40 ms·

The Great Asshole Fallacy

167 points by shawndumas 6y ago

Intermernet 6y ago
I try very hard not to be an asshole, but I see assholes somehow being respected for being assholes. Is this similar to patio11 saying that charging more for a service makes it easier for people to value the service? Is this an innate property of the way some people think? Can we change our system of values to appreciate value based on non monetary terms, and leadership based on non degrading terms? I don't have answers for these questions, but I think they're important...
- ryandvm 6y ago
  People aren't attracted to assholes, people are attracted to confidence and assertiveness. The problem is that while not all confident people are assholes, all assholes are confident.
  - WJW 6y ago
    You just don't notice the non-confident assholes because they don't seek the spotlight.
    - nogabebop23 6y ago
      to tie it back to the netflix series this is Phil Jackson in a nutshell. He appears to quietly fade into the background but is busy coaching and letting these guys do their thing, tweaking and making small incremental changes - and winning championships. Steve Kerr (who played for him) had success with a similar coaching style in Golden State (at least up until this season!). These guys are known as a player's coach because they are most definitely not assholes.
      - AnimalMuppet 6y ago
        I wouldn't say that about Phil Jackson. Over and over I have heard about how incredibly manipulative he was, playing games with his players' heads. Sure, he's doing it to try to get 1% more out of them, which is also good for the player, but... I wouldn't put him in the non-a-hole category.
  - slantyyz 6y ago
    >> people are attracted to confidence and assertiveness Yes, but when it comes to having someone represent them (i.e., lawyers, agents, politicians, etc), I tend to think that people are attracted to bullies.
- coffeefirst 6y ago
  It's also harder to see the costs of being an asshole. 1. People start lying to you and cutting corners so you don't go off on them. 2. They quit, and you'll never realize their "great opportunity" was getting as far away from you as possible. 3. They tell their friends, some of which are great, not to get involved. 4. They don't forget this behavior, and while they may smile the next time you cross paths, they will quietly shut doors without even thinking about it. And of course, if you are the asshole, nobody is going to tell you that your reputation precedes you.
loudtieblahblah 6y ago
Assholes shake up hive minds Hive minds create cohesion and work better as teams..but they squash excellence. Both are needed
- Juliate 6y ago
  But excellence is hubris. That's the point.
  - BadThink6655321 6y ago
    Excellence is privilege.
    - _aleph2c_ 6y ago
      I wish I had enough points to down vote your comment.
    - loudtieblahblah 6y ago
      those who do well should be forced to take drugs to slow their cognition and wear chains to slow their movements so no one ever feels threatened by them, amirite?
    - Dominisi 6y ago
      Ah yes, spoken like somebody who hasn't achieved anything in their life because everything is beyond their control.
- danaris 6y ago
  This logic doesn't hold up, because there's something very important missing: Sure, assholes can sometimes shake up hive minds. But it doesn't require an asshole to shake up a hive mind and bring excellence. What it requires...is a leader. Like the article says, someone who can recognize what each person or group actually needs to be brought to excellence, which is not always an asshole.
  - 6y ago
TheCowboy 6y ago
I've had one boss who was terrible at basically everything, and he actually justified his behavior using Steve Jobs as an example. His company was only successful because he was in the right place at the right time, but the company was failing to maximize its full potential because of him. Would anyone try to claim there is a shortage of asshole managers, owners, or bosses out there? It's just a fact that many jerks exist, and a portion will inevitably end up at the top despite this behavior. Would YC have been more successful if it better emphasized seeking out this behavior in founders? If this behavior is critical to success then shouldn't we be training people to be jerks?
- stronglikedan 6y ago
  > shouldn't we be training people to be jerks? We do. It's called an MBA Program. There's even an "accelerated" option for maximum jerktitude.
- shadowgovt 6y ago
  The most impressive managerial implosion I've ever heard of was one of those bosses. He'd been hired on to be a whip-cracker; he did get results, but was remarkably unliked by staff. Company got purchased and it became clear some team members were not going to be hired by the new owning company. Team was trying to knock out a few last big-ticket TODOs before the handoff of projects. So the boss is going around the room in the scrum, and the DB lead announces he missed his target on some work remaining to be done. Conversation went something like this: Boss: "How are the DB changes?" DB guy: "Not done yet. I should be able to knock them out this week." Boss: "You had them on the calendar as ready by Monday." DB guy: "I know." Boss: "Didn't knock them out this weekend?" DB guy: "Nope." Boss: "What happened?" DB guy: crosses arms behind the back of his head and leans back in his chair "I spent the time polishing my résumé and setting up interviews for new opportunities this week." The whip-cracking approach to project management utterly collapses if the whip no longer stings.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
ak39 6y ago
I think the writer is correct: there is a meme out there that in order to be great, a leader, a trailblazer etc you have to become inevitably the arsehole. So much so, that arseholism is not just tolerated but celebrated. I wonder why the author did not feel persuaded to mention our current poster child of arseholism, the quintessential kind: Donald Trump. Here's a good video essay on the same subject by a filmmaker, Max Joseph: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRRvjZ_XNog https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRRvjZ_XNog
- draw_down 6y ago
  I don’t understand this as an argument against being an asshole. Watch out, you might become the president or one of the greatest athletes in history! I find this stuff very suspect to begin with. Sure we can all grew Trump is an asshole, but in smaller scope, what really matters is who gets to decide who is an asshole. That’s the whole game.
keeptrying 6y ago
Relentlessly upping a teams standards in everything - strategy, execution, effort etc, tires out everyone on that team. But that’s usually what you need to win or succeed in a competitive system. People who push for this will always be called assholes because they force team members to stretch themselves which is never a comfortable proposition. The corollary to this is that to win by not being an asshole, find something that is needed/wanted but no one else does or that which you can do 10x better than everyone else. Without competition you won’t need to push you or your team that hard. (The only catch with having no competition, is that, having no competition will slow down the rate at which you can improve or stop all improvement in most people.)
- 0d9eooo 6y ago
  I think raising standards or changing things is different from being an asshole. Having dealt with this in a big way recently, it's very much on my mind. It's entirely possible to say "we need to work harder, or take a risk, or be bold" while understanding where your colleagues are at in terms of what they need to do that, or what has or hasn't been communicated to them about how that will happen, or how things have been done in the past to change them. Too often bad management or administration is justified by saying "well things needed change" or "things needed to be shaken up." There's a way to implement that while bringing others on board, giving credit where things are due, etc. Put another way, it's easy to ruthlessly level an organization and rebuild it in the way you want to if you have the power to do that, but it doesn't mean the fairy tale you tell yourself about it having been necessary is actually true. More often than not you're just rationalizing away being inhumane and destructive, and probably even losing out on even better possibilities in the process.
  - ra1n85 6y ago
    >It's entirely possible to say "we need to work harder, or take a risk, or be bold" while understanding where your colleagues are at in terms of what they need to do that, or what has or hasn't been communicated to them about how that will happen, or how things have been done in the past to change them. Great leaders, in my experience, haven't asked these questions or pushed performance in this way - they led their reports through soft management to come to the conclusion that it was necessary to increase performance. They framed questions that led people to the conclusions they had already made. Of course, this also requires that the reports are capable enough of being led in the right direction.
jacknews 6y ago
This seems quite wishy-washy to me. Excellence and leadership requires strength, and determination, no doubt about it. But do you then ruthlessly impose those values on everyone else, or help them get there? To me, that's the difference between a leader and an ahole.
- slantyyz 6y ago
  I think the tolerance of the a-hole also depends on whether that a-hole is a unicorn. MJ, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Elon Musk etc. They're not everyday a-holes. These guys are/were arguably at the top of their game during the peak of their a-holery, so to speak. The acceptance of their a-holery is going to be much broader than it is for some random wannabe who thinks they are greater than they really are. It might be important to note that with the exception of Musk, the examples I used came up in a different time, and the tolerance for some of their behaviour would be much lower today.
  - paulryanrogers 6y ago
    Consider also survivor bias, luck, and the privilege these may have been born into.
- kennxfl 6y ago
  A leader can also be described as someone who pushes colleagues/subordinates within the limits of what he can do hence that fantastic MJ line ' I never asked anyone to do something I could not do myself. ' There is no such thing as being pushed at your own pace.
jerf 6y ago
I think this is the mechanism: Let us hypothesize the nicest possible person who is willing to do what it takes to be great. Unfailingly polite. Gracious with the money. Helps out those less fortunate as much as is possible under the constraints of doing what it takes to be great. An inspiration and a role model. By definition, by any sensible definition of the term, if you knew this person well you would agree they are as far from an asshole as it is possible to be. There is a non-zero set of people in this person's life who will necessarily decide this person is an asshole anyhow. In the early days, you invite this person to social events, and they decline because they're practicing. Maybe someone's even crushing on this person and consistently asks them out and consistently gets declined. However polite they are in declining, there's one person who is going to decide they're an asshole. Whoever it is in second place on the team, who under normal circumstances would talented enough to be the star player on the team but is getting shown up by the fact they're on a team with Michael freakin' Jordan... they're likely to harbor opinions of assholery, because if we humans are good at anything, it's rationalizing our pre-existing beliefs and finding reasons why we're right. When professional and financial success is obtained in later years, people who want a piece of it but are denied will decide this person is an asshole. A coach who tries to control this person to take credit for their fame but is rebuffed because what the coach is saying to do is not what it takes to be great will decide this guy is an asshole. The reporter who tries to weasel their way in to hitch themselves to this rising star and asks for interviews but gets rebuffed because it's not what is necessary to become great may do a hit piece around convincing everyone they're an asshole. And so forth and so on. On the Internet, if you simply express a strong opinion, of any kind, no matter how politely, some subset of people will take as proof you're an asshole. If someone posts disagreement and you decline to instantly and totally agree with that person, a somewhat larger group of people will decide you're an asshole. The upshot is that there's two different kinds of assholery; actually being a jerk, in as objective a sense as possible, and people who will decide you're being an asshole because you've done things that are (again as objectively as possible) not assholery, but because you are resisting doing what they want or some other thing that is really entirely on them. From where we sit at a distance, it is often difficult to borderline impossible to tell which is which, or to tell the difference between a genuinely nice guy and someone who got advised to hire a PR firm.
