3 ms·

I took out "most". That was far too strong a statement. I respect myself. However, I'm aware of human nature as it actually is. Most people don't even like the

I took out "most". That was far too strong a statement. I respect myself. However, I'm aware of human nature as it actually is. Most people don't even like the truth. They despise the reality around them and need to be fed a fiction in order to function. The facts-- that good people often fail for varying reasons, that life is inherently unfair and often dark-- are so disquieting to them that they shut them out. This is why people tend to personalize past success and failure beyond what is reasonable; they want to believe they live in a just world. Imagine interviewing a candidate who says this: "I'm interested in working for you because you have great people and I want to learn from them. As long as you have interesting assignments for me to do, and my superiors make my advancement and education a top priority, I'll do an excellent job of them. If I feel that this is not the case, or become isolated, I'll jump ship on a dime. Also, if I'm ever passed over for a plum assignment that is within my capability, I'll launch my resumes that afternoon. This is the truth for any ambitious person, but you'd be absolutely nuts to say that sort of thing on an interview. You might be thrown out the door immediately for that kind of renegade honesty. You're expected to maintain a fiction of self that is otherwise.

maxharris 17y ago
"that life is inherently unfair and often dark" I disagree completely. The universe is benevolent by default because it has absolutely no supernatural character, and no inherent conciousness to make it anything else. Without this, science would not be possible (according to my biochemistry professor, who said "Nature does not play tricks.") I go one step further say that this applies to morality; that life is what you make of it in the vast preponderance of cases.
- pw0ncakes 17y ago
  "Inherently unfair and often dark" was an exaggeration on my part. The universe is benevolent by default because it has absolutely no supernatural character, Wouldn't this make it utterly neutral? What I meant to say, and didn't articulate very well, is that human societies have egregious failures that often undermine progress. Most people are good, but most of the people who get power and status (at least in the short-term, first-order senses of these words) are the despicable, evil ones.
nostrademons 17y ago
"This is the truth for any ambitious person, but you'd be absolutely nuts to say that sort of thing on an interview." I said almost exactly that when interviewing for my first job out of college. They hired me anyway. They appreciated my honesty and believed they had enough great people and interesting assignments to keep me engaged. (As it turned out, they were wrong, and I left about two years later. But I did two products for them in the meantime, and learned a bunch for myself, so it wasn't exactly a loss for either party.) Actually, a bunch of people at my current employer - my boss, my tech leads - know that if there comes a time where I believe I can accomplish more within a startup than in my job, I'll jump ship in a heartbeat and found another company. That simply keeps the bar high for ensuring that I can accomplish significant things within my job.
lsc 17y ago
the problem with "If I feel that this is not the case, or become isolated, I'll jump ship on a dime. Also, if I'm ever passed over for a plum assignment that is within my capability, I'll launch my resumes that afternoon." is not that you will leave if your needs aren't being met; that is expected in any relationship. The reason why that raises a red flag is that it implies that you won't take action to educate yourself, and to create new interesting projects for the company if they aren't fed to you, to go and make contact with other team members if you feel isolated. Seriously, I don't want to hire someone who wants to be a passive vessel. I ain't your daddy. I want people who will go out and get cool shit done. Sure, I'm okay hiring someone who has potential but not experience, and helping them get that experience, but I want them to be an /active participant/ in the exercise, not some passive vessel.
- mattm 17y ago
  If you want to hire someone who will be ambitious and get stuff done on their own, why would he want to do that stuff for you when he could be doing it for himself?
  - lsc 17y ago
    starting capital and risk tolerance, mostly. Getting a business to the 'ramen profitability' stage can be a long and difficult task. Also, some people prefer to not deal with 'business stuff' at all. Obviously there is a continuum between 'only does exactly what he is told' and 'runs the business without me' and most people are somewhere between that. I'm just saying; people who quickly return to idle after a task is done rather than seeking out more work are significantly less useful. Also, people who can't tell me when they are ready for a new challenge (or that they are being shoved into water that is too deep) are significantly less useful than those who can.

maxharris 17y ago

"that life is inherently unfair and often dark" I disagree completely. The universe is benevolent by default because it has absolutely no supernatural character, and no inherent conciousness to make it anything else. Without this, science would not be possible (according to my biochemistry professor, who said "Nature does not play tricks.") I go one step further say that this applies to morality; that life is what you make of it in the vast preponderance of cases.

pw0ncakes 17y ago
"Inherently unfair and often dark" was an exaggeration on my part. The universe is benevolent by default because it has absolutely no supernatural character, Wouldn't this make it utterly neutral? What I meant to say, and didn't articulate very well, is that human societies have egregious failures that often undermine progress. Most people are good, but most of the people who get power and status (at least in the short-term, first-order senses of these words) are the despicable, evil ones.

nostrademons 17y ago

"This is the truth for any ambitious person, but you'd be absolutely nuts to say that sort of thing on an interview." I said almost exactly that when interviewing for my first job out of college. They hired me anyway. They appreciated my honesty and believed they had enough great people and interesting assignments to keep me engaged. (As it turned out, they were wrong, and I left about two years later. But I did two products for them in the meantime, and learned a bunch for myself, so it wasn't exactly a loss for either party.) Actually, a bunch of people at my current employer - my boss, my tech leads - know that if there comes a time where I believe I can accomplish more within a startup than in my job, I'll jump ship in a heartbeat and found another company. That simply keeps the bar high for ensuring that I can accomplish significant things within my job.

lsc 17y ago

the problem with "If I feel that this is not the case, or become isolated, I'll jump ship on a dime. Also, if I'm ever passed over for a plum assignment that is within my capability, I'll launch my resumes that afternoon." is not that you will leave if your needs aren't being met; that is expected in any relationship. The reason why that raises a red flag is that it implies that you won't take action to educate yourself, and to create new interesting projects for the company if they aren't fed to you, to go and make contact with other team members if you feel isolated. Seriously, I don't want to hire someone who wants to be a passive vessel. I ain't your daddy. I want people who will go out and get cool shit done. Sure, I'm okay hiring someone who has potential but not experience, and helping them get that experience, but I want them to be an /active participant/ in the exercise, not some passive vessel.

mattm 17y ago
If you want to hire someone who will be ambitious and get stuff done on their own, why would he want to do that stuff for you when he could be doing it for himself?
- lsc 17y ago
  starting capital and risk tolerance, mostly. Getting a business to the 'ramen profitability' stage can be a long and difficult task. Also, some people prefer to not deal with 'business stuff' at all. Obviously there is a continuum between 'only does exactly what he is told' and 'runs the business without me' and most people are somewhere between that. I'm just saying; people who quickly return to idle after a task is done rather than seeking out more work are significantly less useful. Also, people who can't tell me when they are ready for a new challenge (or that they are being shoved into water that is too deep) are significantly less useful than those who can.