3 ms·

> There are "No" brilliant jerks? Absolutely none? What evidence is that based on? "No" here is used in the sense of "no pets", "no solicitors", "no outside fo

> There are "No" brilliant jerks? Absolutely none? What evidence is that based on? "No" here is used in the sense of "no pets", "no solicitors", "no outside food or drink beyond this point"

keenmaster 6y ago
If you don't want brilliant jerks, you are inherently negating their brilliance. A simple chain of logic, extrapolating from that headline, would lead to "if they truly were all around brilliant, they wouldn't act that way. They would be more brilliant if we replaced their non-brilliant side with our brilliant behavioral prescriptions."
- minitech 6y ago
  > If you don't want brilliant jerks, you are inherently negating their brilliance. ??¹ > A simple chain of logic, extrapolating from that headline, would lead to "if they truly were all around brilliant, they wouldn't act that way. ???² ¹ Valuing non-jerkiness more isn’t “negating brilliance”. Brilliant non-jerks are available. ² Er, no.
  - keenmaster 6y ago
    I'm not defending being a jerk. Personally, I try to be kind in all my interpersonal interactions. However, some people are just a package deal. Call it what you want, high IQ and low EQ or whatever, but you can't just accept one part of them and try to get rid of the rest. Also, with regards to this comment: "Valuing non-jerkiness more isn’t “negating brilliance”. Brilliant non-jerks are available." Sure, there's no shortage of brilliant non-jerks, but sometimes the most brilliant person for a given company in a given context (by an order of magnitude) is a jerk. You have to apply first principles, systems thinking to determine whether they're right for the company or not, and whether mitigating their jerky behavior is bad for the company or not. I don't totally disagree with the article. Sometimes the measures they recommend are well-advised, and sometimes they would be misguided. I'm cautioning about the latter because it's such a common human instinct to try to cast out or sheer the black sheep. On the margins, group harmony is overrated.
    - snovv_crash 6y ago
      It doesn't matter if they're the best by an order of magnitude if their jerkiness demotivates 10 other people. And I doubt that 'order of magnitude' statement.
      - keenmaster 6y ago
        A lot of people consider Elon Musk to be a jerk, and it would be a huge shame if he’s removed from his company. In most contexts what you said is 100% correct.
- tomnipotent 6y ago
  > you are inherently negating their brilliance This isn't how logic works... It's a statement, saying "No Brilliant Jerks Welcome Here". It does not negate their existence, only their company.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

> There are "No" brilliant jerks? Absolutely none? What evidence is that based on? "No" here is used in the sense of "no pets", "no solicitors", "no outside food or drink beyond this point"

keenmaster 6y ago

If you don't want brilliant jerks, you are inherently negating their brilliance. A simple chain of logic, extrapolating from that headline, would lead to "if they truly were all around brilliant, they wouldn't act that way. They would be more brilliant if we replaced their non-brilliant side with our brilliant behavioral prescriptions."

minitech 6y ago
> If you don't want brilliant jerks, you are inherently negating their brilliance. ??¹ > A simple chain of logic, extrapolating from that headline, would lead to "if they truly were all around brilliant, they wouldn't act that way. ???² ¹ Valuing non-jerkiness more isn’t “negating brilliance”. Brilliant non-jerks are available. ² Er, no.
- keenmaster 6y ago
  I'm not defending being a jerk. Personally, I try to be kind in all my interpersonal interactions. However, some people are just a package deal. Call it what you want, high IQ and low EQ or whatever, but you can't just accept one part of them and try to get rid of the rest. Also, with regards to this comment: "Valuing non-jerkiness more isn’t “negating brilliance”. Brilliant non-jerks are available." Sure, there's no shortage of brilliant non-jerks, but sometimes the most brilliant person for a given company in a given context (by an order of magnitude) is a jerk. You have to apply first principles, systems thinking to determine whether they're right for the company or not, and whether mitigating their jerky behavior is bad for the company or not. I don't totally disagree with the article. Sometimes the measures they recommend are well-advised, and sometimes they would be misguided. I'm cautioning about the latter because it's such a common human instinct to try to cast out or sheer the black sheep. On the margins, group harmony is overrated.
  - snovv_crash 6y ago
    It doesn't matter if they're the best by an order of magnitude if their jerkiness demotivates 10 other people. And I doubt that 'order of magnitude' statement.
    - keenmaster 6y ago
      A lot of people consider Elon Musk to be a jerk, and it would be a huge shame if he’s removed from his company. In most contexts what you said is 100% correct.
tomnipotent 6y ago
> you are inherently negating their brilliance This isn't how logic works... It's a statement, saying "No Brilliant Jerks Welcome Here". It does not negate their existence, only their company.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]