- 6y ago
classified 6y ago
Yikes, it's a Medium site, but disguised. Had I known that, I would not have clicked that link. With a little bit of imagination that could be interpreted as a practical demonstration of assholery.
croon 6y ago
Excellence awards you the choice of being an asshole. It also allows you to be revisionist in excusing you being an asshole as necessary in retrospect, even if it wasn't. Some people will be assholes if allowed to, but I don't think it's (positively) correlated with success. I imagine few people work better for/with an asshole, and if someone excellent/smart/1000x developer is pleasant to work with (but perhaps assertive) the results are probably even better.
- base698 6y ago
  I wonder. You look at someone like Linus that has created untold trillions of wealth and given a lot of that wealth away. Yet, there are also many very public asshole blow ups. Are there counter examples of success like that which don't have a severe asshole at the epicenter? Carmack and Tim Sweeney?
  - zozbot234 6y ago
    Torvalds's "public blow ups" are not really about being an asshole though, it's just a playful style of communication. Maybe it shows more confidence and assertiveness, but that's not a bad thing.
    - shadowgovt 6y ago
      The problem is it really doesn't read that way in text to a lot of readers (I also suspect there's a culture gap; there's a stereotype about Scandinavian communication being gruff and blunt relative to other European customs).
    - tachyonbeam 6y ago
      I don't know about that. He's said some incredibly mean and offensive things. It is detrimental IMO. There is basically no way I would want to collaborate with him. You couldn't pay me to contribute to the Linux kernel, and I'm sure I'm not the only one who feels that way. He gets away with it because the world has become very dependent on Linux.
nogabebop23 6y ago
Everyone focuses on Jordan but Jerry Krause is the one who makes the best case for being an asshole leading to great success. Many people seem to interpret being an asshole as causal for success, but they're not even corelated. Michael Jordan may or may not be an asshole depending on when and who interacted with him, but he demanded the same absolute perfection from others that he did of himself. The problem was no one was as good as him so he essentially asked for more than they could ever deliver, leading to him taking it all on his shoulders. This inevitably lead to tensions with the "second tier" stars on the team like Pipen and Grant who likely felt they could handle both the burden and benefit of the spotlight. If there's a lesson here it's likely more on delegation and success of the team over individuals. Phil Jackson gets discounted as they guy who sat and watched Jordan do all the work, but he's won more NBA titles than anyone on the Bulls dream squad. He is someone who definitely does not present as an asshole.
- dvtrn 6y ago
  Jerry Krause is the one who makes the best case for being an asshole leading to great success. I agree with this summation fully, having said as much in many conversations on the topic since "The Last Dance" documentary aired and I discovered many of my friends were suddenly experts on the 90's era Bulls. Even the fans who swore they hated professional sports and couldn't separate Tony Kukoč from Tony Parker Phil Jackson gets discounted as they guy who sat and watched Jordan do all the work...He is someone who definitely does not present as an asshole. That's because the people who do this probably haven't bothered themselves to know anything more about Phil Jackson than the one they see on the court; a common malady of critiquing the human machinations of sports and sports personalities. Read any of his books (but maybe especially "Sacred Hoops"), enter his head space and see his motivations as player turned coach-they're amazing. Phil Jackson the younger wasn't quite the same man, but in 'Sacred Hoops' it's really interesting how Phil Jackson the older didn't rebuke his younger self, merely embraced him, molded him and constantly reflected back on that young man while coaching Mike. Phil says as much and cites especially when his father passed away, as the moment that allowed him a certain "freedom" to be himself. I'm taking a lot of these same lessons and applying them to my team at work, while reading my second Phil Jackson book, "More than a Game". Even taking his philosophies out of it, Phil Jackson was and I think still is an enormous student of the game-going all the way back even before his days playing for the Knicks, like you said-the man didn't just happen upon success because he found himself coaching stellar players, his willingness to buck traditional thought at the time in the NBA and embrace his assistant coaches "Triangle Offense" and successful integration of that into the Bulls played just as much a part in that team becoming who they did as Air Jordan's ability to defy gravity and hit buckets from just about anywhere on the court (except from the perimeter[1], consistently at least). --- [1] https://www.theringer.com/nba/2020/5/18/21260106/michael-jordan-the-last-dance-evolution https://www.theringer.com/nba/2020/5/18/21260106/michael-jor...
sub7 6y ago
This idiot has clearly never built anything in his life. Blogger -> VC blogger.
jpwright 6y ago
I'd add that lessons from sports leadership don't always apply in other contexts. Sports at the highest levels require extreme competitiveness and aggression. A Jordan-style asshole leader might succeed by motivating the development of those traits in their teammates, but those same traits are probably toxic and unhelpful in other environments.
- jrumbut 6y ago
  Yeah, also to be an effective leader in that mold you should start by being a generational talent like Michael Jordan. When all those Steve Jobs biographies came out there was a population who thought if they just became really picky about design and impulsive about personnel decisions their business would become another Apple. Just being a jerk isn't really a strategy, even in sports.
  - GVIrish 6y ago
    This is always my answer to people trying to justify being an asshole by comparing themselves to Steve Jobs or Michael Jordan. If you are as talented as them, maybe you can make that argument. But if you are not literally the best in the world at something and/or arguably the best of all time at something, you can't use their examples. An NBA bench player can't behave like Michael Jordan and expect to stay in the league, even though an NBA bench player is probably one of the best 400 basketball players in the world. Even then, I would argue that guys like Jordan and Jobs succeeded in spite of being assholes, not necessarily because of it.
  - jariel 6y ago
    "also to be an effective leader in that mold you should start by being a generational talent like Michael Jordan." This is such a good point. It's so hard for most people to contextualize this. Pro Sports athletes are basically 'life dedicated' to something, these are deeply competitive people in general. And then take the top 0.1% of those, put him with people that actually can be pushed to the top. Jordan was no the branch manager of your local bank selling mortgages, who could not get away with such tactics.
- 6y ago
switch11 6y ago
Felix Dennis in his book has a quote related to committing to becoming rich The people who suffer most are the ones closest to you It's meant for family and friends It also applies to an extent to your work colleagues If you pursue excellence, people around you are going to get pulled along with you Some of them will think you are a dick or a jerk or an asshole You can't be nice to everyone Even if you are, a fraction of people will still think you're a dick Now take that same person and give them success People suddenly have TWO reasons to think they are a dick A) They are more focused than you B) They are more successful than you * I don't ever see people complaining about someone they are more successful than, but almost always about people who did better than them
- cafard 6y ago
  I think that you may lead a sheltered life. Arrogance is by no means always accompanied by performance.
shadowgovt 6y ago
There's a lot to be said of Antoine de Saint-Exupéry's quote about ships and the love of the sea. Great leaders can find a way to communicate that. It can be a challenge finding the balance between being driven (and driving a team) and being an asshole; you have to remember that people can't love the work if they're starved for something else. (For my money, personally, the highest praise I can hear of a team leader is "That person doesn't ask more of the team than they demand of themselves, but also, be warned that person does not sleep.")
heymijo 6y ago
Some of this thread is conflating being an asshole (subjective) with being abusive. Jordan was abusive and thought that was the way to get the best out of those around him. So it's worth remembering that The Last Dance wasn't Jordan's last time in the NBA. MJ came out of retirement to play for the Wizards. Acted just as he did when he was Air Jordan with the Bulls, but could no longer back up his abusive behavior with his play [0]. Instead of elevating the Wizards, Jordan being an asshole now hurt the team in a number of different ways. A person may be deemed an asshole for having high standards. They don't have to be abusive to hold those high standards though. Ed Catmull and Pixar have high standards but are not abusive in the mold of Jordan or Jobs [1]. Kim Scott wrote an entire book, Radical Candor, about how to demand excellence without being abusive [2]. [0] https://slate.com/culture/2020/05/the-last-dance-michael-jordan-bulls-wizards.html https://slate.com/culture/2020/05/the-last-dance-michael-jor... [1] http://www.bugaj.com/blog/2014/9/14/you-sir-are-no-ed-catmull http://www.bugaj.com/blog/2014/9/14/you-sir-are-no-ed-catmul... [2] https://www.radicalcandor.com/ https://www.radicalcandor.com/
- gustavo-fring 6y ago
