
On Technical Entitlement - tessr
http://tessrinearson.com/blog/?p=400
======
bherms
Techies, math nerds, and science geeks are generally an alienating group.
Someone recently asked me why this is (being an unassuming software developer)
and my reply was:

"they're usually nerds, geeks, and other socially alienated people who have
always felt below everyone else (jocks, popular kids in hs) and finally have
some sense of superiority so they revel in it and you combine that with their
already stunted ability to socialize or interact with people and it becomes a
fucking mess"

I feel like this is the problem. When I was in the Air Force, we had the same
issue with people who had been picked on as kids or who had never been in a
leadership role. You could tell they had a chip on their shoulder and just
loved the fact they now held superiority in some small way over the same type
of people that used to pick on them. This generally made them the worst
leaders, by far, and made them incredibly difficult to work with because their
smugness alienated everyone else.

~~~
wccrawford
1 other way to look at it: We were excluded from everything and generally
treated like crap. We formed our own cliques and we're happy with them. Why
the ____would we want to let the people in who once shunned us? We don't want
that kind of person around us.

And before anyone says, "Not everyone treated you that way," they did. The
ones that weren't actively tormenting us were passively allowing it to happen
while they were allowed into the groups. Everyone that wasn't against us was
with us.

So yeah. We're a pretty closed group now. It shouldn't come as a surprise at
all.

~~~
bherms
Exactly. You hit the nail on the head. It's not surprising at all.

The converse (inverse? I always mix them up) is true too. What would the jocks
do if a nerd tried to come out for a sport? Generally make fun of, pick on,
and possibly try to hurt them. This mentality exists within all groups.

I'm sure there's something really interesting to discuss here about sociology
and the human psyche, but unfortunately I'm not well versed in those subjects.

------
tytso
One of the big problems is that there is such a huge range of ability for
people who are otherwise, say, in the entering freshman class. A quarter of a
century ago (that makes me feel old!) one of the ways which MIT solved the
problem was by using Scheme in the intro to CS class. The first lecture was
all about abstractions and lambda's, and nothing about Lisp/Scheme syntax ---
and the first problem set asked you to code in Scheme. You were expected to
figure it all out from the language reference manual.

That was a pretty big leveler back then, because most students, even those who
had used a lot of computers in grade school and elementary school, were mostly
exposed to Apple II's and TRS-80's and Microsoft Basic. Lisp would have been
new to most students. (I had learned PDP-8 assembler around age 7 or 8, and
FOCAL a few years earlier, and later some Pascal and C code, and Z80
assembler, but Lisp was pretty new to me.)

These days, it's a lot harder. I suppose the rough equivalent would be handing
freshmen a problem set using ML. But I'm not sure Universities could get away
with that today. Back then, we had too many people trying to get into computer
science, so handing out a problem set w/o any prior instruction and expecting
you to learn a new language from the reference manual was part of the
filtering process so we wouldn't have too many people trying to become CS
majors....

~~~
pnathan
The idea of having a levelling language as the first thing you do in computer
science really attracts me.

One of the big turnoffs is the know-it-alls in early CS courses. Having a
language like Scheme or ML or Haskell whack them on their butt - just like
_everyone else_ would provide a certain democracy to the pain.

I'm pretty sure I was one of those jackasses back then. ML would have handed
me back my head on a copper platter, and I would have really learned higher
level computer science a lot earlier.

~~~
ef4
Having taken the classic MIT 6.001 scheme course, the choice of language
didn't really level things out. There was still a big difference between
people who came in with years of exposure to code and people who didn't.

Even though many of the topics were new to everybody, the experienced people
had a better context to understand _why_ each topic was interesting and
useful. That kind of intrinsic motivation makes any kind of learning easier.

I had written lots of terrible programs already, so for me the course was a
series of Aha! moments. People without that experience seemed to have a harder
time with "What's the point of this?".

It makes me wonder if one couldn't design a curriculum that's deliberately
designed to get people writing terrible programs first, in order to motivate
the techniques for avoiding those problems.

