7 ms·

I have a lot of experience working with the weird nerd archetype and watching them navigate large orgs. First it's absolutely true that orgs that purport to su

by akozak 2y ago

I have a lot of experience working with the weird nerd archetype and watching them navigate large orgs. First it's absolutely true that orgs that purport to support weird nerds will revert back to rewarding politicians. I've seen it happen, and typically has to do with who is doling out money. However, in my experience the vast majority of brilliant nerds way overextend themselves, and are much too confident outside their domain. They're also much more likely to be jerks and will tumble from conflict to conflict until they get their way by attrition or status. Conflicts are strangely more personal because so much ego is tied up into it. They're more likely to assume they're right in every (non-tech/science related) situation. My advice to weird nerds (assuming emotional intelligence isn't an innate skill) is: Find a way to turn your brainpower onto this challenge as equally important as your core interest. Treat interacting with your institution like a long term engineering project or investigation. Think long term and be strategic, create and track longer term plans, try to learn what people respond to, what works and what doesn't. Always try to be kind and maintain some humility, but assuming you aren't sure what that really means, then ask for lots of feedback. Or you can just find someone you trust and delegate all of this to them, like a technical founder hiring a CEO. (Edit: relatedly, if you work for or with weird nerds in a support role, my advice is to take full advantage! They might have a useful point, so set your own ego aside, don't take it personally (they are weird), and try to listen charitably. Their work is what you're here to support, after all.)

fragmede 2y ago
> assuming emotional intelligence isn't an innate skill it's a skill like any other, so if you put in dedication and practice, you can get better at it, just like practicing leetcode. whether or not an individual wants to do so is on them.
- rustyboy 2y ago
  Do you have any tips for practicing this? I feel like I often "take the oxygen out of the room" when I offer suggestions or get talking. Conversely when I bite my tongue (or just unplug my mic) most people don't talk or offer very weak tacit agreement with the last thing that was said. edit: I wish I had more skill at building coalitions and/or pushing an organization in a direction without saying "we need to do X".
  - hyperadvanced 2y ago
    I think a great way to get better at this is to ask more questions than provide answers. If you really hone in on what people are discussing, if you figure out what they want, what they’re afraid of, what they’re unsure of, etc. your suggestion will mean a lot more than if you’re perceived as “barging in and ordering people around”. I’ve practiced the Socratic method a lot with a lot of people, and it can really help to give your arguments some extra punch. Remember than people usually don’t want to be told “we need to do X” - they want to believe that they had a part in discovering and advocating for that, even if the whole thing was your idea all along.
- AlexandrB 2y ago
  While I think this is true, some people have it harder than others. So sure, anyone can learn emotional intelligence, but if it's 2x the effort for someone the ROI is much worse.
  - fragmede 2y ago
    A toxic individual can tank the productivity of the whole team, if not the whole org. What's the ROI for them on being fired?
- eikenberry 2y ago
  And like any other skill some people are more gifted in learning that skill than others. Anyone can learn to paint, but not everyone is going to be a Monet or a Rembrandt.
  - fragmede 2y ago
    Everyone doesn't need to be a Monet, they just have to be able to paint their name on a poster without embarrassing themselves and putting down others.
    - eikenberry 2y ago
      Everyone can paint their name, that is a 0 skill exercise. And I wasn't saying everyone needs to be a Monet, more that these are high ceiling skills you are talking about and there is a lot more variety than is given credit.
      - fragmede 2y ago
        There's room to go really really far down that path and even become a licensed therapist if someone takes to that kind of work and is looking for a second career, but in this analogy, some people don't even have the EQ to be able to paint their name with fingerpaints. Maybe I've had more misfortune dealing with difficult people though.
bradleyjg 2y ago
However, in my experience the vast majority of brilliant nerds way overextend themselves, and are much too confident outside their domain. They're also much more likely to be jerks and will tumble from conflict to conflict until they get their way by attrition or status. Conflicts are strangely more personal because so much ego is tied up into it. They're more likely to assume they're right in every (non-tech/science related) situation. Your next paragraph gives advice to the weird nerds, but this is practically a genre. What I haven’t seen much of is advice to an organization about how to deal with what you’re pointing out here. You have an employee that’s brilliant in technical area X but also has very strong and very wrong opinions about how the company ought to structure its cap table, pay its cleaning staff, and market to potential customers. He gets into constant arguments about these things. What do you do?
- cbozeman 2y ago
  "You're out of your depth." That's what you do. A lot of very smart people think because they're very smart they have some kind of exceptional insight into the inner workings of all things. They don't. And they need to be reminded of that. Intelligence allows someone to gain that insight faster than those in the middle of the bell curve of IQ, but it doesn't magically confer it. It still takes time, reading, research, and seeing it in practice. Or put another way - what I call the "Iceberg Analogy" - every discipline in life is like an iceberg. The average person sees about 10% of what's actually happening, and is able to comprehend that without too much effort, but the other 90% that's below the surface takes a lot to fully make sense of.
  - antisthenes 2y ago
    > A lot of very smart people think because they're very smart they have some kind of exceptional insight into the inner workings of all things. They don't. And they need to be reminded of that. When you talk to people, you have no idea how much time they've spent before that conversation gaining insight. Maybe their simple phrase is a culmination of several years of research and insight, whereas for you, you just thought about this topic yesterday. Seems like normies need to be reminded of that way more frequently than nerds.
hnthrow289570 2y ago
I usually see both happening at the same time, but the real money still goes to the politicians. Brilliant nerds that solve problems for the organization on their own usually don't get rewarded as much as politicians despite the skills perhaps being more rare at the organization than politics. For example, you could deep dive into a bug that's been hanging around, finally find the really technical solution to it, but most of the money holders won't be able to appraise that value from the technical details alone. In general, simply giving away things to companies will usually get you taken advantage of (usually not maliciously). Doing a tour to explain why it's a problem first, then providing the solution, is the much better alternative. It really is true that it's a thankless job if everything is working well and you're being proactive by fixing problems before they become a problem. There are exceptions where the money holders can deal with the technical details and don't need to be sold on the problem first, but it's rare and usually those are prestigious jobs in close proximity to lots money.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
paulpauper 2y ago
However, in my experience the vast majority of brilliant nerds way overextend themselves, and are much too confident outside their domain. They're also much more likely to be jerks and will tumble from conflict to conflict until they get their way by attrition or status. Conflicts are strangely more personal because so much ego is tied up into it. They're more likely to assume they're right in every (non-tech/science related) situation. Status is immensely important. people who have status or convey it can get away with being wrong or espousing falsehoods and will not be called on on it. If anyone is guilty of speaking outside of his or her expertise and spreading bullshit, it is likely not going to be the nerd.
banannaise 2y ago
> However, in my experience the vast majority of brilliant nerds way overextend themselves, and are much too confident outside their domain. They're also much more likely to be jerks and will tumble from conflict to conflict until they get their way by attrition or status. Conflicts are strangely more personal because so much ego is tied up into it. They're more likely to assume they're right in every (non-tech/science related) situation. If this behavior is rewarded, then you haven't eliminated politics - you've reinforced politics but eliminated social cohesion and decorum as elements thereof.