  Just a reminder that the environment at Pixar was abusive in other ways, notably in the other major figure being a serial harrasser that had moves designed after him to avoid his advances. I think that says a lot about Catmull and the leadership there that they tolerated that kind of abusive behavior to get greatness. But yeah, to get to your other point, I recall Jerry Stackhouse saying he hated playing with Jordan (was sorry he did) and I figure Kwame Brown's career certainly wasn't helped. The repeated belittling of Krause by Jordan that comes up in the doc (height, weight) was that of a small mean person. His interactions with Kerr suggest that Jordan valued people standing up to him above all, which was also something he had in common with Jobs. I think this meanness is something that we should watch out for in leaders, it is a sign that something is broken and that brokenness can hurt others. Jobs, Jordan, and Musk all display it, the small ugly pettiness. It is destructive and dehumanizing to both the victim and the person doing it. Phil Jackson (as others have pointed out) shows you don't need it. There's no way he is the coach he was without the humility and empathy he had. Jordan et al saw someone like Rodman as talent to be used for a time, Jackson genuinely cared about him. It's what drives me crazy when people ignore the destructive behavior of Musk - he's the kind of personality that has shown time and time again that peole are disposable, even his biggest fans. He'll dispose of you as soon as it is convenient. We should dispose of that leadership style.
mabbo 6y ago
I think it's reverse causality. If you're incredibly talented and have enormous success for most of your life then you probably have gotten away with being an asshole time and time again. What are you going to do, fire Michael Jordan because he's mean? You're going to kick Ellen off your TV channel because she's rude to her people? Over time they get reinforcement that being an asshole is acceptable for them. And it's so convenient to be a jerk. Later on when someone asks about it, well, that was my secret to success of course. You have to be an asshole to get ahead. To heck with that! Successful people being assholes is a sign of their weakness, not their strength.
- z3rgl1ng 6y ago
  +1. Also confirmation bias. “Justified assholery” is a big part of the self-made mythology.
- Someone1234 6y ago
  Related: That's why I think physically attractive people often (but not always) have worse personalities. They can get away with more. Studies show this too[0]: > When the defendant was attractive, there was a shift in judgments toward acquittal, but when the defendant was unattractive, there was no such shift. As a result, mock juries were more likely to acquit the attractive defendant than the unattractive defendant. If people are more likely to acquit attractive defendants in criminal trials, they're certainly going to let more social "crimes" pass. [0] https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0093854890017003005 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/009385489001700...
  - thrav 6y ago
    I find it amusing how often attractive women get two words that sound similar, mixed up. Things like, “for all intensive purposes” or others — I think you know what I mean. My hypothesis is that no one wants to correct them, the way they would someone they don’t fear retribution from. Their friends might fear being ostracized for implying they’re stupid. Their suitors might fear pushing them away for the same reason. They just say it wrong for years while everyone nods and smiles. I’ve made a habit of noting them in meetings and then privately informing them after. Have heard replies like, “Wait, really!? That’s so embarrassing, I’ve been saying that wrong for YEARS.” Constantly getting a pass cuts both ways. It’s also harder to stand on their own, since they grow so accustomed to people constantly offering help, and free stuff.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
motohagiography 6y ago
Worth noting this is written by a very successful venture capitalist, with a firm that is the product of one of the fastest growing companies ever. It's not a reason to believe him one way or another, but when he writes, "That’s what i think of when I think of leadership. Someone who is malleable enough to both know and to react to the different needs of different people on their team," I'd posit it's pretty clear he's talking his own book. I do not know the author, and taking shots at him on an internet forum is small, but as a general principle, Jeffery Pfeffer talks about this retroactive continuity of virtue in success stories in his books. Everyone wants to think their luck made them good. Riding growth up to the top is a different set of skills than setting off the chain reaction that creates the energy behind it. In fact, malleability is precisely what you need to ride growth, but I'd argue you need a force of will to be the one to create it. That carries asshole-risk. The stories successful people tell about how they became successful are almost exclusively about how virtuous they were, and how their path was noble. A critical view of success and its factors is very much the "loser's" view, as telling it from outside means you don't have it, but it still has some value because the one told from inside is not the one that will get you there. They aren't in the business of building (ungated) ladders behind them. The story successful people don't tell is the one where they leveraged someones trust, scandalizing, discrediting, and isolating someone who lacked their mendacity, or put people who trusted them at more personal risk than they may have perceived. Nobody likes an asshole, and it's a good thing to build things that select against them, but the definition has to be better than what the losers just call the person they lose to, or as a foil for back-fitting a story of skill and virtue onto some really grisly work and luck. It's like Ray Dalio saying he's a billionaire because of transcendental meditation. If that sentence causes your middle finger to involuntarily leap into the air, you can appreciate how these other auto-hagiographies are received. Anyway, not to take pot shots from the cheap seats, but it's better to be suspicious of free advice that tells you to be nice. Not because being nice is wrong, but because when someone gives it to you free, it is probably worth more to them than you.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
JabavuAdams 6y ago
Fair enough, but I think it misses the more important point. If we cancel all the assholes, or demand that they be well-rounded people, we will lose some of our highest performers. Most assholes are not great. Many greats are not assholes. Some of the greatest were assholes.
- ken 6y ago
  There’s an alternate universe where no assholes are allowed to progress, and someone is saying “If we let people be assholes, think of what great things they could accomplish”. And another (like the Evil Star Trek universe) where everyone is a gigantic asshole, and someone is saying “If we weren’t such assholes all the time, maybe we could still accomplish good things, and not hate each other”. Is there anything special about the level of asshood we’re willing to put up with? Is this some kind of global maximum? AFAICT, it’s merely a local maximum of “as big of an asshole as you can be without the general public realizing that you’re an asshole“. Maybe we should aspire to be better, and ask more of our leaders. That’s a pretty low bar.
  - Nasrudith 6y ago
    Really I think the issue is partially a matter of control and subset constraints. First off if you filter for something goddamn rare in the first place you are far more likely to squander it no matter how good or bad tbe criteria. Of course one thing nobody recognizes about canceling the assholes is tbat the ability for society to control itself means being worse off. There is now an additional axis for manipulation by to take out tall poppies deservedly or not social manipulators will abuse it no matter how pure or reasonable the original motive or metric may be. Or even just natural culture turnint against those not fitting with the toxic norms. And the extreme successes are always outside the norm by definition. Not saying to excuse everything but to have a sense of proportion for the offenses and that society doesn't know jack shit about how to regulate itself historically - its attempts to do so have a track record of causing far more harm than good. "That Semelweiss guy is an asshole saying surgeons should wash their hands! A gentleman's hands are always clean!"
- jayd16 6y ago
TrackerFF 6y ago
If anyone wants to see how asshole management works in reality, just visit any random retail store, franchise or independent. Or worse, call centers. These places typically have very limited upward mobility, and their only requirement for future operational (i.e, not corporate) "leaders" would be results from working at the ground floor. This means that they tend to hire people that aren't necessarily the best leaders, but the best sellers. It's basically the Peter Principle in action, but often with only one step up on the ladder. And because these people, or leaders, have very limited training or exposure to good leadership (their old leaders got to the same place, the same way), they perpetuate the same sh!tty anti-leadership practices - which is very much something one could call asshole management. And what's more, there's often such a extreme level of power asymmetry / imbalance, that lower-level workers are completely at the mercy of their middle-managers. It is something you can draw parallels to in sports. You're being measured by KPI / performance measures, and get more responsibilities the better you perform. Everyone who's ever played any competitive team sports knows or has experiences this - some star player(s) that have can rein freely, because they exceed at some important measure (score goals, or whatever) - while rest of their teammates are walking on eggshells. But to tie it all together: The problem is that entities (businesses, sports teams, whatever) become dependent on these stars, even though it could completely destroy morale, and create toxic cultures within. I think that if you identify these following points in some environment, there's a great chance you'll meet on great asshole bosses / leaders 1) Great power imbalance between worker and leader. 2) Leadership compensation is dependent on worker performance. 3) Levels of compensation is driven by a very few measures / KPI. 4) Upward mobility is squarely tied to your KPI performance (from 3). Basically - if the only way to succeed within is to be a rainmaker, and being a rainmaker makes you the king, then that could easily foster assholes.
kelvin0 6y ago
Some so called 'assholes' are in fact really good mirrors and amplifiers of our existing insecurities. Is it fun when someone is able to 'push our buttons' and make us feel worthless? Rarely. Is it useful to further explore why it made us uncomfortable? Always. I am not preaching that you should tolerate abuse, far from it. But you should be aware of your own dark side and recognize it for what it is.
subsubzero 6y ago
Contrast Jordan's greatness and being an asshole with Lebron James's greatness and being a nice guy. Sure Lebron has not won as many championships as Jordan (Lebron's 3 to Jordan's 6) but he is an atypical pro athlete in that he wants to see his teammates score vs. himself score [1] . Also Lebron has never gotten in a fight with his own teammates like Jordan did twice, or maybe more? Jordan also had the benefit of Scottie Pippen who is a all-pro/50 greatest player [2] and far exceeded the skill of any of Lebron James teammates(Dwayne Wade prb being the closest to Pippen.) Sure Lebron is demanding and has extremely high standards, but there are different ways to influence greatness from your teammates other than being an extreme asshole. [1] - https://www.cbssports.com/nba/news/lebron-james-says-he-and-michael-jordan-wouldve-been-ideal-teammates-my-assets-work-perfectly-with-mike/ https://www.cbssports.com/nba/news/lebron-james-says-he-and-... [2] - https://www.nba.com/history/nba-at-50/top-50-players https://www.nba.com/history/nba-at-50/top-50-players
- adventured 6y ago