------
mattmanser
This seems light on facts and thick on anecdotes, not sure why this is getting
upvoted.

This could be about Chess, audio-video club, Warhammer or D&D, any subject
that attracts males of a certain inclination that make up for their woeful
lack of skills in other areas by boasting their encyclopaedic and often
ultimately wisdomless knowledge of an area that they have little actual
experience in.

This reminds me of walking into a Games Workshop when I was in my late 20s for
a trip down memory lane and getting accosted by an extremely social awkward 16
year old who harangued me for having a terrible army, even though I'd not
played for 8 or 9 years!

My advice to the author. That's life, stop lamenting it. These people didn't
get on the sports team, they didn't get a girlfriend at 14, they really are
struggling to find themselves and they're struggling in so many other areas,
so let them revel in their actual skills for god's sake and grow up and accept
it, even if they can't. Because emotionally you're so much older than they
are.

I am getting a little annoyed with the 'women in tech' meme, we can't all be
rounded individuals at 18 because society, almost deliberately, is failing a
large section of males. If this is making tech a male dominated arena then so
be it. It is refreshingly simple and without the emotional nuance that many
young males find hard to comprehend, IF this THEN that. Our society brought it
on ourselves.

Men are different to women. Women are different to men. What you are
describing in this article, almost heart breakingly, is many a male geeks
first steps into a social world. To expect them to be able to function as
effectively as you with other people is wrong. They can't yet. Some of them
will flower. But that's just how men work.

But you seem to want to emasculate them all.

~~~
gruseom
_But you seem to want to emasculate them all._

That is totally out of line. It breaks every standard of civility we're
supposed to be keeping here. I feel ashamed for HN.

I don't know if you're aware of this, but your comments frequently come across
as abrasive. An occasional bite is one thing, but with you the needle always
seems to be fluctuating into the red. I usually try reading what you have to
say because you seem smart enough, but then this nastiness comes out and it's
a drag.

But "you seem to want to emasculate them all" is on another level entirely, so
mean and so rude it's like a parody.

~~~
mattmanser
I certainly didn't mean it like that, it was meant as a melancholic line
rather than an attacking one.

------
scott_s
_I know logically that I’m pretty good. But I never feel like I’m as good, or
as experienced, as everyone else. I always feel like I’m behind, trying to
catch up to a group of super-elites who’ve been programming since they could
walk._

Me too. I think that for most people, that feeling will never fully go away.
It's a common enough sentiment across all disciplines that we have a name for
it: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impostor_syndrome>

But, I was confused by this paragraph:

 _People often cite social ineptitude as a reason for unpleasant behavior in
tech. But, frankly, I’m tired of that excuse. The fact is, the behavior that
comes from technical entitlement is poisonous._

My confusion is that I don't think of it as an excuse, but as the fundamental
reason. The remainder of your post discusses how we can _fix_ the fundamental
reason.

~~~
jerf
This sounds a lot more like the problem than entitlement.

But nothing can be done about it. Getting professionals in the field to be
more respectful of women? Can be done. Making efforts to reach out in
elementary schools earlier and get girls more interested in tech at an early
age? Sure. Great stuff. Getting teenaged boys to stop swaggering at each
other, especially in front of the girls? Like stopping the tide from coming
in. Never going to happen.

No sarcasm, no cynicism. You can't make teenage boys not be teenage boys.
People have been trying for a long time for reasons a lot better and more
numerous than this.

It may help to be less intimidated, though, to point out that while swaggering
at each other, teenage boys can often be... shall we say... less than
truthful? I've been programming since I was about nine... if by "programming"
you mean stringing together some GOTOs and PRINTs in BASIC. I didn't really
start _programming_ programming until college. But rest assured teenage-boy me
isn't exactly going to fill in the less-than-flattering details of my tech
experience while claiming to have been programming since I was nine.

(Oh... and... don't try to throw this fact back in the teenaged boy's face.
Whatever will happen, it won't be fun for anyone. Just keep it in the back of
your head, share it as needed.)

