OT: The Origin Of Arrogance

Sure, I think you're very much preaching to the choir (other than, say, Boki... :-) ).

Society in general is becoming less tolerant of those who voice strong convictions; I think it's part of the overall trend of "dumbing down" society, where somehow whether or not people _feel_ good about what they do is more important than whether or not what they do really _is_ good. Meanwhile, lawsuits at the smallest slight abound these days... can you imagine someone like Bob Widlar working at National Semiconductor today? I can't -- they'd fire him within two weeks of employment since they'd figure he was a multi-million dollar lawsuit waiting to happen...

You have seen the movie, "Office Space," right?

It's a little disjointed at times, but I've enjoyed Jimmy Buffet's views on how society has changed in the post-boomer generation in his book, "A Pirate Looks at Fifty."

I don't know about Pauling or Dikstra, but Newton was not a nice man - arrogance was the least of his faults. In his younger days, he did brilliant work on optics, gravity, motion, and calculus, but later he was a power-hungry, vindictive, scheming and downright nasty individual, and contributed little to science - he spent more time fiddling with alchemy and astrology in the hope of making gold than his entire productive career. The story of his conflicts with Leibniz is illustrative of this. Leibniz (in Germany) and Newton (in England) independently developed theories of calculus at around the same time. There were continual debates about who was first. When Newton became the president of the Royal Society, he formed a committee to decide the issue "officially" once and for all. This committee consisted, surprisingly enough, entirely of friends and supporters of Newton, and declared that Newton was the discoverer of calculus, and that Leibniz was a fraud and a plagiarist. Leibniz died poor and dispirited - Newton wrote in his diary how he had "taken great delight in breaking Leibniz' heart".

That's not to belittle Newton's great achievements earlier on - there was no reason for him to be modest about them.

It is not arrogant to know that you are better than someone in some way. It _is_ arrogant to believe that just because you are better than someone in one way, or even several, that you are closer to the gods than they are.

I, for instance, am far better than the average engineer at math, but I'm not a giant. I am far worse than many jack-of-all-trades engineers at just intuitively throwing an application together from app notes and old designs. What I excel at is working on the bleeding edge, taking things that better theoretical minds than mine have conceived, and making them actually work here in the crummy, greasy, real world that we live in.

This skill set makes me very valuable to some companies at some times. Does it make be better than the jack of all trades who can't get past the second equation in my write-up? No, it just makes me different. Does it make me feel morally superior to the folks who decide how to spend money? No, it just makes me recognize that they are doing something at the intersection of what they're good at and like to do, and so am I. If I _could_ do what they do I wouldn't like it so much, and I accept any pay restrictions that come out of that as a fair price to pay.

What you are complaining about in your case sounds like a lack of political savvy. I've certainly seen far too many engineers who are profoundly competent technically, but couldn't get someone to hold a fire hose if the place was burning down.

You may well have the skill to do fantastic things once you get your foot in the door -- but you have to be able to get your foot in the door in the first place. Carrying your idea to completion takes technical know-how, but getting it accepted and supported in the first place takes people skills. As long as you are going to work in groups you have to include people (read 'political') skills high on your list of necessary talents.

When I worked in the corporate world I spent over five years at one company (run by financial dudes, naturally) consciously building up my reputation. I did this without groveling or butt-kissing. I purposely decided when to be compliant, when to complain, when to be a prima donna and when to keep my mouth shut. I identified the people who were both influential and effective and paid them the most attention. I made myself an advocate for the technically savvy folks without political skills, bringing their efforts to the attention of the influential so that good things would get done and stupid things would get less support.

Was I playing political games? You bet. Was I benefiting? I certainly think so. Was this a bad thing? No. Why? Because any benefit that I garnered from it was just a fair commission for the benefit that I did the company. Was it fair that I had to do this? No. Why? Because the powers that be should recognize talent and reward it, without political crap. Was it inevitable that I had to do this? Yes. Why? Because I am a human being working for human beings.

What was the end result of all this politicking? I trusted a power-that-is a bit too much one day and signed on the dotted line with my eyes closed. As a result a very nice project was launched with too-high expectations and too-low support. It'll still be a nice product some day, but only after too much time and effort is expended after it's been released.

I think this, too, is inevitable. In my case I have a skill set that is particularly suited for low-level communications problems and harder-than-routine control systems. Basically, I outgrew the company that I was at -- the only way that I could increase my percentage of really interesting work was to hang my shingle and go work for a whole bunch of clients.