  > Sure Lebron has not won as many championships as Jordan (Lebron's 3 to Jordan's 6) Your sure statement is quite the qualification. Three versus six rings is an enormous difference in the NBA. That's a Larry Bird of a difference. Charles Barkley, Karl Malone, John Stockton, Reggie Miller, Patrick Ewing, Chris Mullin and Dominique Wilkins won zero rings. > but he is an atypical pro athlete in that he wants to see his teammates score vs. himself score Jordan's average was 5.3 assists per game (as a shooting guard, emphasis). That's good enough for #29 in the NBA this season and #28 last season. He was winning scoring titles while simultaneously out-competing some starting point guards when it came to assists. Jordan ranks #45 all-time in assists, in 14 equivalent full seasons, ahead of a large list of point guards. He averaged 8 assists and 32.5 points in the same season in 1989, during the height of his scoring capabilities. 8 assists per game is good enough for #5 this season (for those that don't know basketball well, that's typically elite point guard territory). Lebron is #4 all-time in points per game. Your argument is pretty amusing to make given the numbers. He wants to see his teammates score vs himself? He has led his team in scoring for 16 years in a row, including his rookie season. Lebron's scoring average per game is 27.1, Jordan's was 30.1. Lebron has averaged 20 shots per game, Jordan averaged 23. Your premise is plainly false, the gulf between them on scoring behavior is simply not that great. Scottie Pippen and Horace Grant won championships with Jordan and became renowned players - with Pippen being named to the all-time 50 list - precisely because Jordan had no problem with them scoring as well. The scoring label was only partially true in the early years of Jordan's career where he was on a very mediocre Bulls team and attempted to do too much of the scoring out of necessity. Lebron averaged 31.4 points and took 23 shots per game, with 6.6 assists, his third season in the league as a reference. Lebron clearly wasn't lacking in aggressive scoring behavior in his early years either.
alexashka 6y ago
Another article from someone who hasn't accomplished anything, talking about how he/she is worried that somebody is going to maybe misinterpret something someone else said... Quality content folks. There is no fallacy - if you want to work as much as Jordan or Steve Jobs did, you've gotta be a lunatic to begin with. Why would you expect a lunatic to not be eccentric, in most cases? One of the ways a lunatic can be eccentric is being an asshole - media loves to blow them out of proportion. Another way a lunatic can be eccentric is being extra quiet and extra nice aka Steve Wozniak. It's hard to write blog posts and get clicks about how nice Steve Wozniak is, people love drama far more than they love nice. So what do we have, writers creating a myth of these tyrants where in reality they are just eccentric most of the time, and then other pathetic writers writing about what another set of writers has created. Pathetic - journalists are largely such low life, talentless scum, oh well, at least they're nice, oh wait, or are they, with all the misquotes and poorly researched trash they publish on a daily basis, is that nice?
tech-historian 6y ago
It boils down to a real challenge in leadership. How to be demanding without being demeaning? For some, this is straightforward, but for others, it's nearly impossible.
KKKKkkkk1 6y ago
US business culture has two leadership archetypes: The brilliant asshole and the kind uncle who leads by example (think Steve Jobs and Tim Cook). Despite there being two archetypes, asshole culture is endemic in American business. Why is that? My theory is that more often than not, the kind fatherly leader relies on a cadre of assholes to do his job for him. Elsewhere in this thread there is the example of Ed Catmull and John Lasseter that reinforces my impression.
- watwut 6y ago
  Because the kind uncle is not leadership archetype that would be praised. It might been in the past, but not anymore. Th asshole is praised as leader, is assumed to have greater technical skills, is generally rewarded.
- brlewis 6y ago
  > asshole culture is endemic in American business Is it really endemic, or do isolated cases get undue attention? A mutual fund portfolio manager once told me she would avoid investing in companies where the CEO was an asshole, because such people end up surrounded by others eager to see them fail.
- bsder 6y ago
  To me it's not about being an asshole, it's about being an asshole when there is no reason to be. I'm not going to go around being a jerk, but if I see somebody getting stepped on unjustly, I'm going to step in. That sets me up as an asshole to about 10-15% of the human population that I refer to as "social manipulators". They're very good at getting their way because most people simply won't oppose them. Those people bounce off me like a brick wall, and they detest it. They consider me an asshole and vice versa and we avoid one another. In addition, I try really hard not to be a jerk when I'm genuinely angry (and that happpens VERY rarely--I think I can count purple face/seeing red rage about 3 times in my entire life). I leave and cool down because I'm likely to do something really stupid otherwise.
- nemothekid 6y ago
  My theory is that the brilliant asshole just tends to gravitate toward the limelight. In other words they are also very self-congratulatory and therefore market themselves better. Look at a FAAMG - of the acronym, I would only consider Jobs a "brillant" asshole and maybe Bezos (although he seems way more dogmatic than an asshole). Despite all being incredibly companies, Jobs is by and far the most famous.
brudgers 6y ago
Pablo Picasso was never called an asshole...or so I’ve heard.
joe_the_user 6y ago
Random website demands Google or Facebook sign-in? Goes with the topic I suppose...
jariel 6y ago
Was he really an a-hole? It's hard for many people to fathom different environments, but sports, sometimes startups, the Army for example ... different communication styles. Even mild 'Military Communication' would make many people uncomfortable, because of the almost total lack of emotional empathy in most scenarios. But - it works, really well. To the point that some people (maybe myself included) feel that we should all learn to be a little more in control of our emotions and less 'needy' of our peers and managers. When a manager tries too hard with empathy frankly is feels patronizing, like I'm a child or diva whose ego needs to be managed. I feel that it's coddling, and it shouldn't be needed with professionals, other than the very occasional kudos and only when warranted. There are instances of Jordan in public life being a 'real jerk' ... and maybe some instances of him doing that on the court - but this is not unreasonable for such a long career. Also, here is a good example: Pippin seemed nice, but then famously refused to go on the court once after he didn't like the coach's call. Some might argue that this is the absolute height of arrogance and jerkoffness, because it's the most self-centered thing possible. I don't think Jordan ever did this. I watch junior Hockey players get reamed out by their coaches after the 1st period, and they're just utterly calm, it's just words to them. We need to contextualize what we consider to be real arrogance from merely more aggressive communication or communication that is assertive and lacking in emotional empathy. After watching the special, I'm not so sure if Jordan was an asshole. Obviously self-centered, and assertive, but that's not being an asshole. He was also one part of a unit of other types of characters that seemed to blend.
- the_jeremy 6y ago
  That is... not the take I'd expect on military effectiveness. I think there is are good reasons the private sector doesn't emulate the military in command structure. I know I am more productive with an understanding manager than being screamed at, and I am more efficient with a manager who values my ideas and encourages taking risks than one who forces me to do things exactly by the book. Admittedly, I don't have military experience, but it seems like it's more akin to a manager I would hate to have than one who would help me grow.
  - knolax 6y ago
fleddr 6y ago
Those that do try to apply this asshole logic outside this highly specific context, make 2 very painful mistakes. One, whatever you do, isn't memorable, and has no glory. 90s Chicago Bulls took the world by storm. Jordan is perceived as one of the greatest athletes ever. Him being that asshole may very well have secured multiple championships. Which is a big thing, something millions of people care about and still talk about decades later. Not so much for your soulless corp few even know exists at all. Nobody cares about your performance but yourself. There is no glory to pushing people to the very edge, therefore it's not worth it or justifiable. In business, people shouldn't be expected to deliver super human effort or endure this behavior. The situations just don't compare. Two, you're not Jordan. And not Jobs. Nor will you become one by being an asshole. A handful of people have the character, vision and skill to touch, change and inspire the world, and you're not it. Not even close.
s17n 6y ago
I think the fallacy is to confuse cause and effect. The characteristics necessary to achieve greatness are very likely to also make you an asshole. But, deliberately being an asshole is only going to make you less likely to achieve greatness.
- Hokusai 6y ago
  > I think the fallacy is to confuse cause and effect. The characteristics necessary to achieve greatness are very likely to also make you an asshole. I would rephrase to: "The characteristics necessary to be noticed above your teammates are very likely to also make you an asshole." The best professionals I have ever worked with are kind, willing to help and growth themselves and their teams. And too often are missed by management, the self-promoting assholes are noticed and promoted by management. Great leaders are kind, great leaders are smart, great leaders help you, great leaders go unnoticed because are one of you working within the team.
Sophistifunk 6y ago
Jobs wasn't great at what he did because he was an asshole, it's just he was allowed to be an asshole because he was great at what he did. A lot of people seem to have these things around the wrong way.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
jhwang5 6y ago
In this thread. Bunch of people who haven't won anything criticizing the methods of the greatest winner.
redis_mlc 6y ago
I read the article and the HN posts, but they all miss the point, calling it the "Great Asshole Fallacy" is incorrect. One of Jordan's coaches said in an interview, "[What most people don't understand about Jordan is that he isn't there to play, he's there to win.]" Meaning the game of basketball wasn't important, winning was important. Tiger Woods said the same thing in an interview, "if I can't win, I won't play,' he said. 'I simply couldn't stand it and I will walk away when I can no longer play at the highest level." Winners are there to win, not to enjoy the game. So in that respect they have no problem acting or being perceived as assholes, since winning is all that matters. If you pay attention to the media, you'll see that most champions don't just play and hope to excel, they are driven to win, regardless of their sport. Often they'll say, "I wanted to go out at the top." (I'll let the hard-core sports fans research the Jordan quote and fill in the verbatim version.) https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/golf/article-1097074/If-I-8217-t-win-I-won-8217-t-play-says-Woods-superstar-eyes-New-Years-comeback.html https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/golf/article-1097074/If-I-...
jtsuken 6y ago
This is a very anti-postmodernist post, where neither the author nor the commenters realise that their most insightful thoughts on the topic are literal quotes from "Crime and Punishment".