~~~
slaundy
If the problem is something inherent in the male constitution, then why don't
we see this disparity across all majors?

~~~
jerf
The vast bulk of majors either lacks the ability to get into it so early
("I've been civil engineering since I was 9!"), women get into them just as
easily ("I've been into biology for a while now"), or it sounds _really lame_
when you brag ("I've been making lumps of indistinguishable chemicals with
chemistry sets since I was nine"). I wouldn't be surprised there's a couple of
others that have at least a trace of this problem.

------
wonnage
Take a common behavior (an desire to show off), give it a special name, now
it's a psychological disorder plaguing our community.

Let's be serious now, we all understand that showing off is rude. A great
majority of developers both male and female are good enough human beings to
avoid being rude. But as with any community, you will have assholes who you'll
have to either deal with harshly (e.g kick them out of the event they disrupt)
or ignore (as you would when reading Youtube comments).

------
wmf
I think privilege is a better term than entitlement. Here's a great article on
the topic: [http://geekfeminism.org/2010/07/27/if-you-were-hacking-
since...](http://geekfeminism.org/2010/07/27/if-you-were-hacking-since-
age-8-it-means-you-were-privileged/)

I think a related problem is that this form of bragging is often rewarded
(I've seen this myself for pretty much my entire life) because for whatever
reason it's seen as a form of merit rather than privilege.

I agree with other posters that there's some impostor syndrome at work here.
(see <http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Impostor_syndrome> ) It _is_ possible
to catch up with the boy wonders, so we need to stop saying otherwise.

~~~
incongruity
Personally, I've come to view the word "privilege" as loaded and poisonous. It
has been used rightly and wrongly – but wrongly as a weapon or as a way to
assert its own sort of superiority – or, even, an unassailable _right_ to talk
down to others without actually understanding where those others are coming
from (ironically) so much so that, personally, I see it as a word that carries
too much baggage to be worth using.

But that's just my $.02

~~~
pjscott
Make that $0.04 -- I can't stand the use of the word "privilege" in that
context, since it invariably causes discussions to turn into accusatory bile-
fests. This can be cleverly avoided by replacing the word with its definition.

------
Tichy
I don't understand it - it is bad to be too good at something, or better than
person X?

There is the issue of "loud" people, but what does it have to do with
technology? There was a psychological experiment that showed people will
assume people who talk/brag more are more competent, even if they aren't. The
existence of that psychological effect implies that such braggarts do exist,
in all walks of life.

But wouldn't it be better to work about your own issues of confidence than
complain about unimportant bystanders. I don't think those loud people are
very popular anyway. (loud == entitled from the article).

------
calinet6
Fantastic article, odd terminology—I think "pretentiousness" or something else
might describe it better.

The author should read the book "The No Asshole Rule" if she hasn't already. I
think it explores exactly this phenomenon in the corporate environment and
describes how to avoid it.

Lastly, I think you'll find this kind of pretentiousness isn't unique to our
field. Anytime you find a large enough group, the assholes will shine through.
I'm all for calling attention to them and not letting them control the
community though, so you have my full support!

~~~
tessr
I'll definitely check that out, thanks!

------
mangoman
I don't necessarily feel that I'm trying to catch up to a group of super-
elites, but what I feel is just a sense of grandness in the whole scope of CS
and just hacking in general that I'm afraid I'll never be able to comprehend.
I love to program, and I love figuring out new things, but there just is SO
MUCH tech out there, I have no clue if I've ever scratched or will ever
scratch the depth of any technology I touch.

