douglasallen

Those were copy-pastes so you can easily google what I wrote.

Or just go read a book, textbook, or journal article on the big 5 system.

Source: I'm a grad student in psychology. Specializing in empirically keyed personality psychometrics (i.e. psychology centered on data analytics. I also have a BS in CS. I'm basically a "data scientist" / statistician)

>Non-agreeableness is not the same as meanness.

You are wrong.

Disagreeable individuals place self-interest above getting along with others. They are generally unconcerned with others' well-being, and therefore are unlikely to extend themselves for other people. Sometimes their skepticism about others' motives causes them to be suspicious, unfriendly, and uncooperative. People very low on agreeableness have a tendency to be manipulative in their social relationships. They are more likely to compete than to cooperate.

Do you have any actual knowledge of the Big Five psychometric scales, or are you just saying that because you want it to be true?

Disagreeableness is a scientifically validated and incontrovertible synonym for meanness.

Agreeableness is a personality trait manifesting itself in individual behavioral characteristics that are perceived as kind, sympathetic, cooperative, warm and considerate. In contemporary personality psychology, agreeableness is one of the five major dimensions of personality structure, reflecting individual differences in cooperation and social harmony. People who score high on this dimension tend to believe that most people are honest, decent, and trustworthy.

Agreeableness is a synonym for niceness.

Contrast the "media noise" of Woz with Jobs.

There are hundreds of reports from colleagues, family, friends about the characters of each of these people. They are completely different.

There is video evidence confirming these judgement. There is video evidence of Woz going around being a pretty sweet guy. There is video evidence of Jobs berating people and being mean.

Should we--the unconnected public--pretend that we can't know anything about these people just because we haven't met them?

It's not true that you have to know someone personally to judge their character.

We, the masses, don't judge people by how they treat their friends, superiors, or other rich, connected, powerful people (like you).

We judge them by how they treat the little people.

Being mean is like being trustworthy. Sometimes it only takes one sufficiently mean act to become a mean person--especially if that mean act is toward a little person who can't do anything to fight back.

You're a modern aristocrat, Paul, whether you like it or not. Not every aristocrat is abusive but one trend throughout history is that the kind aristocrats usually protect the evil ones. The servants know the difference. The nice aristocrats are ignorant. The mean artistocrats pull the wool over the eyes of the nice ones. If the servants complain about the mean ones, the nice ones side with the mean ones. Class solidarity, willful ignorance, or both?

I am very sure this is what is happening in Paul Graham's case, and likely yours too. You are apologizing for the cruel aristocrats because they don't show you their true colors.

1. Researchers identify psychopaths using the rigorous statistical techniques of forensic psychology

2. Counsellors identify psychopaths based on a pattern of actions that lack empathy. A psychopath might be very "nice" when he meets you, but as soon as he can benefit by throwing you under the bus, he does so with no display of remorse. The lack of empathy is the defining characteristic of the psychopath--a non-psychopath will refrain from throwing someone under the bus because they empathize with that person. Steve Jobs fucked over his colleagues without remorse. Woz then gave them all money because Woz felt bad--Woz showed that he has empathy. Jobs showed he does not. This is why psychologists consider Jobs an obvious case of a psychopath.

3. Vulnerable people discover psychopaths due to the classic psychopath turn. When at a moment's notice the person you thought was so nice to you turns on you and you realize they were just using you. When they "turn" they go back on promises, they throw you under the bus, backstab you, generally fuck you over. Usually they do this by getting you to trust them first because they seemed so nice that you trusted them. This happens ALL THE TIME in the tech industry and if pg isn't aware of these cases he is willfully ignorant.

How are his vibes less credible than Jessica's?

Judge a person not by how they treat their superiors (Jessica, Paul) but how they treat those weaker than them, or those who can't do anything for them.

You are happy to take Paul's intuitions as data, but the intuitions of real people NOT in a position of power, who interacted with this guy in a place where he will show his true colors, you will dismiss.

There is rigorous empirical research showing that psychopaths are more prevalent among the successful.

"Studies conducted by forensic psychologist Robert Hare indicate that about 1 percent of the general population can be categorized as psychopathic, but the prevalence rate in the financial services industry is 10 percent.

These "financial psychopaths" generally lack empathy and interest in what other people feel or think. At the same time, they display an abundance of charm, charisma, intelligence, credentials, an unparalleled capacity for lying, fabrication, and manipulation, and a drive for thrill seeking.

A financial psychopath can present as a perfect well-rounded job candidate, CEO, manager, co-worker, and team member because their destructive characteristics are practically invisible."

There is also research pointing to this--including research proving that non-agreeableness (which is the same as meanness) correlates with increased salaries and business success.

So pg is just factually wrong.

Pg seems to have some kind of fantasy that Jessica is a gifted psychologist. The truth is that she probably is when compared to other autism-spectrum programmers, but not when compared to professional cousellors or other people whose job it is to understand and empathize.

What Jessica considers niceness--"niceness for the purpose of making money"--is not going to be the same as what most people consider niceness.

The programming world scores high on the autism spectrum and on the psychopath spectrum. Compared to the rest of the world, programmers seem like very mean, cold, ruthless people.

The only way pg's article makes any sense if is you read it as "successful people don't act like internet trolls in real life"

Self-control is certainly required to win in business. Only stupid or mentally ill people would ever be overtly "mean" in a situation where they couldn't get away with it (Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Linus, etc know they can get away with it)