167 points by shawndumas 6y ago

I try very hard not to be an asshole, but I see assholes somehow being respected for being assholes. Is this similar to patio11 saying that charging more for a service makes it easier for people to value the service? Is this an innate property of the way some people think? Can we change our system of values to appreciate value based on non monetary terms, and leadership based on non degrading terms? I don't have answers for these questions, but I think they're important...

ryandvm 6y ago
People aren't attracted to assholes, people are attracted to confidence and assertiveness. The problem is that while not all confident people are assholes, all assholes are confident.
- WJW 6y ago
  You just don't notice the non-confident assholes because they don't seek the spotlight.
  - nogabebop23 6y ago
    to tie it back to the netflix series this is Phil Jackson in a nutshell. He appears to quietly fade into the background but is busy coaching and letting these guys do their thing, tweaking and making small incremental changes - and winning championships. Steve Kerr (who played for him) had success with a similar coaching style in Golden State (at least up until this season!). These guys are known as a player's coach because they are most definitely not assholes.
    - AnimalMuppet 6y ago
      I wouldn't say that about Phil Jackson. Over and over I have heard about how incredibly manipulative he was, playing games with his players' heads. Sure, he's doing it to try to get 1% more out of them, which is also good for the player, but... I wouldn't put him in the non-a-hole category.
- slantyyz 6y ago
  >> people are attracted to confidence and assertiveness Yes, but when it comes to having someone represent them (i.e., lawyers, agents, politicians, etc), I tend to think that people are attracted to bullies.
coffeefirst 6y ago
It's also harder to see the costs of being an asshole. 1. People start lying to you and cutting corners so you don't go off on them. 2. They quit, and you'll never realize their "great opportunity" was getting as far away from you as possible. 3. They tell their friends, some of which are great, not to get involved. 4. They don't forget this behavior, and while they may smile the next time you cross paths, they will quietly shut doors without even thinking about it. And of course, if you are the asshole, nobody is going to tell you that your reputation precedes you.

loudtieblahblah 6y ago

Assholes shake up hive minds Hive minds create cohesion and work better as teams..but they squash excellence. Both are needed

Juliate 6y ago
But excellence is hubris. That's the point.
- BadThink6655321 6y ago
  Excellence is privilege.
  - _aleph2c_ 6y ago
    I wish I had enough points to down vote your comment.
  - loudtieblahblah 6y ago
    those who do well should be forced to take drugs to slow their cognition and wear chains to slow their movements so no one ever feels threatened by them, amirite?
  - Dominisi 6y ago
    Ah yes, spoken like somebody who hasn't achieved anything in their life because everything is beyond their control.
danaris 6y ago
This logic doesn't hold up, because there's something very important missing: Sure, assholes can sometimes shake up hive minds. But it doesn't require an asshole to shake up a hive mind and bring excellence. What it requires...is a leader. Like the article says, someone who can recognize what each person or group actually needs to be brought to excellence, which is not always an asshole.
- 6y ago

TheCowboy 6y ago

I've had one boss who was terrible at basically everything, and he actually justified his behavior using Steve Jobs as an example. His company was only successful because he was in the right place at the right time, but the company was failing to maximize its full potential because of him. Would anyone try to claim there is a shortage of asshole managers, owners, or bosses out there? It's just a fact that many jerks exist, and a portion will inevitably end up at the top despite this behavior. Would YC have been more successful if it better emphasized seeking out this behavior in founders? If this behavior is critical to success then shouldn't we be training people to be jerks?

stronglikedan 6y ago
> shouldn't we be training people to be jerks? We do. It's called an MBA Program. There's even an "accelerated" option for maximum jerktitude.
shadowgovt 6y ago
The most impressive managerial implosion I've ever heard of was one of those bosses. He'd been hired on to be a whip-cracker; he did get results, but was remarkably unliked by staff. Company got purchased and it became clear some team members were not going to be hired by the new owning company. Team was trying to knock out a few last big-ticket TODOs before the handoff of projects. So the boss is going around the room in the scrum, and the DB lead announces he missed his target on some work remaining to be done. Conversation went something like this: Boss: "How are the DB changes?" DB guy: "Not done yet. I should be able to knock them out this week." Boss: "You had them on the calendar as ready by Monday." DB guy: "I know." Boss: "Didn't knock them out this weekend?" DB guy: "Nope." Boss: "What happened?" DB guy: crosses arms behind the back of his head and leans back in his chair "I spent the time polishing my résumé and setting up interviews for new opportunities this week." The whip-cracking approach to project management utterly collapses if the whip no longer stings.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

ak39 6y ago

I think the writer is correct: there is a meme out there that in order to be great, a leader, a trailblazer etc you have to become inevitably the arsehole. So much so, that arseholism is not just tolerated but celebrated. I wonder why the author did not feel persuaded to mention our current poster child of arseholism, the quintessential kind: Donald Trump. Here's a good video essay on the same subject by a filmmaker, Max Joseph: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRRvjZ_XNog https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRRvjZ_XNog

draw_down 6y ago
I don’t understand this as an argument against being an asshole. Watch out, you might become the president or one of the greatest athletes in history! I find this stuff very suspect to begin with. Sure we can all grew Trump is an asshole, but in smaller scope, what really matters is who gets to decide who is an asshole. That’s the whole game.

keeptrying 6y ago

Relentlessly upping a teams standards in everything - strategy, execution, effort etc, tires out everyone on that team. But that’s usually what you need to win or succeed in a competitive system. People who push for this will always be called assholes because they force team members to stretch themselves which is never a comfortable proposition. The corollary to this is that to win by not being an asshole, find something that is needed/wanted but no one else does or that which you can do 10x better than everyone else. Without competition you won’t need to push you or your team that hard. (The only catch with having no competition, is that, having no competition will slow down the rate at which you can improve or stop all improvement in most people.)

0d9eooo 6y ago
I think raising standards or changing things is different from being an asshole. Having dealt with this in a big way recently, it's very much on my mind. It's entirely possible to say "we need to work harder, or take a risk, or be bold" while understanding where your colleagues are at in terms of what they need to do that, or what has or hasn't been communicated to them about how that will happen, or how things have been done in the past to change them. Too often bad management or administration is justified by saying "well things needed change" or "things needed to be shaken up." There's a way to implement that while bringing others on board, giving credit where things are due, etc. Put another way, it's easy to ruthlessly level an organization and rebuild it in the way you want to if you have the power to do that, but it doesn't mean the fairy tale you tell yourself about it having been necessary is actually true. More often than not you're just rationalizing away being inhumane and destructive, and probably even losing out on even better possibilities in the process.
- ra1n85 6y ago
  >It's entirely possible to say "we need to work harder, or take a risk, or be bold" while understanding where your colleagues are at in terms of what they need to do that, or what has or hasn't been communicated to them about how that will happen, or how things have been done in the past to change them. Great leaders, in my experience, haven't asked these questions or pushed performance in this way - they led their reports through soft management to come to the conclusion that it was necessary to increase performance. They framed questions that led people to the conclusions they had already made. Of course, this also requires that the reports are capable enough of being led in the right direction.

jacknews 6y ago

This seems quite wishy-washy to me. Excellence and leadership requires strength, and determination, no doubt about it. But do you then ruthlessly impose those values on everyone else, or help them get there? To me, that's the difference between a leader and an ahole.

slantyyz 6y ago
I think the tolerance of the a-hole also depends on whether that a-hole is a unicorn. MJ, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Elon Musk etc. They're not everyday a-holes. These guys are/were arguably at the top of their game during the peak of their a-holery, so to speak. The acceptance of their a-holery is going to be much broader than it is for some random wannabe who thinks they are greater than they really are. It might be important to note that with the exception of Musk, the examples I used came up in a different time, and the tolerance for some of their behaviour would be much lower today.
- paulryanrogers 6y ago
  Consider also survivor bias, luck, and the privilege these may have been born into.
kennxfl 6y ago
A leader can also be described as someone who pushes colleagues/subordinates within the limits of what he can do hence that fantastic MJ line ' I never asked anyone to do something I could not do myself. ' There is no such thing as being pushed at your own pace.

jerf 6y ago

I think this is the mechanism: Let us hypothesize the nicest possible person who is willing to do what it takes to be great. Unfailingly polite. Gracious with the money. Helps out those less fortunate as much as is possible under the constraints of doing what it takes to be great. An inspiration and a role model. By definition, by any sensible definition of the term, if you knew this person well you would agree they are as far from an asshole as it is possible to be. There is a non-zero set of people in this person's life who will necessarily decide this person is an asshole anyhow. In the early days, you invite this person to social events, and they decline because they're practicing. Maybe someone's even crushing on this person and consistently asks them out and consistently gets declined. However polite they are in declining, there's one person who is going to decide they're an asshole. Whoever it is in second place on the team, who under normal circumstances would talented enough to be the star player on the team but is getting shown up by the fact they're on a team with Michael freakin' Jordan... they're likely to harbor opinions of assholery, because if we humans are good at anything, it's rationalizing our pre-existing beliefs and finding reasons why we're right. When professional and financial success is obtained in later years, people who want a piece of it but are denied will decide this person is an asshole. A coach who tries to control this person to take credit for their fame but is rebuffed because what the coach is saying to do is not what it takes to be great will decide this guy is an asshole. The reporter who tries to weasel their way in to hitch themselves to this rising star and asks for interviews but gets rebuffed because it's not what is necessary to become great may do a hit piece around convincing everyone they're an asshole. And so forth and so on. On the Internet, if you simply express a strong opinion, of any kind, no matter how politely, some subset of people will take as proof you're an asshole. If someone posts disagreement and you decline to instantly and totally agree with that person, a somewhat larger group of people will decide you're an asshole. The upshot is that there's two different kinds of assholery; actually being a jerk, in as objective a sense as possible, and people who will decide you're being an asshole because you've done things that are (again as objectively as possible) not assholery, but because you are resisting doing what they want or some other thing that is really entirely on them. From where we sit at a distance, it is often difficult to borderline impossible to tell which is which, or to tell the difference between a genuinely nice guy and someone who got advised to hire a PR firm.

