jtrn

Neither ADHD nor OCD have anything to do with communication style, 'being five steps ahead,' or patterns of interpersonal friction. The only symptom that remotely fits here is impulsive speech, and that's sporadic, it doesn't produce a consistent pattern of seeing yourself as above your colleagues, and its not related to the content style of the speech.

This is something i see allot of. People project what they want onto their pet diagnosis, without knowing what the diagnosis actually is. And god know what people mean when they say neurodevergent these days. The only thing i know for certain is that it never maps on to anything from real spectrum disorders.

OCD is ritualistic and compulsive behavior, often performed to decrease a negative feeling. It has nothing to do with anything described in the article or this thread. What does fit the described behavior: Rigidity, perfectionism, a need to do things the 'correct' way regardless of social cost,is OCPD, which is something completely different. And there is another diagnosis that is blindingly obvious but i wont name it out here.

There should also be noted that there are plenty of extremely smart people who don't end up in this pattern. If you're looking for myths, start with the myth of the troubled genius.

And a gift of seeing all possible solutions obviously doesn't extend to the interpersonal friction you're describing. The person you're replying to tried to point this out, and tried to communicate that you are missing something about the situation. I doubt it's the first time someone has. This reply is itself an example that just confirms the hypothesis: Someone offered feedback, and instead of sitting with it, you defended, reframed, and redirected blame outward. That's exactly the pattern I described.

The people to who take too much responsibility are not the one that "makes it other peoples problem", unless they are suffering from a dependent personality disorder.

And even then, consider rearranging what you just said in your reply. You are saying: You have to make it someone else problem to avoid self hatred and burnout.

There is a difference in relying and getting support from people, and being a jackass.

I'd push back gently on 'just shut up' as the solution. In my experience, people like you are usually CORRECT about the problem, and the anger and annoyance is well funded. It can be annoyance with the bad architecture, the wasteful meetings, the dysfunctional team dynamics. But you are falling into the same pattern as the author... Where it breaks down is treating 'being right' as the end of the job. Figuring out how to get others to see what you see, that's the actual unsolved problem, and it is more often than not solvable. Giving up on it means real problems stay unfixed, which helps nobody. If you channel the energy into solving what annoys you, in a productive way, you make both your life and your team better.

I find that there is a big difference between how people that use the fact that they are "A perfectionist OCD person".

Some wield it at a weapon. Some use it as an excuse. Some start with the assumption that it can be harness into something good. And some beat them self up over it uses it to degrade them self.

I think its most helpful to view it as a "know thy self" data point, and not make it someone else problem, but use it as information as to what is ones own challenges that must be kept in check. And if one is relay good, use it for something productive.

Some. I was CTO of a mid-sized firm (~$30M revenue) and have sat on the board of two hospital psychiatric units. Granted, I'm in Norway, so office politics may differ.

But let me ask you the reverse: How much time have you spent helping people actually improve themselves? Because in my experience, the single biggest obstacle to professional growth isn't corporate politics, it's the lengths people will go to protect their ego from accountability. And focusing on systemic injustice is a destructive patterns I've seen in both the clinic and in the workplace.

So if you think Im naive with regards to office politics you might be right... But what if you are naive with regrades the psychology of defense mechanisms?

No, just me. As you can see from my long history I always took the time ever so often to comment in-depth on stuff i care about on HN, since its the place with the most interesting spread of content for me, and the place with the highest chance of getting interesting responses. I do admit that i use AI for spell-correction, but that sucks since it peppers my grammar with EM (—), which is obviously makes people suspect it pure AI. And i have to re-edit it to remove them to avoid comments like this. But its just me...

nitpick accepted :)

For anybody that is interested in a clinical psychologist's take, here is mine…

This article triggers an overwhelming feeling that something is missing in the story. Of course, being fired is genuinely painful, and the author's emotional state is understandable. But I think there is a much better way to understand this situation that would be beneficial to the author. Please note that this is just a guess, and in reality, I would explore if this is a good fit for both reality and what the person is capable of talking about, and quickly back off if not both were true. This is just an exercise in hypothesis building that accompanies every meeting i have with a client, and initial theories are often wrong.

