4 ms·

On average yes, but I tend to agree that the 'jock' tech worker is an archetype that didn't exist 20 years ago. Tech is no longer counterculture and has become

On average yes, but I tend to agree that the 'jock' tech worker is an archetype that didn't exist 20 years ago. Tech is no longer counterculture and has become a more high status profession in the eyes of the public. This is probably good for short term productivity but bad for long term innovation. I'm a big believer in the idea that the biggest innovations generally begin as low status or 'unsexy' endeavors.

jen20 4y ago
I have yet to encounter this kind of person at the FAANG I work for. Perhaps they all work at Facebook.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- tayo42 4y ago
  Same experience, I never met another tech person that fits the bro stereotype? most of my colleagues are like people on h1b. My idea of a bro is like those frat guys with the popped collars years ago. Some of this other stuff just sounds like over excited college kids, like adderal and stuff?
  - rschachte 4y ago
    Hop on Blind for 5 minutes and you’ll see
    - hamburglar 4y ago
      Is there a nonfiction section of blind?
yourapostasy 4y ago
> I'm a big believer in the idea that the biggest innovations generally begin as low status or 'unsexy' endeavors. This is generally because low status or "unsexy" confers sufficient time to tinker, make recoverable mistakes and polish until the innovation gains traction. High status or "sexy" attracts all the wrong kinds of attention that brings all the wrong kinds of pressure that steals away that time.
- whimsicalism 4y ago
  I think it's more because prominent strains of Hollywood/American pop-culture valorizes the low status underdog who succeeds and shits on people who are already high status. We can pretend we are insulated from American cultural norms but we are not. I don't think there is any real backing to the idea that low-status people are more likely to succeed.
  - yourapostasy 4y ago
    > I don't think there is any real backing to the idea that low-status people are more likely to succeed. Point. They definitely aren't more likely to succeed. I do contend they are however, afforded a small opportunity to work on their idea in obscurity until it reaches that stage it can gain traction. And in the meantime, position their chess pieces for the inevitable entry of the avaricious, high-status people looking for a kill at the low-status people's expense. That is, low-status can be deployed as camouflage to deflect attention away from the gathering of resources and information to choose the time, place and terms to start the fight for maintaining control over anything that gains traction. I do agree however, this rarely happens.

jen20 4y ago

I have yet to encounter this kind of person at the FAANG I work for. Perhaps they all work at Facebook.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
tayo42 4y ago
Same experience, I never met another tech person that fits the bro stereotype? most of my colleagues are like people on h1b. My idea of a bro is like those frat guys with the popped collars years ago. Some of this other stuff just sounds like over excited college kids, like adderal and stuff?
- rschachte 4y ago
  Hop on Blind for 5 minutes and you’ll see
  - hamburglar 4y ago
    Is there a nonfiction section of blind?

yourapostasy 4y ago

> I'm a big believer in the idea that the biggest innovations generally begin as low status or 'unsexy' endeavors. This is generally because low status or "unsexy" confers sufficient time to tinker, make recoverable mistakes and polish until the innovation gains traction. High status or "sexy" attracts all the wrong kinds of attention that brings all the wrong kinds of pressure that steals away that time.

whimsicalism 4y ago
I think it's more because prominent strains of Hollywood/American pop-culture valorizes the low status underdog who succeeds and shits on people who are already high status. We can pretend we are insulated from American cultural norms but we are not. I don't think there is any real backing to the idea that low-status people are more likely to succeed.
- yourapostasy 4y ago
  > I don't think there is any real backing to the idea that low-status people are more likely to succeed. Point. They definitely aren't more likely to succeed. I do contend they are however, afforded a small opportunity to work on their idea in obscurity until it reaches that stage it can gain traction. And in the meantime, position their chess pieces for the inevitable entry of the avaricious, high-status people looking for a kill at the low-status people's expense. That is, low-status can be deployed as camouflage to deflect attention away from the gathering of resources and information to choose the time, place and terms to start the fight for maintaining control over anything that gains traction. I do agree however, this rarely happens.