by akozak 2y ago

fragmede 2y ago

> assuming emotional intelligence isn't an innate skill it's a skill like any other, so if you put in dedication and practice, you can get better at it, just like practicing leetcode. whether or not an individual wants to do so is on them.

rustyboy 2y ago
Do you have any tips for practicing this? I feel like I often "take the oxygen out of the room" when I offer suggestions or get talking. Conversely when I bite my tongue (or just unplug my mic) most people don't talk or offer very weak tacit agreement with the last thing that was said. edit: I wish I had more skill at building coalitions and/or pushing an organization in a direction without saying "we need to do X".
- hyperadvanced 2y ago
  I think a great way to get better at this is to ask more questions than provide answers. If you really hone in on what people are discussing, if you figure out what they want, what they’re afraid of, what they’re unsure of, etc. your suggestion will mean a lot more than if you’re perceived as “barging in and ordering people around”. I’ve practiced the Socratic method a lot with a lot of people, and it can really help to give your arguments some extra punch. Remember than people usually don’t want to be told “we need to do X” - they want to believe that they had a part in discovering and advocating for that, even if the whole thing was your idea all along.
AlexandrB 2y ago
While I think this is true, some people have it harder than others. So sure, anyone can learn emotional intelligence, but if it's 2x the effort for someone the ROI is much worse.
- fragmede 2y ago
  A toxic individual can tank the productivity of the whole team, if not the whole org. What's the ROI for them on being fired?
eikenberry 2y ago
And like any other skill some people are more gifted in learning that skill than others. Anyone can learn to paint, but not everyone is going to be a Monet or a Rembrandt.
- fragmede 2y ago
  Everyone doesn't need to be a Monet, they just have to be able to paint their name on a poster without embarrassing themselves and putting down others.
  - eikenberry 2y ago
    Everyone can paint their name, that is a 0 skill exercise. And I wasn't saying everyone needs to be a Monet, more that these are high ceiling skills you are talking about and there is a lot more variety than is given credit.
    - fragmede 2y ago
      There's room to go really really far down that path and even become a licensed therapist if someone takes to that kind of work and is looking for a second career, but in this analogy, some people don't even have the EQ to be able to paint their name with fingerpaints. Maybe I've had more misfortune dealing with difficult people though.

