4 ms·

Are you sure we're getting a complete story here? The OP is what writers call an "unreliable narrator". We're seeing this through his very emotional lens. It's

by beat 8y ago

Are you sure we're getting a complete story here? The OP is what writers call an "unreliable narrator". We're seeing this through his very emotional lens. It's quite possible the other person did a lot of the "people" work that enabled the code to be written and distributed. In that case, it's a "we", not an "I", and focusing entirely on "I wrote the code", ignoring how it fit into the organization, is dismissing someone else's well-deserved credit.

unethical_ban 8y ago
If the OP is an unreliable narrator, then you shouldn't assume the guy isn't a snake, either. I have seen the case you're wary of: a technical, but poorly communicating, employee that resents the success of a well-meaning, less technical but better communicating coworker. I have seen good people like that, and I have seen snakes that pull the "we/I" as in the OP's story.
- beat 8y ago
  Never attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity. Generally, I don't see a lot of these "snakes" out in the real world, but I see a tremendous amount of misunderstandings, resentment, and righteous indignation. As I told the OP elsewhere, we're all the hero of our own stories, and everyone we disagree with is a villain. But ask the villain, and they think they're the hero. It's human nature. We don't want to admit that we might be wrong, that the people we disagree with might be right (or at least, the disagreement is not founded in malice). So when I see situations like this, I rarely see snakes. I see misunderstandings that can be addressed with better communication and a good dose of humility.
  - jonbronson 8y ago
    Stupidity and malice can often be two sides of the same coin. I once worked with an individual who shot down a project idea, but then executed it in secret for two weeks before revealing it as his pet project. After confronting him, he initially did not understand why this was deceitful. It took 3-4 conversations before he finally understood and sincerely apologized. He felt he was simply being competitive and that everyone did these types of things.
    - ownagefool 8y ago
      My work buddy did this. I'm pretty sure this was simply because he thought it couldn't be done, and I just put the niggling thought in his mind so he tried and was successful. Weirdly enough he was the introvert and I less so, and I got the promotion. No hard feelings on either end, as far as I know. We all have our quirks.
  - existencebox 8y ago
    Not OP or in this chain, but I'm surprised you say this (Rarely see snakes.) I have nothing to complain about. I've done very well career wise, and have no reason to beef with any of these people. But at the same time, I've concretely seen individuals lie outright, blackmail, threaten, insult, and bully their way to success. That you say you rarely see this makes me raise an eyebrow. I've gone through the "maybe I'm just seeing evil where there isn't any" thought process many times, but after watching multiple instances of negative actors take advantage of others while I was a disinterested third party, I can't but have conviction. People will abuse others when it serves them and they think they can get away with it, and in situations where power dynamics, visibility and relationships (so soft, highly non-fungible elements) drive your career, someone in power can get away with a LOT, even via only subtlety misaligning incentives. Let me be clear, this is not some dominating majority of the population, and one should not start seeing enemies around every corner, but I've seen enough that instructing a junior engineer to watch out for those who would seek to take advantage of them seems very pragmatic to my eyes.
    - beat 8y ago
      Oh, I've seen snakes too. But I've seen people imagining that those they disagree with are snakes about 100x as much (or more). And if people don't get past this idea that everyone they're at odds with is a malicious, incompetent cheater, they can wind up being a simmering pot of bitter paranoia as they get older, unable to see the good in others. People who let bitterness rule their lives are far, far more common than actual snakes. Assuming my observations are correct (I may be wrong, I'm often wrong), then what is the pragmatic advice to give? "Be wary of snakes!", or "Be wary of your own human desire to be the hero of your own story and make everyone you disagree with the villain"? To me, this is a variant on the Pragmatic Programmers' advice that "SELECT isn't broken".
      - existencebox 8y ago
        I'm not quite sure if you meant it as an example of ineffective advice or not, but the "be wary of snakes" advice is quite close to what I give my mentees, although tailored to my predictably Munger bent of "be wary that other people's incentives often don't align with yours." (As a note, I think we're using the word "snakes" for purpose of context consistency, it's not a word I'd usually use when discussion the actual behaviors here since it paints the conversation a very specific way) I think perhaps the issue here is that I'm coming at the discussion from over-correcting the opposite direction; I was raised with very much a "people are All Good(TM)" outlook, regularly being fed the "Things get better after highschool/people grow up" line as a child. I've found that these both gave me ineffective priors for navigating adult life, largely due to that if you assume people are acting with your best interests at heart, you may be less inclined to look out for your own best interests yourself, or at the very least how other people may be compromising it, consciously or not. Framing it in terms of incentives also has the wonderful side effect of circumventing a lot of they "are they malicious or just self-serving" question since it hops right to "how do you fit your success into whatever equation everyone else is trying to route into"; my inquiry of whether they were TRULY malicious is usually made post-factum (or given sufficient evidence) As a final statement (and to couch my own incompetence with tone over the internet, please don't let any of this come across as a You're Wrong!), I'm not sure I'd agree with your statement that people with bitterness outnumber those who would manipulate others, at least in my work context. In the lense of my "incentives" stance, both are continuums of behavior, but the bitterness continuum is counter-productive to career advancement while the "manipulating incentives" continuum is productive, so I'd logically expect to see more of the latter. (I guess the real crux here is "when does it become malicious," but that's a whole separate discussion)
  - ryandrake 8y ago
    I’d suggest imagining what the story would look like from the other guy’s point of view, and I bet there would be no malice, no ‘mustache-twirling’ antagonism. It would be about how he always wanted to be a manager, and found a project with a strong technical partner who had no managerial aspirations. How he successfully managed upward and helped to coordinate and keep the project on track. Then at the end, after the success, he got the management role, his partner got to show his technical mastery: everyone got the result they were working toward.
  - xor1 8y ago
    >Generally, I don't see a lot of these "snakes" out in the real world You don't seem to understand why the term is "snake" in the first place. Of course you don't see them. They're hiding in the grass, and you're not going to notice them until you step on one. That doesn't mean the people around you aren't getting bit.

