rule" if she hasn't already. I think it explores exactly this phenomenon in the corporate environment and describes how to avoid it.

Lastly, I think you'll find this kind of pretentiousness isn't unique to our field. Anytime you find a large enough group, the assholes will shine through. I'm all for calling attention to them and not letting them control the community though, so you have my full support!

In a way though, I think that's what drives me to push myself towards projects that are just on the right side of impossible. I want to learn that which seems daunting, on the wrong side of what feels doable. And if I accomplish that task, in retrospect I really only see the parts of the project that I could have done better. Whether or not technical entitlement is hurting our industry, it is certainly unjustified. There is always much more to learn than any one person could possibly know.

On another note, I think one of the problems in the community is that criticism is directed at people, not their code. We forget that people can and do learn and get better. For an example, read the comments about people who fail the FizzBuzz test, or those who code in PHP.

I think you and your friend are exactly right that the solution is to make a conscious choice not to be that kind of person. That's what I did when I was your age, and I've tried to stick to it. But the key word is "conscious". If you're not conscious that you're doing it, you can't make a conscious decision to stop. What determines that? I think it's a matter of growth: when someone is ready to grow in that way, they will. It can't be forced from the outside. But if you do it, you get good at setting other people at ease, and this helps make your environment more welcoming.

The feeling of constant inner intimidation is common. I have it all the time. You have scott_s's evidence (edit: among others) as well (and you should stick around here long enough to know that scott_s's evidence is significant!) It varies in intensity. One has moments of crushing self-doubt. For the most part, it's a background process. It seems to be normal for some value of "normal", like a wry playmate one is stuck with who never goes away. It's so common among creative people that it may be connected to the creative process. The solution seems to be to know that more or less everyone feels it and get on with one's work.

I really like Hugh Macleod's line: "Never compare your inside with somebody else's outside." We all do that painful comparing, but it's an illusion because of the fallacy involved: we experience our own inadequacies acutely and downplay our achievements, while doing exactly the opposite with others'. (Actually it's worse than that because we have access to our own streaming self-critical monologue and not theirs, so we're not even considering the same data. That's the genius of Macleod's phrasing.) It reminds me of a hilarious fortune cookie a friend used to keep on his office door: "A wise man can see more from the top of a mountain than a fool from the bottom of a well." We're the fool in the well and the other guy is always the wise one on the mountain.

Finally, if you think the know-it-alls are in a stronger position, observe them more closely. If they truly felt they were that smart, they wouldn't be trying so hard to prove it. It's a weak position and not a good place to be in the long run, regardless of how many people they overpower in arguments and status matches.

CS is one of the most open if not, THE most open field right now. There isn't a FE/PE/PHD/JD requirement to work at google/ms -- BUT there is the impression that you will look like a socially-retarded nerd, this http://www.google.com/about/jobs/teams/engineering/ is Google's engineering jobs page. And people wonder why there image-conscious teenage girls are not interested in programming...

Keep up the good work google.

If you lack the confidence to get what you want in life, that's YOUR problem. Nobody else's.

I don't care about who put you down or who made it look so easy or who was bragging about what. This is not some fairytale land where everything is handed to you; you have to fight for what you want in life. It's not a strange phenomena specific to technology. Life is hard. The good things are hard. The people who excel are those with enough tenacity, skill, and chutzpah to do what it takes to succeed in whatever their endeavor.

Don't like it? Tough. It's been that way since the dawn of time, and it's not going to change.

I would wager that most would-be CS people are put off from the subject not because of the arrogance of current programmers but simply because the subject is hard.

Programming seriously isn't that hard for anyone who has the necessary general intelligence. It's easier than calculus, for instance.

[edit] spelling error

I guess I've been lucky in that I started to program (for myself) because I was just... interested. I never studied CS or maths or, well, anything. But here I am, 22 years of programming later still not giving a damn that you can do language a or pattern b that I've never heard about.

I've come across this elitism thing so many, many times and the cool thing with age is that it (age) is inversely proportional to the give-a-shit-o-meter.

