From a pure tech perspective the article is correct.
But the problem with this approach is that in real life the majority of people are not like this. Many people are vastly overconfident and arrogant in their skills, I've had encounters with very good developers who simple refused to even hear an alternative solution or who did not do the most basic stuff to verify certain things before starting implementing them even though someone who had tons of experience in a certain niche compared to him told him to.
So a truly great engineer also needs to be arrogant/assertive/loud as that is the only way to fight other arrogant people. The "quiet confident" engineers opinion will be overruled by loud incomptent engineers.
physically large, loud, bossy, no doubt talented but relentlessly seeking to shout out others, "look at me" more than others, take control of budgets and company leadership at every opportunity.. and do some math. Build a system of slave-like labor from wanna-be's and then mercilessly and ruthlessly take their work as your own, demand that it is all yours, and take legal control with "investors" on your side.
I did have this situation several times in the past. One thing that has worked well for me is to be a bit of a stubborn mofo in challenging people with arguments and not let go so easily.
I don't think you need to be arrogant, but you do need to know how to argue rationally. At least this works quite well with germanic-origin folks, maybe not so well in other contexts.
Another thing that helps is reputation, you do need to build that and that allows your arguments to be heard. No need really to be arrogant and loud IMO still.
This reputation thing, also brings other problems, because it's not good when people don't challenge you, then you need to find skeptics. This is very necessary when you do high end stuff.
> So a truly great engineer also needs to be arrogant/assertive/loud as that is the only way to fight other arrogant people. The "quiet confident" engineers opinion will be overruled by loud incomptent engineers.
What is the underlying cause here? Or is this just a product of group psychology...(?) I feel like it's typically weak and/or incompetent management but hesitating to jump right to that because it's largely out of most people's control beyond a job change.
That's not vague at all? Emotions aren't easily indexed quantitatively because there's a large variance in affect and expression of affect in different people. I understood what he was saying as "If you don't remain a perpetual learner and show respect to projects and other people, then you're going to lose your edge in solving complex problems".
I kept this one intentional as a thesis statement, but the concrete examples live in the companion pieces — like a bug that took 7 years to find because I kept assuming my mental model was right (https://agilitza.com/blog/the-7-year-bug-that-took-3-minutes...).
That one's the humility and persistence lesson in action.
I do use AI tools in my writing process — the ideas, stories, and opinions are mine (20+ years of them), but I use AI to help structure and polish the prose.
I think this is where most technical writing is heading, and I'm still finding the right balance between efficiency and keeping my natural voice. Appreciate the feedback.
I don't believe so. The irony is that this slop-fest will actually make people want to have a controlled part of the internet whereby one must certify and prove a) who they are b) they didn't produce a piece of work purely from a slop-machine.
> I think this is where most technical writing is heading...
Not if you want anyone to actually bother reading it. I want to read what you have to say, flaws and all. Not what comes after the slop machine did a pass on your work.
Love this, will try without any AI assistance and see how it goes. Thanks for the feedback, I'm starting to write after all, who knows, maybe I'm an even bigger slop machine myself...
Arrogance in my view is bluster with no substance.
If you have true substance.. you have earned the right to operate in a certain kind of way to the extent that your word can be trusted more than others.
No, i think character traits like _excessive_ arrogance/humility are a marker of something different from the norm. If often means that the person is an outlier (in +ve i.e. "better" or -ve i.e. "worse" directions) from the mediocre mean. So in many cases it can indicate an higher intelligence/ability/expertise particularly in the hard sciences. The caveat is that many mediocre charlatans often manipulate this for their own benefit/ego and social status.
From a pure tech perspective the article is correct.
But the problem with this approach is that in real life the majority of people are not like this. Many people are vastly overconfident and arrogant in their skills, I've had encounters with very good developers who simple refused to even hear an alternative solution or who did not do the most basic stuff to verify certain things before starting implementing them even though someone who had tons of experience in a certain niche compared to him told him to.