6y ago

classified 6y ago

Yikes, it's a Medium site, but disguised. Had I known that, I would not have clicked that link. With a little bit of imagination that could be interpreted as a practical demonstration of assholery.

croon 6y ago

Excellence awards you the choice of being an asshole. It also allows you to be revisionist in excusing you being an asshole as necessary in retrospect, even if it wasn't. Some people will be assholes if allowed to, but I don't think it's (positively) correlated with success. I imagine few people work better for/with an asshole, and if someone excellent/smart/1000x developer is pleasant to work with (but perhaps assertive) the results are probably even better.

base698 6y ago
I wonder. You look at someone like Linus that has created untold trillions of wealth and given a lot of that wealth away. Yet, there are also many very public asshole blow ups. Are there counter examples of success like that which don't have a severe asshole at the epicenter? Carmack and Tim Sweeney?
- zozbot234 6y ago
  Torvalds's "public blow ups" are not really about being an asshole though, it's just a playful style of communication. Maybe it shows more confidence and assertiveness, but that's not a bad thing.
  - shadowgovt 6y ago
    The problem is it really doesn't read that way in text to a lot of readers (I also suspect there's a culture gap; there's a stereotype about Scandinavian communication being gruff and blunt relative to other European customs).
  - tachyonbeam 6y ago
    I don't know about that. He's said some incredibly mean and offensive things. It is detrimental IMO. There is basically no way I would want to collaborate with him. You couldn't pay me to contribute to the Linux kernel, and I'm sure I'm not the only one who feels that way. He gets away with it because the world has become very dependent on Linux.

nogabebop23 6y ago

Everyone focuses on Jordan but Jerry Krause is the one who makes the best case for being an asshole leading to great success. Many people seem to interpret being an asshole as causal for success, but they're not even corelated. Michael Jordan may or may not be an asshole depending on when and who interacted with him, but he demanded the same absolute perfection from others that he did of himself. The problem was no one was as good as him so he essentially asked for more than they could ever deliver, leading to him taking it all on his shoulders. This inevitably lead to tensions with the "second tier" stars on the team like Pipen and Grant who likely felt they could handle both the burden and benefit of the spotlight. If there's a lesson here it's likely more on delegation and success of the team over individuals. Phil Jackson gets discounted as they guy who sat and watched Jordan do all the work, but he's won more NBA titles than anyone on the Bulls dream squad. He is someone who definitely does not present as an asshole.

dvtrn 6y ago
Jerry Krause is the one who makes the best case for being an asshole leading to great success. I agree with this summation fully, having said as much in many conversations on the topic since "The Last Dance" documentary aired and I discovered many of my friends were suddenly experts on the 90's era Bulls. Even the fans who swore they hated professional sports and couldn't separate Tony Kukoč from Tony Parker Phil Jackson gets discounted as they guy who sat and watched Jordan do all the work...He is someone who definitely does not present as an asshole. That's because the people who do this probably haven't bothered themselves to know anything more about Phil Jackson than the one they see on the court; a common malady of critiquing the human machinations of sports and sports personalities. Read any of his books (but maybe especially "Sacred Hoops"), enter his head space and see his motivations as player turned coach-they're amazing. Phil Jackson the younger wasn't quite the same man, but in 'Sacred Hoops' it's really interesting how Phil Jackson the older didn't rebuke his younger self, merely embraced him, molded him and constantly reflected back on that young man while coaching Mike. Phil says as much and cites especially when his father passed away, as the moment that allowed him a certain "freedom" to be himself. I'm taking a lot of these same lessons and applying them to my team at work, while reading my second Phil Jackson book, "More than a Game". Even taking his philosophies out of it, Phil Jackson was and I think still is an enormous student of the game-going all the way back even before his days playing for the Knicks, like you said-the man didn't just happen upon success because he found himself coaching stellar players, his willingness to buck traditional thought at the time in the NBA and embrace his assistant coaches "Triangle Offense" and successful integration of that into the Bulls played just as much a part in that team becoming who they did as Air Jordan's ability to defy gravity and hit buckets from just about anywhere on the court (except from the perimeter[1], consistently at least). --- [1] https://www.theringer.com/nba/2020/5/18/21260106/michael-jordan-the-last-dance-evolution https://www.theringer.com/nba/2020/5/18/21260106/michael-jor...

sub7 6y ago

This idiot has clearly never built anything in his life. Blogger -> VC blogger.

jpwright 6y ago

I'd add that lessons from sports leadership don't always apply in other contexts. Sports at the highest levels require extreme competitiveness and aggression. A Jordan-style asshole leader might succeed by motivating the development of those traits in their teammates, but those same traits are probably toxic and unhelpful in other environments.

jrumbut 6y ago
Yeah, also to be an effective leader in that mold you should start by being a generational talent like Michael Jordan. When all those Steve Jobs biographies came out there was a population who thought if they just became really picky about design and impulsive about personnel decisions their business would become another Apple. Just being a jerk isn't really a strategy, even in sports.
- GVIrish 6y ago
  This is always my answer to people trying to justify being an asshole by comparing themselves to Steve Jobs or Michael Jordan. If you are as talented as them, maybe you can make that argument. But if you are not literally the best in the world at something and/or arguably the best of all time at something, you can't use their examples. An NBA bench player can't behave like Michael Jordan and expect to stay in the league, even though an NBA bench player is probably one of the best 400 basketball players in the world. Even then, I would argue that guys like Jordan and Jobs succeeded in spite of being assholes, not necessarily because of it.
- jariel 6y ago
  "also to be an effective leader in that mold you should start by being a generational talent like Michael Jordan." This is such a good point. It's so hard for most people to contextualize this. Pro Sports athletes are basically 'life dedicated' to something, these are deeply competitive people in general. And then take the top 0.1% of those, put him with people that actually can be pushed to the top. Jordan was no the branch manager of your local bank selling mortgages, who could not get away with such tactics.
6y ago

switch11 6y ago

Felix Dennis in his book has a quote related to committing to becoming rich The people who suffer most are the ones closest to you It's meant for family and friends It also applies to an extent to your work colleagues If you pursue excellence, people around you are going to get pulled along with you Some of them will think you are a dick or a jerk or an asshole You can't be nice to everyone Even if you are, a fraction of people will still think you're a dick Now take that same person and give them success People suddenly have TWO reasons to think they are a dick A) They are more focused than you B) They are more successful than you * I don't ever see people complaining about someone they are more successful than, but almost always about people who did better than them

cafard 6y ago
I think that you may lead a sheltered life. Arrogance is by no means always accompanied by performance.

shadowgovt 6y ago

There's a lot to be said of Antoine de Saint-Exupéry's quote about ships and the love of the sea. Great leaders can find a way to communicate that. It can be a challenge finding the balance between being driven (and driving a team) and being an asshole; you have to remember that people can't love the work if they're starved for something else. (For my money, personally, the highest praise I can hear of a team leader is "That person doesn't ask more of the team than they demand of themselves, but also, be warned that person does not sleep.")

heymijo 6y ago

Some of this thread is conflating being an asshole (subjective) with being abusive. Jordan was abusive and thought that was the way to get the best out of those around him. So it's worth remembering that The Last Dance wasn't Jordan's last time in the NBA. MJ came out of retirement to play for the Wizards. Acted just as he did when he was Air Jordan with the Bulls, but could no longer back up his abusive behavior with his play [0]. Instead of elevating the Wizards, Jordan being an asshole now hurt the team in a number of different ways. A person may be deemed an asshole for having high standards. They don't have to be abusive to hold those high standards though. Ed Catmull and Pixar have high standards but are not abusive in the mold of Jordan or Jobs [1]. Kim Scott wrote an entire book, Radical Candor, about how to demand excellence without being abusive [2]. [0] https://slate.com/culture/2020/05/the-last-dance-michael-jordan-bulls-wizards.html https://slate.com/culture/2020/05/the-last-dance-michael-jor... [1] http://www.bugaj.com/blog/2014/9/14/you-sir-are-no-ed-catmull http://www.bugaj.com/blog/2014/9/14/you-sir-are-no-ed-catmul... [2] https://www.radicalcandor.com/ https://www.radicalcandor.com/

gustavo-fring 6y ago
Just a reminder that the environment at Pixar was abusive in other ways, notably in the other major figure being a serial harrasser that had moves designed after him to avoid his advances. I think that says a lot about Catmull and the leadership there that they tolerated that kind of abusive behavior to get greatness. But yeah, to get to your other point, I recall Jerry Stackhouse saying he hated playing with Jordan (was sorry he did) and I figure Kwame Brown's career certainly wasn't helped. The repeated belittling of Krause by Jordan that comes up in the doc (height, weight) was that of a small mean person. His interactions with Kerr suggest that Jordan valued people standing up to him above all, which was also something he had in common with Jobs. I think this meanness is something that we should watch out for in leaders, it is a sign that something is broken and that brokenness can hurt others. Jobs, Jordan, and Musk all display it, the small ugly pettiness. It is destructive and dehumanizing to both the victim and the person doing it. Phil Jackson (as others have pointed out) shows you don't need it. There's no way he is the coach he was without the humility and empathy he had. Jordan et al saw someone like Rodman as talent to be used for a time, Jackson genuinely cared about him. It's what drives me crazy when people ignore the destructive behavior of Musk - he's the kind of personality that has shown time and time again that peole are disposable, even his biggest fans. He'll dispose of you as soon as it is convenient. We should dispose of that leadership style.