In a way though, I think that's what drives me to push myself towards projects
that are just on the right side of impossible. I want to learn that which
seems daunting, on the wrong side of what feels doable. And if I accomplish
that task, in retrospect I really only see the parts of the project that I
could have done better. Whether or not technical entitlement is hurting our
industry, it is certainly unjustified. There is always much more to learn than
any one person could possibly know.

~~~
tessr
This is a really inspiring attitude. I know what you're talking about--I often
feel this way myself.

The difference is that while this is inspiring, having people put you down or
call you stupid isn't.

------
nzmsv
Great post. But why is there a biographic blurb about being a developer at
Microsoft at 18 at the end? Isn't this exactly the kind of "in your face, I
did cooler things at 18 than you ever will" kind of thing that you are arguing
against?

On another note, I think one of the problems in the community is that
criticism is directed at people, not their code. We forget that people can and
do learn and get better. For an example, read the comments about people who
fail the FizzBuzz test, or those who code in PHP.

~~~
mechanical_fish
Surely it is no sin to state one's bio on one's own blog. Especially if one
avoids using phrases like "in your face, clueless peons!!!"

~~~
tessr
The next time I write my boilerplate bio, I'm totally going to use that line.

Just kidding. (Can people on HN read sarcasm? I never know.)

------
gruseom
This is a perennial problem. It's a form of insecurity that can cross into
intellectual bullying. Often (usually? always?) the person doing it is unaware
that they are doing it.

I think you and your friend are exactly right that the solution is to make a
conscious choice not to be that kind of person. That's what I did when I was
your age, and I've tried to stick to it. But the key word is "conscious". If
you're not conscious that you're doing it, you can't make a conscious decision
to stop. What determines that? I think it's a matter of growth: when someone
is ready to grow in that way, they will. It can't be forced from the outside.
But if _you_ do it, you get good at setting other people at ease, and this
helps make your environment more welcoming.

The feeling of constant inner intimidation is common. I have it all the time.
You have scott_s's evidence (edit: among others) as well (and you should stick
around here long enough to know that scott_s's evidence is significant!) It
varies in intensity. One has moments of crushing self-doubt. For the most
part, it's a background process. It seems to be normal for some value of
"normal", like a wry playmate one is stuck with who never goes away. It's so
common among creative people that it may be connected to the creative process.
The solution seems to be to know that more or less everyone feels it and get
on with one's work.

I really like Hugh Macleod's line: "Never compare your inside with somebody
else's outside." We all do that painful comparing, but it's an illusion
because of the fallacy involved: we experience our own inadequacies acutely
and downplay our achievements, while doing exactly the opposite with others'.
(Actually it's worse than that because we have access to our own streaming
self-critical monologue and not theirs, so we're not even considering the same
data. That's the genius of Macleod's phrasing.) It reminds me of a hilarious
fortune cookie a friend used to keep on his office door: "A wise man can see
more from the top of a mountain than a fool from the bottom of a well." We're
the fool in the well and the other guy is always the wise one on the mountain.

Finally, if you think the know-it-alls are in a stronger position, observe
them more closely. If they truly felt they were that smart, they wouldn't be
trying so hard to prove it. It's a weak position and not a good place to be in
the long run, regardless of how many people they overpower in arguments and
status matches.

------
ixacto
It doesn't matter what the gender ratio is in tech. Are we encouraging more
young men to become nurses and primary-school teachers?

CS is one of the most open if not, THE most open field right now. There isn't
a FE/PE/PHD/JD requirement to work at google/ms -- BUT there is the impression
that you will look like a socially-retarded nerd, this
<http://www.google.com/about/jobs/teams/engineering/> is Google's engineering
jobs page. And people wonder why there image-conscious teenage girls are not
interested in programming...

Keep up the good work google.

~~~
Tichy
Can you explain what is wrong with that Google page? Serious question. Do
these guys come across as unfriendly in any way? Or is the problem that they
don't look like George Clooney? That they are wearing glasses perhaps?

What kind of things would the hypothetical female engineers have arranged on
their desks? Perhaps fully automated doll houses where you can switch on a LED
in the oven?

~~~
ixacto
Their office looks disorganized, they look exactly like the negative
stereotype of a programmer. I'll leave that you to figure out ;).

This is what IBM and Microsoft think their employees look like:

<http://careers.microsoft.com/careers/en/us/home.aspx>
<http://www-03.ibm.com/employment/us/>

~~~
Tichy
I just can't wrap my mind around it: a discussion complaining about excluding
people from entering the tech world with a comment ridiculing people in the
tech world. Who should I sympathize with?