First is the defense mechanism of abstract answers. I once asked a girl why she stole from her mother AGAIN, and she responded, "I try to get back up, but I fall down." This is a deflection and a non-answer. This author does the corporate version of that. Instead of saying, "I struggled to read the room," they describe "The Three-Year Myth."

There is the bitterness here that often accompanies the wound to professional identity. The author literally tells us they are smarter than their boss, harder working than their peers, and more ethical than the company. The easiest explanation is to blame failure on the system being rigged against good people. This might be a coping mechanism, but it might also hinder personal growth.

Then there is the claim that the author didn't know why they were fired. However, i think they tell us exactly why in the hardware paragraph. Look at the what the author describes… a senior director presented a vision to a customer. The author (without checking with the director) proposed a totally different architecture because they "read the requirements line by line" (implying the director didn't). The author received a formal warning.

The author’s Interpretation is "My timing was perfect for the market, but poor for the systems of power." (I was too smart/right, and they were threatened). That might hold some truth, but its not implausible that the author undermined senior leadership, embarrassed the company regarding a client commitment, and likely communicated it with arrogance ("no AI summaries here!" as he writes).

And receiving a formal warning is an extremely serious signal. To frame a formal HR warning as simply timing being inconvenient to power that be, shows a near-total lack of accountability. There is zero reflection on how they advocated for their ideas. The author claims, "I'm literally not built for competition so much as cooperation," yet their anecdotes describe them fighting against cost centers and trying to override directors.

The self-reflection that does appear is careful and limited. The author admits to being "naturally helpful and cooperative" and bad at "game theory" but these are virtues reframed as vulnerabilities. "I'm too good and too cooperative for this corrupt world" isn't really self-criticism. The one moment that approaches genuine insight "I need to expand into leadership skills" is immediately followed by blaming stakeholders who "blocked change at all costs." The OCD mention functions similarly and it explains the overanalysis as a feature, not something that might be creating friction with colleagues.

This is someone who likely has high technical intelligence but problems with soft skills. They prioritized being technically right over being effective, and when the social consequences arrived (the warning, the firing), they built a defensive wall of abstraction to avoid seeing their own role in the fall.

A proper question is WHY has this happened repeatedly and in multiple roles, across multiple organizations, with the same pattern? The author even acknowledges this but thinks the answer is "I keep falling for the same trap." I think it would be more helpful to ask, "Why do I keep creating the same dynamic?"

No. What you say is obviously true. My question is: Why do, on average, people always make wrong claims in the same DIRECTION? Towards negativity.

Let's say we had objective data on things people say that we know are wrong regarding LLMs. The amount of people who WRONGLY say "It's getting worse" dwarfs the amount of people who WRONGLY think it has gotten better.

All I said is that I'm starting to get more interested in the psychological factors for this observation, the negativity bias, than actually investigating if the latest in a series of "OMG MODEL DEGRADATION" or "UI SUCKS NOW" posts; is actually true.

In later iOs versions i started making much more mistakes. Felt i got old or something. But whenever i type on my Android phone, its like nothing has changed. I swear that the iOs keyboard is trolling, I HIT O NOT I! O AM CERTAIN!

This is my favorite field for me to have opinions about, without not having any training or skill. Fundamental research i just a something I enjoy thinking about, even tho I am psychologist. I try to pull inn my experience from the clinic and clinical research when i read theoretical physics. Don't take this text to seriously, its just my attempt at understanding whats going on.

I am generally very skeptical about work on this level of abstraction. only after choosing Klein signature instead of physical spacetime, complexifying momenta, restricting to a "half-collinear" regime that doesn't exist in our universe, and picking a specific kinematic sub-region. Then they check the result against internal consistency conditions of the same mathematical system. This pattern should worry anyone familiar with the replication crisis. The conditions this field operates under are a near-perfect match for what psychology has identified as maximising systematic overconfidence: extreme researcher degrees of freedom (choose your signature, regime, helicity, ordering until something simplifies), no external feedback loop (the specific regimes studied have no experimental counterpart), survivorship bias (ugly results don't get published, so the field builds a narrative of "hidden simplicity" from the survivors), and tiny expert communities where fewer than a dozen people worldwide can fully verify any given result.