bradleyjg 2y ago

However, in my experience the vast majority of brilliant nerds way overextend themselves, and are much too confident outside their domain. They're also much more likely to be jerks and will tumble from conflict to conflict until they get their way by attrition or status. Conflicts are strangely more personal because so much ego is tied up into it. They're more likely to assume they're right in every (non-tech/science related) situation. Your next paragraph gives advice to the weird nerds, but this is practically a genre. What I haven’t seen much of is advice to an organization about how to deal with what you’re pointing out here. You have an employee that’s brilliant in technical area X but also has very strong and very wrong opinions about how the company ought to structure its cap table, pay its cleaning staff, and market to potential customers. He gets into constant arguments about these things. What do you do?

cbozeman 2y ago
"You're out of your depth." That's what you do. A lot of very smart people think because they're very smart they have some kind of exceptional insight into the inner workings of all things. They don't. And they need to be reminded of that. Intelligence allows someone to gain that insight faster than those in the middle of the bell curve of IQ, but it doesn't magically confer it. It still takes time, reading, research, and seeing it in practice. Or put another way - what I call the "Iceberg Analogy" - every discipline in life is like an iceberg. The average person sees about 10% of what's actually happening, and is able to comprehend that without too much effort, but the other 90% that's below the surface takes a lot to fully make sense of.
- antisthenes 2y ago
  > A lot of very smart people think because they're very smart they have some kind of exceptional insight into the inner workings of all things. They don't. And they need to be reminded of that. When you talk to people, you have no idea how much time they've spent before that conversation gaining insight. Maybe their simple phrase is a culmination of several years of research and insight, whereas for you, you just thought about this topic yesterday. Seems like normies need to be reminded of that way more frequently than nerds.

hnthrow289570 2y ago

I usually see both happening at the same time, but the real money still goes to the politicians. Brilliant nerds that solve problems for the organization on their own usually don't get rewarded as much as politicians despite the skills perhaps being more rare at the organization than politics. For example, you could deep dive into a bug that's been hanging around, finally find the really technical solution to it, but most of the money holders won't be able to appraise that value from the technical details alone. In general, simply giving away things to companies will usually get you taken advantage of (usually not maliciously). Doing a tour to explain why it's a problem first, then providing the solution, is the much better alternative. It really is true that it's a thankless job if everything is working well and you're being proactive by fixing problems before they become a problem. There are exceptions where the money holders can deal with the technical details and don't need to be sold on the problem first, but it's rare and usually those are prestigious jobs in close proximity to lots money.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

paulpauper 2y ago

However, in my experience the vast majority of brilliant nerds way overextend themselves, and are much too confident outside their domain. They're also much more likely to be jerks and will tumble from conflict to conflict until they get their way by attrition or status. Conflicts are strangely more personal because so much ego is tied up into it. They're more likely to assume they're right in every (non-tech/science related) situation. Status is immensely important. people who have status or convey it can get away with being wrong or espousing falsehoods and will not be called on on it. If anyone is guilty of speaking outside of his or her expertise and spreading bullshit, it is likely not going to be the nerd.

banannaise 2y ago

> However, in my experience the vast majority of brilliant nerds way overextend themselves, and are much too confident outside their domain. They're also much more likely to be jerks and will tumble from conflict to conflict until they get their way by attrition or status. Conflicts are strangely more personal because so much ego is tied up into it. They're more likely to assume they're right in every (non-tech/science related) situation. If this behavior is rewarded, then you haven't eliminated politics - you've reinforced politics but eliminated social cohesion and decorum as elements thereof.