Personally I can not see anything negative about those Google programmers.
Their office looks disorganized? Really? Because women are always tidy? And
even so - are you saying that people who don't organize their offices well
should not allowed to become engineers, because it harms the engineering
occupation? Or that people who look like programmers should not allowed to be
programmers? Or that programmers who look like programmers (whatever that
means) should be made to not look like programmers? None of that makes any
sense to me.

What makes sense to me is that people should mind their own businesses. If you
want to become a techie and like an organized office, organize your office. I
don't see the problem.

------
kstenerud
No. No more of this.

If you lack the confidence to get what you want in life, that's YOUR problem.
Nobody else's.

I don't care about who put you down or who made it look so easy or who was
bragging about what. This is not some fairytale land where everything is
handed to you; you have to fight for what you want in life. It's not a strange
phenomena specific to technology. Life is hard. The good things are hard. The
people who excel are those with enough tenacity, skill, and chutzpah to do
what it takes to succeed in whatever their endeavor.

Don't like it? Tough. It's been that way since the dawn of time, and it's not
going to change.

~~~
datalus
LOL. I'm pretty sure humans weren't around since the dawn of time. Also,
asserting that things will never change is about the worst way to prove a
point.

It is said an Eastern monarch once charged his wise men to invent him a
sentence, to be ever in view, and which should be true and appropriate in all
times and situations. They presented him the words: "And this, too, shall pass
away." How much it expresses! How chastening in the hour of pride! How
consoling in the depths of affliction!

Source: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/This_too_shall_pass>

------
xaa
Of course, arrogance and elitism are bad. But I hope tech never stops being a
meritocracy.

I would wager that most would-be CS people are put off from the subject not
because of the arrogance of current programmers but simply because the subject
is _hard_.

~~~
jmduke
"I would wager that most would-be CS people are put off from the subject not
because of the arrogance of current programmers but simply because the subject
is hard."

Maybe you don't realize it, but that mindset is arrogant. A lot of subjects
are hard. CS isn't easy, but it sure seems a lot more difficult than it really
is when you're sitting in a 100-level class struggling to understand the
material when a sizable portion of the students are engaging in pissing
contents because they mastered the material in middle school.

I know -- I've been one of those struggling students.

~~~
xaa
In the U.S. there is a documented deficit of students entering STEM fields,
which includes (but is not limited to) CS.

My thesis is that this is because these subjects are objectively harder than,
say, business or English. Whether it's politically correct or arrogant to say
so has no bearing on whether it's true or not.

------
astrofinch
The funny thing is, you totally can catch up. I have two friends who learned
to code after college, both with the explicit aim of getting programming jobs.
Both are now working for Silicon Valley startups.

Programming seriously isn't that hard for anyone who has the necessary general
intelligence. It's easier than calculus, for instance.

------
michaelbwang
After reading this article, I still don't quite understand the meaning of
technical entitlement. Is it the same thing as technical elitism? Moreover, I
feel the whole post is just about elitism - albeit in the tech world - which
is nothing new. I don't see the point Tess is trying to make.

[edit] spelling error

~~~
pjscott
I think the buzzword "entitlement" is just being misused here. The post makes
more sense if you mentally replace entitlement with a nonsense word like
flurblement, and then infer its meaning from context.

------
Spearchucker
Technical entitlement is only a problem if you let it be. Understand that the
guy boasting about x at age y (or whatever) is doing so _only_ because he
seeks (needs) your approval. It's the old social status game. Your approval is
his validation.

I guess I've been lucky in that I started to program (for myself) because I
was just... interested. I never studied CS or maths or, well, anything. But
here I am, 22 years of programming later still not giving a damn that you can
do language a or pattern b that I've never heard about.

I've come across this elitism thing so many, many times and the cool thing
with age is that it (age) is inversely proportional to the give-a-shit-o-
meter.

~~~
tessr
Unfortunately people often choose careers when they still care what their
peers think.

