The only problem I have with this sentiment is that in technical contexts, being direct and clear is very important and that can easily be mistaken for being an asshole.

Let's say someone made a critical error in their code. Now, it would be nicer and kinder to say "Perhaps you could have done that better, it might have harmful impact on users" and you can also tell the person "This is really bad, you messed up, this type of a mistake is unacceptable and horrific" which uses lots of sharp words and feels abusive, so which is better? It makes the person feel bad for sure with the second option, but isn't that the best way to communicate just how bad what they've done is?

It reminds of how Linux Trovalds tears into people sometimes, I disagree with him most of the time (takes it too far) but isn't the sentiment correct? In other words, you need people to feel very bad about what they've done, not as an attack on their personality, character or even competence but to help them understand the severity of the situation.

Personally, I have struggled with this working in the context of infosec, some mistakes are putting people's livelihoods and even their persons in way of harm. My conclusion so far is to draw a line, be direct but never say anything to anyone that you wouldn't want said to you if the situation was reversed.

I want people I work with and talk to (including here on HN) to communicate clearly and directly with me (and vice versa), without sugarcoating things when it comes to technical discussions and we shouldn't conflate directness and bluntness with being an asshole, just as much as genius (what is that anyways and who cares?) with asshole.

>We lionized those who hurt others in the name of vision and made excuses for behavior that, in any other context, would be called what it is: toxic. We wrapped cruelty in clever quotes and pointed to output as if it justifies everything that comes before it.

>[...]

>Genius doesn’t look like domination. It looks like collaboration. It looks like the humility to know you’re not the smartest person in every room, and the strength to make space for those who are. If someone needs to belittle, berate, or break others to feel powerful, they’re not a genius—they’re a tyrant in a hoodie, a bully with a pitch deck, a tantrum in search of a title.

>And we should stop fucking clapping.

Did... they read their own post? It's an arrogant rant that pre-assumes the entire stereotypical "toxic" frame, without questioning a single premise. This is always implicitly denouncing men and masculine behaviors. It has been repeated ad nauseam and used to beat people over the head with to "just fucking shut up" and let the queen bees "civilize" the icky nerd club.

The feminine counterpart behaviors, namely Mean Girlsing, emotional blackmail, smurfette syndrome, the accountability musical chairs, ... are always absent from the discourse.

When actual tech disasters happen, the emphasis is then on managing appearances instead of addressing root causes. I wrote a different take a while back, which highlights these patterns in the Crowdstrike discourse:

https://acko.net/blog/the-bouquet-residence/

Despite wanting to talk, despite wanting to have "conversations", these sorts of arguments never get engaged with. Because the reason to critique "toxic" behaviors wasn't to get rid of them, but to demand a different set of toxic behaviors should take precedence.

There's been pretty substantial research done into the most effective ways to deliver feedback to students to maximize their development rate. However when it's not a student but a senior employee, manager or executive that did something they knew was wrong to cut a corner to make their job easier at the cost of making the company worse off, it's a different context and situation.

The problem is "asshole" is an imprecise word.

There is nuance in describing good leadership, and which leadership is best depends on the context. A military leader in a war should have different qualities than an elementary school principal to be the best leaders they can be, and the same is true for technology company CEOs, even with differences between companies. "Wartime vs peacetime" CEOs and all that (e.g. whether the company has intense competition or a monopoly).

Generally Good:

- provide any positive reinforcement first (point out what you want them to keep doing)

- be direct and clear about the mistakes, but focus feedback on the mistakes/work and not their person

- explain why the feedback is important, always ensure the "why" is understood

- share consequences if the feedback is not followed, if there will be any (don't surprise someone with the consequences only once they are reached)

Generally Bad:

- open up with a personal attack on their character

- be vague about what they did wrong or what they should do instead

- don't explain why following the feedback is important, don't justify it with a good reason

- fire people without any warning or opportunities to correct their behavior

I guess the word "genius" (at least for me) implies Einstein or in more practical terms: Faraday, Watt, Newton, et al. Literally the hundreds of savants who propelled science and thus technology to ever greater heights.

The examples from the blog, Jobs: a genius at marketing; Musk a genius at self promotion.

I don't hear the thousands of hardworking engineers clapping only the mediocre assholes for whom the cloak of genius is a convenient CYA (cover your ass).

It’s the flip side of taking kindness for weakness, and in my experience people who do that reveal something concerning about their own character and worldview.

"People who are brutally honest get more satisfaction out of the brutality than out of the honesty." -Robert J. Needham

I've never had any problems with highly competent assholes. However, I cannot see any reason to consider a business man, let alone any "entrepreneur", a genius. What needs to stop is calling someone with no intellectual and cultural achievements a genius. Someone who doesn't have any intellectual achievements and hasn't contributed substantially to human culture like art, literature, cinema, theater, and so forth, is by definition not a genius. Whether they are assholes or not is not even relevant.

To be fair, this topic might be a bit of strawman anyway. I've never heard anyone unironically call a business person a genius.

hmmm?m it's moronic to go along with any notion of genius as bieng any single thing, that is present or not. it is fairly reasonable to suggest that most of the lesser sheep are threatened and resentfull of anybody who offers real, implimentable, better, alternatives to the way things are bieng done now Some number of "genius" people are also socialy aware and adept, and know when to just shut up, and let the drones, drone,on, timing and co ordinating the implimentation of there ideas and making there genius look like luck or better yet politics.

People aren't only condemned for being direct, they're condemned for being honest.

Yes, she is overweight, he is ugly, you did do a bad job.

BTW, Jobs was adopted, Musk had a horrible childhood. Not a reason for forgiveness, but some explanation of their cruelty.

I don't think we really do conflate genius with being a jerk. More the problem is that some talented people are sociopaths, willing to climb to the top over a pile of corpses. Or, as they say of sewage, "the biggest pieces float to the top."

Lots of people hate confrontation. However, when confronted with someone like that, we have to be willing to draw the line. "No, it won't be my corpse you climb over." If more people would do that, there would be fewer jerks in the top ranks.

[dead]

or winner with asshole

Actual geniuses do not exist.

It's the product of a ritualized society. People select one person, bump that person up, then hit it like a piñata.

If you dress someone like a piñata, people will hit it for the candy inside. One of the ways of doing that is shaming the piñata, like comparing it to an asshole, or portraying it as a weak troubled loser, or sexualizing it.

The article proposes we don't hit piñatas anymore. I agree. Furthermore, we should not make human piñatas in the first place. Let the geniuses and celebrities and leaders fade to normality and cease to exist as a thing.

Of course this implies many of our societal systems are piñata-based. Hierarquies, celebrities, leaders and so on.

I agree that collaboration is a key aspect to solving this issue. It seems, however, that human collaboration is very hard where there are piñatas everywhere. It's hard when kids want to grow up to be piñatas.

I am sorry that many cultures have this ritual so heavily ingrained as part of their whole identites.