The standard defence is that the underlying theory — Yang-Mills / QCD — is experimentally verified to extraordinary precision. True. But the leap from "this theory matches collider data" to "therefore this formula in an unphysical signature reveals deep truth about nature" has several unsupported steps that the field tends to hand-wave past.

Compare to evolution: fossils, genetics, biogeography, embryology, molecular clocks, observed speciation — independent lines of evidence from different fields, different centuries, different methods, all converging. That's what robust external validation looks like. "Our formula satisfies the soft theorem" is not that.

This isn't a claim that the math is wrong. It's a claim that the epistemic conditions are exactly the ones where humans fool themselves most reliably, and that the field's confidence in the physical significance of these results outstrips the available evidence.

I wrote up a more detailed critique in a substack: https://jonnordland.substack.com/p/the-psychologists-case-ag...

I know you think that's a clever comeback, but it's not; it's just a shift in what level of analysis one does.

It's an experienced reality indeed, but THEN you create a narrative based on that. Obviously.

Experienced reality is, by definition, subjective and affected by filters for what you can, and how, experience things.

For instance, you can actually and truly experience something as bad, and then create a narrative around that. And you can be right, or you can be wrong in the narrative. Some narcissists experience themselves as a victim and unfairly treated, but everybody around them thinks the victim narrative is wrong, because they can clearly see that they are primarily at fault for their own situation.

So you just shifted the question to: "Why do people have a bias towards experience something as worsening, regardless of objective measures of quality"?

This is exactly what I am talking about. Let me try to explain.

I am interested in the more abstract and general concept of: "People excessively feel that things are worse, even if they are not." And I see this A LOT in the AI/LLM area.

For instance, the claim that Claude Code, on the UX/DX side, is dumbed down seems to me absolutely not a reasonable take. The "hiding" of the file name being read is no longer being shown neither supports that claim, AND has to be seen in the context of Claude Code as a whole.

On the first point: Could one not make the argument that "not showing files read", is part of a more advanced abstraction layer, switching emphasis to something else in the UX experience? That could, by some, be seen as the overall package becoming more advanced and making choices as to what is presented for cognitive load. Secondly... it's not removed. It's just not default shown in non-verbose mode. As I understand it, you can just hit CTRL+O to see it again.

Secondly, even if it was done ONLY to be less for "power user focus," and more for dumb people (got to love the humility in the developer world), it's blindly obvious that you can't just mention ONE change as proof that Claude Code is dumbed down. And to me, it just does not compute to say that Claude Code feels dumbed down over the last patches. The amount of more advanced features, like seeing background tasks, the "option" selection feature, lifecycle hooks, sub-agents, agent swarms, skills—all of these have been released in just the last few months. I have used Claude Code since the very beginning, and it is just insane to claim that it's getting dumber as a tool. And this is just in relationship to the actual functionality, UX, and DX, not the LLM quality. But people see "I now have to hit CTRL+O to see files being read = DUMBED DOWN ENSHITFICATION!!!" I don't get it.

My point was simply... I'm much more interested in the psychological aspects driving everybody to predictably always claim that "things are getting worse," when it seems to not be the case. Be that in the exaggerated (but sometimes true) claims of model degradation, or as in this example of Claude Code getting dumbed down. What is driving this bias towards seeing and claiming things are getting worse, out of proportion to reality?

Or even shorter: why are we obsessed with the narrative of decline?

I find it hard to care about claims of degradation of quality, since this has been a firehouse of claims that don't map onto anything real and is extremely subjective. I myself made the claim in error. I think this is just as ripe for psychological analysis as anything else.

I try to make it a point to acknowledge when I am wrong. And after some time, and maybe after the release of Codex 5.3, the Codex App is a VERY good agentic coder.

I stand by my initial impression, so far as the claim that it did piss me off, but I completely retract my prediction that Codex/OpenAI is going down the Nokia death spiral based on the performance of the current Codex App paired with the Codex 5.3 model.

I think a combination of the new model version, and me having maximum bad luck in my first test (it truly didn’t do that great), made me come to the wrong conclusion. Codex App is actually pretty good. Thanks for pushing back.