mabbo 6y ago

I think it's reverse causality. If you're incredibly talented and have enormous success for most of your life then you probably have gotten away with being an asshole time and time again. What are you going to do, fire Michael Jordan because he's mean? You're going to kick Ellen off your TV channel because she's rude to her people? Over time they get reinforcement that being an asshole is acceptable for them. And it's so convenient to be a jerk. Later on when someone asks about it, well, that was my secret to success of course. You have to be an asshole to get ahead. To heck with that! Successful people being assholes is a sign of their weakness, not their strength.

z3rgl1ng 6y ago
+1. Also confirmation bias. “Justified assholery” is a big part of the self-made mythology.
Someone1234 6y ago
Related: That's why I think physically attractive people often (but not always) have worse personalities. They can get away with more. Studies show this too[0]: > When the defendant was attractive, there was a shift in judgments toward acquittal, but when the defendant was unattractive, there was no such shift. As a result, mock juries were more likely to acquit the attractive defendant than the unattractive defendant. If people are more likely to acquit attractive defendants in criminal trials, they're certainly going to let more social "crimes" pass. [0] https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0093854890017003005 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/009385489001700...
- thrav 6y ago
  I find it amusing how often attractive women get two words that sound similar, mixed up. Things like, “for all intensive purposes” or others — I think you know what I mean. My hypothesis is that no one wants to correct them, the way they would someone they don’t fear retribution from. Their friends might fear being ostracized for implying they’re stupid. Their suitors might fear pushing them away for the same reason. They just say it wrong for years while everyone nods and smiles. I’ve made a habit of noting them in meetings and then privately informing them after. Have heard replies like, “Wait, really!? That’s so embarrassing, I’ve been saying that wrong for YEARS.” Constantly getting a pass cuts both ways. It’s also harder to stand on their own, since they grow so accustomed to people constantly offering help, and free stuff.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

motohagiography 6y ago

Worth noting this is written by a very successful venture capitalist, with a firm that is the product of one of the fastest growing companies ever. It's not a reason to believe him one way or another, but when he writes, "That’s what i think of when I think of leadership. Someone who is malleable enough to both know and to react to the different needs of different people on their team," I'd posit it's pretty clear he's talking his own book. I do not know the author, and taking shots at him on an internet forum is small, but as a general principle, Jeffery Pfeffer talks about this retroactive continuity of virtue in success stories in his books. Everyone wants to think their luck made them good. Riding growth up to the top is a different set of skills than setting off the chain reaction that creates the energy behind it. In fact, malleability is precisely what you need to ride growth, but I'd argue you need a force of will to be the one to create it. That carries asshole-risk. The stories successful people tell about how they became successful are almost exclusively about how virtuous they were, and how their path was noble. A critical view of success and its factors is very much the "loser's" view, as telling it from outside means you don't have it, but it still has some value because the one told from inside is not the one that will get you there. They aren't in the business of building (ungated) ladders behind them. The story successful people don't tell is the one where they leveraged someones trust, scandalizing, discrediting, and isolating someone who lacked their mendacity, or put people who trusted them at more personal risk than they may have perceived. Nobody likes an asshole, and it's a good thing to build things that select against them, but the definition has to be better than what the losers just call the person they lose to, or as a foil for back-fitting a story of skill and virtue onto some really grisly work and luck. It's like Ray Dalio saying he's a billionaire because of transcendental meditation. If that sentence causes your middle finger to involuntarily leap into the air, you can appreciate how these other auto-hagiographies are received. Anyway, not to take pot shots from the cheap seats, but it's better to be suspicious of free advice that tells you to be nice. Not because being nice is wrong, but because when someone gives it to you free, it is probably worth more to them than you.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

JabavuAdams 6y ago

Fair enough, but I think it misses the more important point. If we cancel all the assholes, or demand that they be well-rounded people, we will lose some of our highest performers. Most assholes are not great. Many greats are not assholes. Some of the greatest were assholes.

ken 6y ago
There’s an alternate universe where no assholes are allowed to progress, and someone is saying “If we let people be assholes, think of what great things they could accomplish”. And another (like the Evil Star Trek universe) where everyone is a gigantic asshole, and someone is saying “If we weren’t such assholes all the time, maybe we could still accomplish good things, and not hate each other”. Is there anything special about the level of asshood we’re willing to put up with? Is this some kind of global maximum? AFAICT, it’s merely a local maximum of “as big of an asshole as you can be without the general public realizing that you’re an asshole“. Maybe we should aspire to be better, and ask more of our leaders. That’s a pretty low bar.
- Nasrudith 6y ago
  Really I think the issue is partially a matter of control and subset constraints. First off if you filter for something goddamn rare in the first place you are far more likely to squander it no matter how good or bad tbe criteria. Of course one thing nobody recognizes about canceling the assholes is tbat the ability for society to control itself means being worse off. There is now an additional axis for manipulation by to take out tall poppies deservedly or not social manipulators will abuse it no matter how pure or reasonable the original motive or metric may be. Or even just natural culture turnint against those not fitting with the toxic norms. And the extreme successes are always outside the norm by definition. Not saying to excuse everything but to have a sense of proportion for the offenses and that society doesn't know jack shit about how to regulate itself historically - its attempts to do so have a track record of causing far more harm than good. "That Semelweiss guy is an asshole saying surgeons should wash their hands! A gentleman's hands are always clean!"
jayd16 6y ago

TrackerFF 6y ago

If anyone wants to see how asshole management works in reality, just visit any random retail store, franchise or independent. Or worse, call centers. These places typically have very limited upward mobility, and their only requirement for future operational (i.e, not corporate) "leaders" would be results from working at the ground floor. This means that they tend to hire people that aren't necessarily the best leaders, but the best sellers. It's basically the Peter Principle in action, but often with only one step up on the ladder. And because these people, or leaders, have very limited training or exposure to good leadership (their old leaders got to the same place, the same way), they perpetuate the same sh!tty anti-leadership practices - which is very much something one could call asshole management. And what's more, there's often such a extreme level of power asymmetry / imbalance, that lower-level workers are completely at the mercy of their middle-managers. It is something you can draw parallels to in sports. You're being measured by KPI / performance measures, and get more responsibilities the better you perform. Everyone who's ever played any competitive team sports knows or has experiences this - some star player(s) that have can rein freely, because they exceed at some important measure (score goals, or whatever) - while rest of their teammates are walking on eggshells. But to tie it all together: The problem is that entities (businesses, sports teams, whatever) become dependent on these stars, even though it could completely destroy morale, and create toxic cultures within. I think that if you identify these following points in some environment, there's a great chance you'll meet on great asshole bosses / leaders 1) Great power imbalance between worker and leader. 2) Leadership compensation is dependent on worker performance. 3) Levels of compensation is driven by a very few measures / KPI. 4) Upward mobility is squarely tied to your KPI performance (from 3). Basically - if the only way to succeed within is to be a rainmaker, and being a rainmaker makes you the king, then that could easily foster assholes.

kelvin0 6y ago

Some so called 'assholes' are in fact really good mirrors and amplifiers of our existing insecurities. Is it fun when someone is able to 'push our buttons' and make us feel worthless? Rarely. Is it useful to further explore why it made us uncomfortable? Always. I am not preaching that you should tolerate abuse, far from it. But you should be aware of your own dark side and recognize it for what it is.

subsubzero 6y ago

Contrast Jordan's greatness and being an asshole with Lebron James's greatness and being a nice guy. Sure Lebron has not won as many championships as Jordan (Lebron's 3 to Jordan's 6) but he is an atypical pro athlete in that he wants to see his teammates score vs. himself score [1] . Also Lebron has never gotten in a fight with his own teammates like Jordan did twice, or maybe more? Jordan also had the benefit of Scottie Pippen who is a all-pro/50 greatest player [2] and far exceeded the skill of any of Lebron James teammates(Dwayne Wade prb being the closest to Pippen.) Sure Lebron is demanding and has extremely high standards, but there are different ways to influence greatness from your teammates other than being an extreme asshole. [1] - https://www.cbssports.com/nba/news/lebron-james-says-he-and-michael-jordan-wouldve-been-ideal-teammates-my-assets-work-perfectly-with-mike/ https://www.cbssports.com/nba/news/lebron-james-says-he-and-... [2] - https://www.nba.com/history/nba-at-50/top-50-players https://www.nba.com/history/nba-at-50/top-50-players