I largely attribute the problem to the culture of competition and entitlement instilled today on kids by their parents (makes me feel old), especially boys and especially non-technical parents. It's like "oh, my, he/she is so smart playing with THIS thing". Then this kid goes to college and feels they need to challenge everybody, and feels intimidated when somebody is better. How can somebody else dare to have an A+ on a test and ask questions to the teacher? I will pop up and ask smarter questions for the sake of it. Or withdraw from this major because I don't feel belonging. I'm entitled to feel that I'm a great programmer. And so on. This culture doesn't teach to just diligently do your assignments/job and collect your A+s/money. A clique of arrogant nerds sounds like an oxymoron to me.

I have a young relative whose computer skills are overpraised in the family even though they are nothing special. He had his first computer when he was 6, my old one. He knows how to create a powerpoint presentation, and attended a class how to build a web page, but when I offered to teach him to program, it wasn't taken (yet?). He's an A student, smart, but not very creative, doesn't take things apart out of curiosity and arrogant out of proportion, if there is any to arrogance. He ridiculed me when I wasn't able to find some button in Skype fast enough. In a few years he will be one of those "I'm a genius" kids in college, and his mother is already planning how she pays off his graduate education to get him the best job.

I've often seen people use jargon inappropriately. They weren't attempting to communicate succinctly and accurately with their peers, but were bandying around these words to make themselves feel smarter and more intellectually superior.

Mistakes are impossible to avoid, but you are good enough anyway. Your code might be good enough, but probably you need to iterate over it to find how how it isn't good enough and how best to address those flaws. We need to stop taking criticism personally and, far more importantly, we need to stop giving criticism personally. We need to stop attacking people for being human before they will stop attacking us for our humanity, before we can stop pretending we are superhumans because it is the only way for us to stay safe.

Tech needs compassion, because we deserve to be shown compassion.

When someone says that computer science/software engineering is not for them, then maybe it's because it's not for them and not because engineers are not welcoming enough.

To put it another way, let's say I enjoyed listening to the radio, and decided to go for a degree in music despite the fact that I've never picked up an instrument before. When I get to my first music class and find that it's full of people who have been playing since they were toddlers, should I expect that we'll meet on common ground? If I did, and then became upset about my inability to fit in - that would be my problem, not theirs.

Also, I think the analogy about shorting stock at age 9 is flawed (although amusing). What financial whizzes might point to is confectionary arbitrage in the school playground, or helping their father trade commodities in street markets, or mastering card games, or something like that.

I think what would help people would be a better understanding of how much value you can add to a business with even unexceptional coding skills. When i pursued my education in IT, I was aware that there were people who started at much earlier ages and people whose abilities simply dwarfed my own. But since I'd already seen first hand now my programming could help a business operation, I never doubted for a second that I was 'worthy' of being a serious programmer.

EDIT: I'm having difficultly phrasing this thought, please don't assume a negative intent.

If only we'd find a way to teach this as a practical lesson early in school, instead of a "sounds nice, if only" stumbled on as an adult.

You don't have to feel inferior when someone else is behaving superior. Society just assumes you do.

I guess I'm confused as to what technical entitlement is? At some points in the article it seems to simply be technical ability? Or is it technical ability that's used (purposefully?) to put down others? The article seems to place a girl soldering at a young age in with people who demean those who score low on a test all under an umbrella of "entitled". But I'm not sure this is intentional.

>I know logically that I’m pretty good. But I never feel like I’m as good, or as experienced, as everyone else. I always feel like I’m behind, trying to catch up to a group of super-elites who’ve been programming since they could walk.

This is how I feel all day, every day and yet because I started before my peers and was a helpful resource when we were in our first CS classes they regard me in this manner. Most of the time I have to shrug and say "I don't know" which they find surprising. Which leads back to me feeling like I'm trying to catch up with those people that do know it all. (Then again, I also acknowledge that some people know more about somethings [surely many things] than I do, but there are probably some things that I know more about. We are the sum of our experiences after all). I think there is always someone who knows more, and someone who knows less. I try to use that as motivation to learn more and get better.

I think maybe I just take issue with the word "entitlement". It has a different connotation to me.

I think I agree with the conclusion of the post. There's almost two issues at the heart of this. On one hand, it's hard to enter any field when your peers have an upper-hand of any kind. On the other, your peers can do things to make the field more approachable - like not be jerks, be helpful, etc.

Unfortunately, I'm not sure how one solves this problem. Some people are destined to be jerks, and when they see a strength over someone else, they will use it to make themselves feel better. :(

((Just read the bio, I'm also an SDE Intern at MS. Small, small world.))