That was a painfull read for me. It reminds me of a specific annoyance I had at university with a professor who loved to make sweeping, abstract claims that sounded incredibly profound in the lecture hall but evaporated the moment you tried to apply them. It was always a hidden 'I-am-very-smart' attempt that fell apart if you actually deconstructed the meaning, the logic, or the claimed results. This article is the exact same breed of intellectualizing. It feels deep, but there is no actual logical hold if you break up the claims and deductive steps.

You can see it clearly if you just translate the article's expensive vocabulary into plain English. When the author writes, 'When you hand-build, the space of possibilities is explored through design decisions you’re forced to confront,' they are just saying, 'When you write code yourself, you have to choose how to write it.' When they claim, 'contextuality is dominated by functional correctness,' they just mean, 'Usually, we just care if the code works.' When they warn about 'inviting us to outsource functional precision itself,' they really mean, 'LLMs let you be lazy.' And finaly, 'strengthening the will to specify,' is just a dramatic way of saying, 'We need to write better requirements.' It is obscurantism plain and simple. using complexity to hide the fact that the insight is trivial.

But that is just an estethical problem to me. Worse. The argument collapses entirely when you look at the logical leap between the premises.

The author basically argues that because Natural Language is vague, engineers will inevitably stop caring about the details and just accept whatever reasonable output the AI gives. This is pure armchair psychology. It assumes that just because the tool allows for vagueness, professionals will suddenly abandon the concept of truth or functional requirements. That is a massive, unsubstantiated jump.

If we use fuzzy matching to find contacts on our phones all the time. Just because the search algorithm is imprecise doesn't mean we stop caring if we call the right person. We don't say, 'Well, the fuzzy match gave me Bob instead of Bill, I guess I'll just talk to Bob now.' The hard constraint, the functional requirement of talking to the specific person you need, remains absolute. Similarly, in software, the code either compiles and passes the tests, or it doesn't. The medium of creation might be fuzzy, but the execution environment is binary. We aren't going to drift into accepting broken banking software just because the prompt was in English.

This entire essay feels like those social psychology types that now have been thoroughly been discredited by the replication crisis in psychology. The ones who are where concerned with dazzling people with verbal skills than with being right. It is unnecessarily complex, relying on projection of dreamt up concepts and behavior, rather than observation. THIS tries to sound profound by turning a technical discussion into a philosophical crisis, but underneath the word salad, it is not just shallow, it is wrong.

That's the stupidest thing I heard so far to day.

Omg. I dident say my reasons where good. I said that the claim that price vs ground based data center alone made space based compute a no God, was a bad argument. I obviously suck at framing my point

I am not saying it's viable or not. I'm saying that the statement the author put forward for why it's Absolutely not viable, is not valid.

That's why I said I actually don't think it's realistic in my post. He might be right, but some of his reasons are wrong.

This sentence proves the author has no ability for logical thinking: Data centers in space only make sense if they are cost effective relative to normal data centers.

I too don't think it's currently a sensible solution. But the author completely unable to make a proper case. For instance, just to refute that one claim, there are many reasons to do it in space even at an cost.

Space-based data centers provide an off-world backup that is immune to Earth-specific disasters like earthquakes, floods, fires, or grid collapses. Servers in orbit are physically isolated from terrestrial threats, making them safe from riots, local warfare, or physical break-ins.

Moving infrastructure to space solves local community disputes by removing the strain on residential power grids and freeing up land for housing or nature. Space data centers do not deplete Earth’s freshwater supply for cooling, unlike terrestrial centers which consume billions of gallons annually.

Solar panels in orbit can access high-intensity sunlight 24 hours a day without interference from clouds, night, or the atmosphere.

Data stored in space can exist outside of national borders, protecting it from seizure, censorship, or the legal jurisdiction of unstable governments. Data transmission can be faster in space because light travels roughly 30% faster in a vacuum than it does through fiber optic cables.

Processing data directly in orbit is necessary for satellites and future space stations to avoid the delay and cost of beaming raw data back to Earth

Spot on. It’s the lumberjack mourning the axe while holding a chainsaw. The work is still hard. it’s just different. The friction comes from developers who prioritize the 'craft' of syntax over delivering value. It results in massive motivated reasoning. We see people suddenly becoming activists about energy usage or copyright solely to justify not using a tool they dislike. They will hunt for a single AI syntax error while ignoring the history of bugs caused by human fatigue. It's not about the tech. it's about the loss of the old way of working.