One advantage that I have as far as the political clout is that I'm now the guy with a briefcase from out of town. This doesn't automatically make me in charge -- in a well-run organization I still have to present a case to the engineers on the line, and in a poorly run organization everything will be a disaster. It _does_ mean that what I say automatically carries weight, even if I'm just telling Mr. Boss that George here really was right when he was insisting that the best solution was to install a left-handed Frantanowitz valve in the gorblimy exchanger.

More, perhaps, than you do.

Arrogance is looking at someone and thinking smugly that you're better than them in every way. It can grow out of being better than others in one or more ways, it can grow out of a lack of imagination on how many different ways others can be better than you, it can grow out of supremely bad parenting, it can (in my opinion) grow out of a lack of self confidence, and probably a host of other factors.

Arrogance and competence -- even genius -- don't have to go hand in hand. Both Feynman and Einstein were supremely good physicists, but AFAIK neither of them were particularly arrogant. I'm sure that I could find many other accounts of humble geniuses, if I were to dig for them.

--

Tim Wescott
Wescott Design Services
http://www.wescottdesign.com

This is all very well said, but I have two questions:

Being aware of your own mortality, is your rate of doing-the-thing fast enough in the context of these organizations? It seems later that you state that it wasn't, as you are now a consultant on your own.

I did read that Feynman suffered during his Ph.D. years. His colleagues were not particularly warm toward him. Again, given that a scientist like that is only going to live so long, one has to wonder how much of his/her life is spent:

(1) doing real productive work (2) extracting himself/herself from crack of someone else's rank ass

If (2) takes up more than 10%, I think that's too much.

What do you think?

-Le Chaud Lapin-

It worked for me, because while I was developing clout I was also growing as an engineer. It took less than 5 years for my clout to start to match my competence.

When I left it was because I had been dissatisfied for years with the amount of work that was available that really stretched me. I was helped along by the attitude of upper management at the time, but their behavior didn't boot me out -- it just reminded me of my dissatisfaction (and of some recently-vested stock options which financed the inevitable period of starvation for any new individual effort).

There should be peace on earth, also.

If you sat around all day complaining that the electronics you have available just won't do the job for you, and you need to wait 100 years for sufficiently advanced silicon you're not a functioning engineer, you're a whiner.

Well, you are a human, and you work with humans. We should all just be nice to each other and be wise enough to recognize each other's strengths and avoid pissing matches just so we can win and feel good about ourselves.

But we don't do these things. Why? Because we're human. And getting all wrapped around the axle because we have to work with other humans instead of saints is as counter productive as whining about technology not being ready for your newest ideas. Both the technology and the species are things you have to work with; fail to work within their limitations and you aren't going to be effective.

--

Tim Wescott
Wescott Design Services
http://www.wescottdesign.com

I cannot imagine that this was your point of view, say, 30 years ago. Thirty years ago you probably had wild dreams of making the coolest flashing red thing. One could say that you have "matured".

What is ironic is that, as we grow, our children often become that which we were too afraid/weak/naive/whatever to become: the one who cashed in before 20. The one who ran for political office that was normally reserved for people over 45. The one who wrote an online file-sharing program that was ultilized by over 100 million people. The one who just said no.

So yes, we are all human, and there is a class struggle going on. Roughly speaking, it's us against them, and historically, they've won. The misery and poverty of Leibnitz is but one testament of many.

But change is happening. The best contemporary example is probably Bill Gates. He defies almost all the traditional rules of wealth and power, and the stick he wields is not even tangible. After the thieves, politicians, aristocrats, autocrats, entertainers, mercenaries, royalty, prodigal sons,....all you have left is Bill, sitting high on..wherever he sits on...holding tight to property whose entirety could problably fit in a large file cabinet.

That's inspiration.

I do not think it is inevitable that one has to sacrifice accomplishment for accomplishment.

"In matters of style, go with the flow. In matters of principle, stand like a rock." - J. D. Rockefeller

-Le Chaud Lapin-

Funny that you'd bring up Bill Gates as an example, since I think most people would agree his shrewdness is primarily in being a businessman... I don't think anyone's ever suggested he's any kind of super-programmer (just a reasonably smart guy who realized he could parlay decent programming skills into a huge empire), and clearly he's made conscious decisions as to how he wants to balance product quality with shipment dates, revenue, etc. (in other words, although I think that Microsoft Software is generally workable, its reliability is nowhere near that of, say, a nuclear power plant's!).

