> think he's god's gift to programming and everyone whose work he disagrees with are losers
If he thinks like that (I don’t know him), he needs to limit the scope of what he works on to projects he can accomplish completely on his own.
If he thinks like that (I don’t know him), he needs to limit the scope of what he works on to projects he can accomplish completely on his own.
Does this mean everything he does or says is right? absolutely not, sometimes its myopic and tunnel-vision induced with a smidgen of good points hidden within. Does he come across as 'off' to some people? a slight god-complex? is he likely hardcore autistic and miss practically all social niceties? absolutely, obviously unverifiable, true.
He should have gone into Academia (not that he would have excelled at the 'school' side of it), and he still could, because I am sure in the future he will be an excellent eccentric and transformative professor or researcher, if he wasn't so caught up in the rat-race libertarian capitalistic technology scene.
With all that said, even though we align on many things here, I don't think he or myself could stand being in a room with each other for anything more than a few minutes.
I don’t know the guy, but if what the person replied to is correct about how he views himself and people who disagree with him, it doesn’t matter how good he is. You don’t want to be on a team with that. You don’t want to hire that guy. It’s not worth it. Let him make something on his own and sell it to you. Or let him grow up a bit.
how many times in history does this need to be disproven? some of the most insufferable assholes in human history were absolutely brilliant once-in-an-era types.
it's a chicken-or-egg question to ask whether or not the brilliance comes from the confidence or the other way around, but opinionated assholes that can't operate in traditional team settings have a proven track record of effectiveness in the world.
the trick isn't to ignore the brilliance, the trick is to find a handler or method that works to smooth the burden so that your organization can take advantage of the brilliance without self-destructing.
in fact, here's a rule of thumb. if any opinion anyone ever concludes with "Let's disconnect this human from society until they fix themselves" , well , I humbly disagree.
So you want to employ unreformed murderers, psychopaths, rapists etc. Or do you have a line somewhere?
Better question, are you fine with not hiring assholes who aren’t brilliant?
Key phrase in the quote was 'until they fix themselves', reformation by other means, particularly therapy (prisons are not therapy, and incredibly inefficient, which is why they have such a high recidivism rate). So, sure, we should employ *reformed* murderers, psychopaths, etc. As long as they have had adequate therapy and confirmed reformation. Of course, on a tight leash, but nonetheless, yes.
Plus, just being an asshole doesn't mean someone can't be reasoned with, sometimes you need an asshole or two on the team to get shit done. The ability to stand your ground with a considerable weapon of knowledge on your back is not asshole behavior, that's just knowing your shit.
I wouldn't hire anyone if they weren't brilliant. I would and do hire knowledgeable assholes, because they tend to know their shit so well that its all they know. That's why I hire them.
So you’d be fine with don’t hire assholes until someone else fixes them.
> Plus, just being an asshole doesn't mean someone can't be reasoned with, sometimes you need an asshole or two on the team to get shit done. The ability to stand your ground with a considerable weapon of knowledge on your back is not asshole behavior, that's just knowing your shit.
I agree with your 2nd sentence, but that also means that you don’t actually need to hire assholes.
> I wouldn't hire anyone if they weren't brilliant. I would and do hire knowledgeable assholes, because they tend to know their shit so well that its all they know. That's why I hire them.
I think the issue here is that you might be confusing people who can stand up for themselves, don’t bullshit, and don’t like to put up with bullshit with assholes.
You are correct - looks like we had two alternative definitions, we agree with each other here! I categorize your definition of assholes as 'dicks', that makes sense.
1. He was just one person working on it. It probably would have happened without him.
2. Despite what you might have seen in some dramatizations, there’s no mention of him being a jerk while working at Bletchley Park.
I visited Bletchley Park Museum a few months ago, it doesn't really mention much of what happened with him at all. Which account are you referring to?
In any case, history is littered with difficult geniuses without talking about just one. Isaac Newton for example.