by beat 8y ago

unethical_ban 8y ago

If the OP is an unreliable narrator, then you shouldn't assume the guy isn't a snake, either. I have seen the case you're wary of: a technical, but poorly communicating, employee that resents the success of a well-meaning, less technical but better communicating coworker. I have seen good people like that, and I have seen snakes that pull the "we/I" as in the OP's story.

beat 8y ago
Never attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity. Generally, I don't see a lot of these "snakes" out in the real world, but I see a tremendous amount of misunderstandings, resentment, and righteous indignation. As I told the OP elsewhere, we're all the hero of our own stories, and everyone we disagree with is a villain. But ask the villain, and they think they're the hero. It's human nature. We don't want to admit that we might be wrong, that the people we disagree with might be right (or at least, the disagreement is not founded in malice). So when I see situations like this, I rarely see snakes. I see misunderstandings that can be addressed with better communication and a good dose of humility.
- jonbronson 8y ago
  Stupidity and malice can often be two sides of the same coin. I once worked with an individual who shot down a project idea, but then executed it in secret for two weeks before revealing it as his pet project. After confronting him, he initially did not understand why this was deceitful. It took 3-4 conversations before he finally understood and sincerely apologized. He felt he was simply being competitive and that everyone did these types of things.
  - ownagefool 8y ago
    My work buddy did this. I'm pretty sure this was simply because he thought it couldn't be done, and I just put the niggling thought in his mind so he tried and was successful. Weirdly enough he was the introvert and I less so, and I got the promotion. No hard feelings on either end, as far as I know. We all have our quirks.
- existencebox 8y ago
  Not OP or in this chain, but I'm surprised you say this (Rarely see snakes.) I have nothing to complain about. I've done very well career wise, and have no reason to beef with any of these people. But at the same time, I've concretely seen individuals lie outright, blackmail, threaten, insult, and bully their way to success. That you say you rarely see this makes me raise an eyebrow. I've gone through the "maybe I'm just seeing evil where there isn't any" thought process many times, but after watching multiple instances of negative actors take advantage of others while I was a disinterested third party, I can't but have conviction. People will abuse others when it serves them and they think they can get away with it, and in situations where power dynamics, visibility and relationships (so soft, highly non-fungible elements) drive your career, someone in power can get away with a LOT, even via only subtlety misaligning incentives. Let me be clear, this is not some dominating majority of the population, and one should not start seeing enemies around every corner, but I've seen enough that instructing a junior engineer to watch out for those who would seek to take advantage of them seems very pragmatic to my eyes.
  - beat 8y ago
    Oh, I've seen snakes too. But I've seen people imagining that those they disagree with are snakes about 100x as much (or more). And if people don't get past this idea that everyone they're at odds with is a malicious, incompetent cheater, they can wind up being a simmering pot of bitter paranoia as they get older, unable to see the good in others. People who let bitterness rule their lives are far, far more common than actual snakes. Assuming my observations are correct (I may be wrong, I'm often wrong), then what is the pragmatic advice to give? "Be wary of snakes!", or "Be wary of your own human desire to be the hero of your own story and make everyone you disagree with the villain"? To me, this is a variant on the Pragmatic Programmers' advice that "SELECT isn't broken".
    - existencebox 8y ago
      I'm not quite sure if you meant it as an example of ineffective advice or not, but the "be wary of snakes" advice is quite close to what I give my mentees, although tailored to my predictably Munger bent of "be wary that other people's incentives often don't align with yours." (As a note, I think we're using the word "snakes" for purpose of context consistency, it's not a word I'd usually use when discussion the actual behaviors here since it paints the conversation a very specific way) I think perhaps the issue here is that I'm coming at the discussion from over-correcting the opposite direction; I was raised with very much a "people are All Good(TM)" outlook, regularly being fed the "Things get better after highschool/people grow up" line as a child. I've found that these both gave me ineffective priors for navigating adult life, largely due to that if you assume people are acting with your best interests at heart, you may be less inclined to look out for your own best interests yourself, or at the very least how other people may be compromising it, consciously or not. Framing it in terms of incentives also has the wonderful side effect of circumventing a lot of they "are they malicious or just self-serving" question since it hops right to "how do you fit your success into whatever equation everyone else is trying to route into"; my inquiry of whether they were TRULY malicious is usually made post-factum (or given sufficient evidence) As a final statement (and to couch my own incompetence with tone over the internet, please don't let any of this come across as a You're Wrong!), I'm not sure I'd agree with your statement that people with bitterness outnumber those who would manipulate others, at least in my work context. In the lense of my "incentives" stance, both are continuums of behavior, but the bitterness continuum is counter-productive to career advancement while the "manipulating incentives" continuum is productive, so I'd logically expect to see more of the latter. (I guess the real crux here is "when does it become malicious," but that's a whole separate discussion)
- ryandrake 8y ago
  I’d suggest imagining what the story would look like from the other guy’s point of view, and I bet there would be no malice, no ‘mustache-twirling’ antagonism. It would be about how he always wanted to be a manager, and found a project with a strong technical partner who had no managerial aspirations. How he successfully managed upward and helped to coordinate and keep the project on track. Then at the end, after the success, he got the management role, his partner got to show his technical mastery: everyone got the result they were working toward.
- xor1 8y ago
  >Generally, I don't see a lot of these "snakes" out in the real world You don't seem to understand why the term is "snake" in the first place. Of course you don't see them. They're hiding in the grass, and you're not going to notice them until you step on one. That doesn't mean the people around you aren't getting bit.