Reading that article conjured up some bad memories. I once as a grad student tried out for a big name scientist working at the LHC. The professor was harsh and

Reading that article conjured up some bad memories. I once as a grad student tried out for a big name scientist working at the LHC. The professor was harsh and abrasive, and while he called out bullshit, which was good and great, he also was extremely harsh and toxic in his criticism. I once attending a group meeting where everyone was walking on eggshells to avoid pissing him off. I remember as one of the more senior group members talking faster and faster as the professor tried to ask her whether she had finished some analysis. At that point I decided to leave and do something else, which ended up being the right decision both personally and scientifically (although the prof got promoted, their specific SUSY search ended up being unfruitful, and of course, the LHC didn't find evidence of SUSY). Especially given the LHC's current negative results for physics beyond SM, is it not surprising few particle physicists are willing to confront the issues regarding SUSY's negative results? How many other leading scientists at CERN are like that and intimidate anyone who would dare to question them? I guess this post did turn into a sort of a dig at CERN, but I think a more broader point is not only do these toxic people make everyone miserable, but they hamper science too when the bosses are abrasive AND end up being wrong. So, the whole argument of "abrasive => calls out BS => makes them effective managers" like that which was in the discussion about Linus is undermined.