So a truly great engineer also needs to be arrogant/assertive/loud as that is the only way to fight other arrogant people. The "quiet confident" engineers opinion will be overruled by loud incomptent engineers.
there is also the case of Stephan Wolfram ...
physically large, loud, bossy, no doubt talented but relentlessly seeking to shout out others, "look at me" more than others, take control of budgets and company leadership at every opportunity.. and do some math. Build a system of slave-like labor from wanna-be's and then mercilessly and ruthlessly take their work as your own, demand that it is all yours, and take legal control with "investors" on your side.
source: direct contact with said jerk Wolfram
I did have this situation several times in the past. One thing that has worked well for me is to be a bit of a stubborn mofo in challenging people with arguments and not let go so easily.
I don't think you need to be arrogant, but you do need to know how to argue rationally. At least this works quite well with germanic-origin folks, maybe not so well in other contexts.
Another thing that helps is reputation, you do need to build that and that allows your arguments to be heard. No need really to be arrogant and loud IMO still.
This reputation thing, also brings other problems, because it's not good when people don't challenge you, then you need to find skeptics. This is very necessary when you do high end stuff.
> So a truly great engineer also needs to be arrogant/assertive/loud as that is the only way to fight other arrogant people. The "quiet confident" engineers opinion will be overruled by loud incomptent engineers.
What is the underlying cause here? Or is this just a product of group psychology...(?) I feel like it's typically weak and/or incompetent management but hesitating to jump right to that because it's largely out of most people's control beyond a job change.
Project managers are right until proven wrong, and engineers are wrong until proven right.
I really dislike articles that only talk about vague terms ("arrogance", "humility" etc) without giving any actual concrete examples.
That's not vague at all? Emotions aren't easily indexed quantitatively because there's a large variance in affect and expression of affect in different people. I understood what he was saying as "If you don't remain a perpetual learner and show respect to projects and other people, then you're going to lose your edge in solving complex problems".
>Emotions aren't easily indexed quantitatively because there's a large variance in affect and expression of affect in different people.
That's exactly the reason why concrete examples help make things clearer ...
Fair point.
I kept this one intentional as a thesis statement, but the concrete examples live in the companion pieces — like a bug that took 7 years to find because I kept assuming my mental model was right (https://agilitza.com/blog/the-7-year-bug-that-took-3-minutes...).
That one's the humility and persistence lesson in action.
Agree with the sentiment but the article feels AI generated. I cannot explain why
Fair observation.
I do use AI tools in my writing process — the ideas, stories, and opinions are mine (20+ years of them), but I use AI to help structure and polish the prose.
I think this is where most technical writing is heading, and I'm still finding the right balance between efficiency and keeping my natural voice. Appreciate the feedback.
I don't believe so. The irony is that this slop-fest will actually make people want to have a controlled part of the internet whereby one must certify and prove a) who they are b) they didn't produce a piece of work purely from a slop-machine.
> I think this is where most technical writing is heading...
Not if you want anyone to actually bother reading it. I want to read what you have to say, flaws and all. Not what comes after the slop machine did a pass on your work.
Love this, will try without any AI assistance and see how it goes. Thanks for the feedback, I'm starting to write after all, who knows, maybe I'm an even bigger slop machine myself...
I felt the same.
> This isn’t a sign of incompetence. It’s a sign that you’re actually doing real work.
> Your value as an engineer isn’t in executing the same playbook forever. It’s in expanding the domain of what’s possible.
> That experience doesn’t produce arrogance. It produces humility.
> They’re not confident that they already have all the answers. They’re confident that they’ll find them.
All the great innovators are arrogant what is this article talking about?
I would not call Linus Torvalds or Steve Jobs or Henry Ford humble...
This article is AI generated sentimental clickbait.
Arrogance in my view is bluster with no substance.
If you have true substance.. you have earned the right to operate in a certain kind of way to the extent that your word can be trusted more than others.
Why is this so difficult to understand? lol
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47147429
No, i think character traits like _excessive_ arrogance/humility are a marker of something different from the norm. If often means that the person is an outlier (in +ve i.e. "better" or -ve i.e. "worse" directions) from the mediocre mean. So in many cases it can indicate an higher intelligence/ability/expertise particularly in the hard sciences. The caveat is that many mediocre charlatans often manipulate this for their own benefit/ego and social status.
Foundations of Arrogance: A Broad Survey and Framework for Research - https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8101990/
Evidence for arrogance: On the relative importance of expertise, outcome, and manner - https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5500344/
So true