adventured 6y ago
> Sure Lebron has not won as many championships as Jordan (Lebron's 3 to Jordan's 6) Your sure statement is quite the qualification. Three versus six rings is an enormous difference in the NBA. That's a Larry Bird of a difference. Charles Barkley, Karl Malone, John Stockton, Reggie Miller, Patrick Ewing, Chris Mullin and Dominique Wilkins won zero rings. > but he is an atypical pro athlete in that he wants to see his teammates score vs. himself score Jordan's average was 5.3 assists per game (as a shooting guard, emphasis). That's good enough for #29 in the NBA this season and #28 last season. He was winning scoring titles while simultaneously out-competing some starting point guards when it came to assists. Jordan ranks #45 all-time in assists, in 14 equivalent full seasons, ahead of a large list of point guards. He averaged 8 assists and 32.5 points in the same season in 1989, during the height of his scoring capabilities. 8 assists per game is good enough for #5 this season (for those that don't know basketball well, that's typically elite point guard territory). Lebron is #4 all-time in points per game. Your argument is pretty amusing to make given the numbers. He wants to see his teammates score vs himself? He has led his team in scoring for 16 years in a row, including his rookie season. Lebron's scoring average per game is 27.1, Jordan's was 30.1. Lebron has averaged 20 shots per game, Jordan averaged 23. Your premise is plainly false, the gulf between them on scoring behavior is simply not that great. Scottie Pippen and Horace Grant won championships with Jordan and became renowned players - with Pippen being named to the all-time 50 list - precisely because Jordan had no problem with them scoring as well. The scoring label was only partially true in the early years of Jordan's career where he was on a very mediocre Bulls team and attempted to do too much of the scoring out of necessity. Lebron averaged 31.4 points and took 23 shots per game, with 6.6 assists, his third season in the league as a reference. Lebron clearly wasn't lacking in aggressive scoring behavior in his early years either.

alexashka 6y ago

Another article from someone who hasn't accomplished anything, talking about how he/she is worried that somebody is going to maybe misinterpret something someone else said... Quality content folks. There is no fallacy - if you want to work as much as Jordan or Steve Jobs did, you've gotta be a lunatic to begin with. Why would you expect a lunatic to not be eccentric, in most cases? One of the ways a lunatic can be eccentric is being an asshole - media loves to blow them out of proportion. Another way a lunatic can be eccentric is being extra quiet and extra nice aka Steve Wozniak. It's hard to write blog posts and get clicks about how nice Steve Wozniak is, people love drama far more than they love nice. So what do we have, writers creating a myth of these tyrants where in reality they are just eccentric most of the time, and then other pathetic writers writing about what another set of writers has created. Pathetic - journalists are largely such low life, talentless scum, oh well, at least they're nice, oh wait, or are they, with all the misquotes and poorly researched trash they publish on a daily basis, is that nice?

tech-historian 6y ago

It boils down to a real challenge in leadership. How to be demanding without being demeaning? For some, this is straightforward, but for others, it's nearly impossible.

KKKKkkkk1 6y ago

US business culture has two leadership archetypes: The brilliant asshole and the kind uncle who leads by example (think Steve Jobs and Tim Cook). Despite there being two archetypes, asshole culture is endemic in American business. Why is that? My theory is that more often than not, the kind fatherly leader relies on a cadre of assholes to do his job for him. Elsewhere in this thread there is the example of Ed Catmull and John Lasseter that reinforces my impression.

watwut 6y ago
Because the kind uncle is not leadership archetype that would be praised. It might been in the past, but not anymore. Th asshole is praised as leader, is assumed to have greater technical skills, is generally rewarded.
brlewis 6y ago
> asshole culture is endemic in American business Is it really endemic, or do isolated cases get undue attention? A mutual fund portfolio manager once told me she would avoid investing in companies where the CEO was an asshole, because such people end up surrounded by others eager to see them fail.
bsder 6y ago
To me it's not about being an asshole, it's about being an asshole when there is no reason to be. I'm not going to go around being a jerk, but if I see somebody getting stepped on unjustly, I'm going to step in. That sets me up as an asshole to about 10-15% of the human population that I refer to as "social manipulators". They're very good at getting their way because most people simply won't oppose them. Those people bounce off me like a brick wall, and they detest it. They consider me an asshole and vice versa and we avoid one another. In addition, I try really hard not to be a jerk when I'm genuinely angry (and that happpens VERY rarely--I think I can count purple face/seeing red rage about 3 times in my entire life). I leave and cool down because I'm likely to do something really stupid otherwise.
nemothekid 6y ago
My theory is that the brilliant asshole just tends to gravitate toward the limelight. In other words they are also very self-congratulatory and therefore market themselves better. Look at a FAAMG - of the acronym, I would only consider Jobs a "brillant" asshole and maybe Bezos (although he seems way more dogmatic than an asshole). Despite all being incredibly companies, Jobs is by and far the most famous.

brudgers 6y ago

Pablo Picasso was never called an asshole...or so I’ve heard.

joe_the_user 6y ago

Random website demands Google or Facebook sign-in? Goes with the topic I suppose...

jariel 6y ago

Was he really an a-hole? It's hard for many people to fathom different environments, but sports, sometimes startups, the Army for example ... different communication styles. Even mild 'Military Communication' would make many people uncomfortable, because of the almost total lack of emotional empathy in most scenarios. But - it works, really well. To the point that some people (maybe myself included) feel that we should all learn to be a little more in control of our emotions and less 'needy' of our peers and managers. When a manager tries too hard with empathy frankly is feels patronizing, like I'm a child or diva whose ego needs to be managed. I feel that it's coddling, and it shouldn't be needed with professionals, other than the very occasional kudos and only when warranted. There are instances of Jordan in public life being a 'real jerk' ... and maybe some instances of him doing that on the court - but this is not unreasonable for such a long career. Also, here is a good example: Pippin seemed nice, but then famously refused to go on the court once after he didn't like the coach's call. Some might argue that this is the absolute height of arrogance and jerkoffness, because it's the most self-centered thing possible. I don't think Jordan ever did this. I watch junior Hockey players get reamed out by their coaches after the 1st period, and they're just utterly calm, it's just words to them. We need to contextualize what we consider to be real arrogance from merely more aggressive communication or communication that is assertive and lacking in emotional empathy. After watching the special, I'm not so sure if Jordan was an asshole. Obviously self-centered, and assertive, but that's not being an asshole. He was also one part of a unit of other types of characters that seemed to blend.

the_jeremy 6y ago
That is... not the take I'd expect on military effectiveness. I think there is are good reasons the private sector doesn't emulate the military in command structure. I know I am more productive with an understanding manager than being screamed at, and I am more efficient with a manager who values my ideas and encourages taking risks than one who forces me to do things exactly by the book. Admittedly, I don't have military experience, but it seems like it's more akin to a manager I would hate to have than one who would help me grow.
- knolax 6y ago

fleddr 6y ago

Those that do try to apply this asshole logic outside this highly specific context, make 2 very painful mistakes. One, whatever you do, isn't memorable, and has no glory. 90s Chicago Bulls took the world by storm. Jordan is perceived as one of the greatest athletes ever. Him being that asshole may very well have secured multiple championships. Which is a big thing, something millions of people care about and still talk about decades later. Not so much for your soulless corp few even know exists at all. Nobody cares about your performance but yourself. There is no glory to pushing people to the very edge, therefore it's not worth it or justifiable. In business, people shouldn't be expected to deliver super human effort or endure this behavior. The situations just don't compare. Two, you're not Jordan. And not Jobs. Nor will you become one by being an asshole. A handful of people have the character, vision and skill to touch, change and inspire the world, and you're not it. Not even close.

s17n 6y ago

I think the fallacy is to confuse cause and effect. The characteristics necessary to achieve greatness are very likely to also make you an asshole. But, deliberately being an asshole is only going to make you less likely to achieve greatness.

Hokusai 6y ago
> I think the fallacy is to confuse cause and effect. The characteristics necessary to achieve greatness are very likely to also make you an asshole. I would rephrase to: "The characteristics necessary to be noticed above your teammates are very likely to also make you an asshole." The best professionals I have ever worked with are kind, willing to help and growth themselves and their teams. And too often are missed by management, the self-promoting assholes are noticed and promoted by management. Great leaders are kind, great leaders are smart, great leaders help you, great leaders go unnoticed because are one of you working within the team.

Sophistifunk 6y ago

Jobs wasn't great at what he did because he was an asshole, it's just he was allowed to be an asshole because he was great at what he did. A lot of people seem to have these things around the wrong way.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

jhwang5 6y ago

In this thread. Bunch of people who haven't won anything criticizing the methods of the greatest winner.

redis_mlc 6y ago

I read the article and the HN posts, but they all miss the point, calling it the "Great Asshole Fallacy" is incorrect. One of Jordan's coaches said in an interview, "[What most people don't understand about Jordan is that he isn't there to play, he's there to win.]" Meaning the game of basketball wasn't important, winning was important. Tiger Woods said the same thing in an interview, "if I can't win, I won't play,' he said. 'I simply couldn't stand it and I will walk away when I can no longer play at the highest level." Winners are there to win, not to enjoy the game. So in that respect they have no problem acting or being perceived as assholes, since winning is all that matters. If you pay attention to the media, you'll see that most champions don't just play and hope to excel, they are driven to win, regardless of their sport. Often they'll say, "I wanted to go out at the top." (I'll let the hard-core sports fans research the Jordan quote and fill in the verbatim version.) https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/golf/article-1097074/If-I-8217-t-win-I-won-8217-t-play-says-Woods-superstar-eyes-New-Years-comeback.html https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/golf/article-1097074/If-I-...

jtsuken 6y ago

This is a very anti-postmodernist post, where neither the author nor the commenters realise that their most insightful thoughts on the topic are literal quotes from "Crime and Punishment".