And it's also somewhat egotistical it seems to me. I sense a pattern that many developers care more about doing what they want instead of providing value to others.

Feelings are information with just as much, or more, value as biased intellectualizing.

Ask Linus Torvalds.

Ok. You do you. I'll stick with the models that understand what latest version of a framework means.

People's mileage may vary, but in my instance, this was so bad that I actually got angry while trying to use it.

It's slow and stupid. It does not do proper research. It does not follow instructions. It randomly decides to stop being agentic, and instead just dumps the code for me to paste. It has the extremely annoying habit of just doing stuff without understanding what I meant, making a mess, then claiming everything is fine. The outdated training data is extremely annoying when working with Nuxt 4+. It is not creative at solving problems. It dosent show the thinking. The Undo code does not give proper feedback on the diff and if it actually did "undo." And I hate the personality. It HAS to be better than it comes off for me because I am actually in a bad mood after having worked with it. I would rather YOLO code with Gemini 3 flash, since it's actually smarter in my assessment, and at least I can iterate faster, and it feels like it has better common sense.

Just as an example, I found an old, terrible app I made years ago for our firm that handles room reservations. I told it to update from Bootstrap to Flowbite UI. Codex just took forever to make a mess, installed version 2.7 when 4.0.1 is the latest, even when I explicitly stated that it should use the absolute latest version. Then it tried to install it and failed, so it reverted to the outdated CDN.

I gave the same task to Claude Code. Same prompt. It one-shotted it quickly. Then I asked it to swap out ALL the fetch logic to have SPA-like functionality with the new beta 4 version of HTMX, and it one-shot that too in the time Codex spent just trying to read a few files in the project.

This reminds me of the feeling I had when I got the Nokia N800. It was so promising on paper, but the product was so bad and terrible to use that I knew Nokia was done for. If this was their take on what an acceptable smartphone could be, it proves that the whole foundation is doomed. If this is OpenAI's take on what an agentic coding assistant should be—something that can run by itself and iterate until it completes its task in an intelligent and creative way.... OpenAI is doomed.

Absolutely nothing new here. Don’t try to be ethical and be safe, be helpful, transition through transformative AI blablabla.

The only thing that is slightly interesting is the focus on the operator (the API/developer user) role. Hardcoded rules override everything, and operator instructions (rebranded of system instructions) override the user.

I couldn’t see a single thing that isn't already widely known and assumed by everybody.

This reminds me of someone finally getting around to doing a DPIA or other bureaucratic risk assessment in a firm. Nothing actually changes, but now at least we have documentation of what everybody already knew, and we can please the bureaucrats should they come for us.

A more cynical take is that this is just liability shifting. The old paternalistic approach was that Anthropic should prevent the API user from doing "bad things." This is just them washing their hands of responsibility. If the API user (Operator) tells the model to do something sketchy, the model is instructed to assume it's for a "legitimate business reason" (e.g., training a classifier, writing a villain in a story) unless it hits a CSAM-level hard constraint.

I bet some MBA/lawyer is really self-satisfied with how clever they have been right about now.

There is much to learn about human psychology from animal indeed.

Given that you asked about this topic, I assume you are interested in it, so I apologize in advance if this comes across as negative. I come at this as a ruthless pragmatist. My background is in Metacognitive Therapy (MCT) and long-term mindfulness, so I’ve read the literature. My only metric is: “What is your goal, and does this tool actually help you achieve it?” From that perspective, I have four major issues with the modern "Jhana" movement:

There are currently no large-scale, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) proving the clinical effectiveness of the "Jhourney" method or "Sutta Jhanas" for mental health in the general population. Until we see data, this is experimental, not medical.

Then it strikes me as "Drug-Free Hedonism." It is a classic case of Spiritual Materialism: instead of buying a Ferrari to feel good, you "buy" a Jhana state. It is still the ego seeking gratification, just using a different currency. The marketing language ("ecstatic," "orgasmic," "dopamine hit") explicitly invites a consumerist mindset. You aren't dissolving the self; you are just consuming a peak experience.

