well, this seems to have badly backfired in the author's face. while there are certainly people that are unpleasant to work with, they aren't merely "patterns"

well, this seems to have badly backfired in the author's face. while there are certainly people that are unpleasant to work with, they aren't merely "patterns" or "categories". they are humans. humans aren't defined by code and are not unchanging objects. in fact, humans are deep, complex, multi-faceted beings who may have many strengths and weaknesses at the same time, and thinking of people only by which "anti-pattern" one of their flaws resembles is insulting and limiting. most of the time a person's flaws are not fatal, and in fact they are almost always a reflection of a poor environment more than any essential characteristic of the person. my take away from this article is that a hiring process needs to look for a more holistic picture of the candidate and not try to eliminate people because they match a contrived "anti-pattern", as if humans could be fitted to patterns in the first place.