3 ms·
I'm not dismissing the comment above -- it is useful -- but it leaves a lot of fundamental questions unanswered, such as: Which kind(s) of smart people? The ki
by xpe 4y ago
I'm not dismissing the comment above -- it is useful -- but it leaves a lot of fundamental questions unanswered, such as:
Which kind(s) of smart people? The kinds of smarts that are like yours? What about the forms of intelligence maybe that you don't even recognize yet? What about pairwise intelligence -- that isn't traditionally captured by the term 'smart' -- it is more often captured by quotes such as "he's inspiring to work alongside" or "she teaches me without talking down to me" or "he can herd cats to push a wet rope up a hill and get the product delivered on time".
One takeaway: optimizing for "smart people" is underspecified.
Another: there are many other worthwhile things to optimize for besides one kind of intelligence -- or even one fixed blend of intelligences.
- rattray 4y agoFor this particular person, who wants to feel non-lonely and combat hubris while continuing to primarily do what they love (coding), I would say a heuristic I might use would be "developers who humble you with their abilities, and have great attitudes". Raw intellectual horsepower will likely be a big part of that, but I agree that "smart" alone is underspecified. For example, I think this person would enjoy working with other developers with high output at a low defect rate, with additional strengths in architecture. Different people in different situations should absolutely look for different things in their teammates.
- xpe 4y agoThanks for explaining -- I see what you mean, and (FWIW) I tend to agree.