The "State vs. Trait" Fallacy In my observation, the people drawn to these niche practices are already optimizing/biohacking types. They are selecting a practice that reinforces their existing personality rather than transforming it. I see very little evidence that accessing these temporary states leads to permanent positive traits or behavioral changes once the "high" wears off.

On a personal moral level, I find the logic of extreme contemplative devotion flawed. Historically, the "true Buddhist" monastic model relies on others for food and sustenance. You can frame this as "spiritual focus," but a pragmatist could easily frame it as a lack of self-sufficiency—or even laziness. I rarely see a tangible improvement in productivity, self-sufficiency, or general functioning in people who dive deep into this mysticism.

That said, I do believe in the "software upgrade" of mindfulness—specifically the ability to step back, observe, and evaluate thoughts without engaging them (the core of Metacognitive Therapy). There is decent evidence for that. But that is a tool for functioning, which is very different from chasing bliss.

Think of it like moving a husky dog from Siberia to the Sahara. Nothing has changed with the dog, but it's not functioning quite as well after the move.

The classic examples are things like going to a library where everyone else is silent and studying, finding a job that suits your temperament, like accounting for the sensitive type and ambulance driving for the sensation-seeking type. Create a social contract for exercise meet-ups, and downgrade to a dumb phone to overcome doom scrolling. Having the router block all Internet traffic after 10 o’clock. And so on.

Moving from one place to another is immensely helpful for some. Changing friends, and even starting or stopping medication, counts as environmental changes in this instance, since it's part of the arena on which the personality plays itself out.

Just make sure to stay away from all this “nudge” people. They never have anything helpful to actually contribute to in this.

Now I read it. And yes, it’s not very good.

The article conflates symptom management (state) with structural personality change (trait) and mistakes behavioral masking for genuine psychological shift.

Personality traits are defined by their stability and enduring nature, independent of active intervention. If a change requires constant, conscious maintenance (the "medicine"), it is by definition a coping strategy, not a personality trait. This indicates the underlying neurotic structure is still present, just temporarily suppressed. You don’t cure type one diabetes by taking insulin; you manage it.

Any new intervention (yoga, journaling) creates a temporary lift in mood and self-efficacy (the Placebo effect or Novelty effect). Measuring immediately at the peak of this novelty does not account for the very common regression to the mean that inevitably follows.

And here is a basic demonstration of why you do RCT with proper non-subjective measures for outcome. She writes: "I had wanted to change for the sake of this article... Answering questions like this helped push me up the percentiles." She asserts that answering the questions differently proved she changed, rather than proving she simply learned how to answer the test to get the desired result.

Introverts can behave like extroverts, but it costs them metabolic and psychic energy. Extroverts gain energy from it. She conflates social skills (which can be learned) with extroversion (a biological orientation toward reward sensitivity).

And even if I practice mindfulness for years myself, I’m extremely skeptical about over the top claims surrounding it. But a highly neurotic patient can learn mindfulness to manage panic attacks. They are still high in trait Neuroticism (highly sensitive to threat), but they have better "software" to handle the hardware. The article claims the hardware itself has been swapped out, which is an annoying oversimplification for readers.

So in summary, this article goes against everything I have seen in my practice, it doesn’t understand the concepts in question, and it’s not even internally logically coherent. So basically just as bad as every other mainstream article I ever read on psychology.

Having worked as a therapist for years, treating thousands of client, and read more books and studies on this than I can count, I can for certain say that is MUCH MUCH simpler to change the environment than your personality to improve well beeing and general functioning.

To tired to pick a apart this article now. But this is feel good nonsense... Just one example, mindfulness is not even a fraction as effective as most people claim. It always fall apart when you do a proper study with actual measurable effects on life and happiness as outcome.

Also, 6 weeks is nothing. When I worked at inpatient unit we sometimes needed 6 weeks before patient reverted to baseline personality after admittance. This is just as silly as saying that you changed your lifestyle permanently with regard exercises after just a few weeks into your new year's resolution. You MIGHT have, but lets wait untill next year and see if the permanent claim is true.