There are also plenty of people who hate the man's guts. I wouldn't put it above plenty of people to spit on the guy or try to sucker punch him given half a chance! (Those things being truly hurtful, whereas getting a pie in his face was just plain funny. :-) )

The economy of the future is going to be more and more about "information management" rather than the traditional jobs involving physical extertion; the human psyche has yet to fully adapt to this notion, with plenty of people still seeing nothing wrong with pirating software, movies, music, etc. -- or even viewing themselves as some sort of bizarre modern day Robin Hood, "sticking it to the man!"

Yes, my favorite scene was the one were (forgot his name, Jennifer Aniston's mate) unleashes on the management about the problems in the company, and they give him a nod as management material. In fairness to managers, I've noticed that there is some truth to this. Occasionally the experience with management is positive. You tell them what you think with no sugar, and they appreciate it, and almost seem ready to act. But then the other subordinates kill it.

Going to check that out.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

That's truly sad. Also very wasteful.

At least now one can sue.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

You have a lot to be grateful for.

People dont like ideas when they dont understand them. Presenting an idea people dont get is a good way to wipe out your listen-to-ability. Most are actually afraid of ideas. Plus they only serve to show them up as less than, which seems to be all a lot of people are really concerned about. And ideas in and of themselves are not that valuable anyway.

If you have an engineering idea, develop it into something of readily demonstrated value. Of course your employer may not want to play that game.

This will always be the case if you stay in the same type of situations. You have choices, options... each has its problems, and serious problems at that.

ha, yes. Fly solo for a reason.

Some people join hiq societies to satisfy something theyre not getting elsewhere. I'm not sure how many that actually works for.

One thing thats important for human happiness is to appreciate what you do have. Now and then I make a nice long list of it.

Next time holidays come round maybe dont go to the nice ski resort, but to somewhere out in Africa, and get a direct realistic perspective on where you and life are at in the world. I get the feeling this may do you far more favours than the skiing. The truth is that while your problems are real, you're doing pretty good. You might want the next level up of Maslovian satisfaction, but youre doing quite good already.

Few aspects of life are fair or the way we want them. First change what you can, then learn to accept what you cant. At least this ng is a place for a certain sort of person, somewhere it sounds like you fit in.

Working solo or working in startups can be good, if you like stress, risk and periods of starvation. I like the startup situation myself, and am now on the 2nd one. Startups have to be collections of intelligent people, else they dont have much chance. People have to pull their weight, cut through the usual crap and so on. Theyre either achievers' places or history.

What are you going to do about it?

NT

Well, honestly, what I would *really* want is to see some of these solo flyers to converge on a collective purpose.

This has happened on several formal occasions, like the Manhattan Project and the Spache Shuttle, but those were formal programs initiated and managed by some of the same people who would normally be an impediment. Need I not resurrect the discussion about the Dilbert who didn't think the Space Shuttle would actually explode. And in the case of the Manhattan project, look what their policy was after the mechanism phase of the project was over. Nuke the bastards!

I'd like to see projects of a lesser-but-also-important scale happen, but to see it initiated by people who actually produce the result. I would like to see it managed by a person or small group of people who are empathetic to principles commonly espoused by such individuals. I would like to see such a group do ground-breaking work that will change the world (with # of humans left standing >= what it was before project began). And most importantly, i would like to see these individuals gain wealth from the project, (1) because it will demonstrate that we

*CAN* have our cake and eat it, and (2) it is likely that your offspring will be more of the same of you, and if the quesiton of money were mostly eliminated, they would be able to work unencumbered by the limitations you have faced in your own life.

So in a nutshell, while I complain about the way 'they' are, I have no interest in changing 'they'. I do have an interest in changing 'we', and I think 'we' are most capable of doing that.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

Well, if I ever met the man, I'd shake his hand, and say, "Hey, Bill, when's Microsoft Linux coming out?"

;-P

Cheers! Rich

Depends what you mean. Anyone of any level of brilliance must appreciate that his/her position is supported by a large number of people. Understanding how to work with those people, teach them and learn from them is a very important skill also.

The disheveled primadonna guru figure, loathed yet indispensable, is fairly rare figure in the real world.

You've told us what you want others to do. Now the question for you is what are _you_ going to do.

NT