~~~
Spearchucker
What my peers think of me is none of my business. It never was. If the opinion
of one's peers is a factor to someone making such an important decision
(choosing a career) then I have little sympathy.

------
whiterabbit2
My school didn't have computers, and my parents didn't see a point of buying
me one, even when I made a decision to go to college. So, I built one. It took
some time to collect the better parts as my own money was very limited. I
collected 2 computers and a lot of junk in my room. Anyone to beat it? (just
kidding). I'm foreign born and my sex is "F".

I largely attribute the problem to the culture of competition and entitlement
instilled today on kids by their parents (makes me feel old), especially boys
and especially non-technical parents. It's like "oh, my, he/she is so smart
playing with THIS thing". Then this kid goes to college and feels they need to
challenge everybody, and feels intimidated when somebody is better. How can
somebody else dare to have an A+ on a test and ask questions to the teacher? I
will pop up and ask smarter questions for the sake of it. Or withdraw from
this major because I don't feel belonging. I'm entitled to feel that I'm a
great programmer. And so on. This culture doesn't teach to just diligently do
your assignments/job and collect your A+s/money. A clique of arrogant nerds
sounds like an oxymoron to me.

I have a young relative whose computer skills are overpraised in the family
even though they are nothing special. He had his first computer when he was 6,
my old one. He knows how to create a powerpoint presentation, and attended a
class how to build a web page, but when I offered to teach him to program, it
wasn't taken (yet?). He's an A student, smart, but not very creative, doesn't
take things apart out of curiosity and arrogant out of proportion, if there is
any to arrogance. He ridiculed me when I wasn't able to find some button in
Skype fast enough. In a few years he will be one of those "I'm a genius" kids
in college, and his mother is already planning how she pays off his graduate
education to get him the best job.

------
kintamanimatt
Possibly the one way to break down this barrier is if we all develop our
_explain it like I'm five_ skills.

I've often seen people use jargon inappropriately. They weren't attempting to
communicate succinctly and accurately with their peers, but were bandying
around these words to make themselves feel smarter and more intellectually
superior.

------
roguecoder
I think lots of the one-up-man-ship is because we are afraid of not being good
enough. As soon as we start ripping other people down and they start ripping
us down, we all act like we're in the jungle, about to be pounced at any
moment with accusations of inadequacy.

Mistakes are impossible to avoid, but you are good enough anyway. Your code
might be good enough, but probably you need to iterate over it to find how how
it isn't good enough and how best to address those flaws. We need to stop
taking criticism personally and, far more importantly, we need to stop giving
criticism personally. We need to stop attacking people for being human before
they will stop attacking us for our humanity, before we can stop pretending we
are superhumans because it is the only way for us to stay safe.

Tech needs compassion, because we deserve to be shown compassion.

------
rizzom5000
I'm extremely skeptical that there is any factual link between
unpleasant/arrogant behavior and whether or not someone was interested in
computers/technology/science at a young age.

When someone says that computer science/software engineering is not for them,
then maybe it's because _it's not for them_ and not because engineers are not
welcoming enough.

To put it another way, let's say I enjoyed listening to the radio, and decided
to go for a degree in music despite the fact that I've never picked up an
instrument before. When I get to my first music class and find that it's full
of people who have been playing since they were toddlers, should I expect that
we'll meet on common ground? If I did, and then became upset about my
inability to fit in - that would be my problem, not theirs.

------
Tycho
Entitled to what? I don't get it.

Also, I think the analogy about shorting stock at age 9 is flawed (although
amusing). What financial whizzes might point to is confectionary arbitrage in
the school playground, or helping their father trade commodities in street
markets, or mastering card games, or something like that.

I think what would help people would be a better understanding of how much
value you can add to a business with even unexceptional coding skills. When i
pursued my education in IT, I was aware that there were people who started at
much earlier ages and people whose abilities simply dwarfed my own. But since
I'd already seen first hand now my programming could help a business
operation, I never doubted for a second that I was 'worthy' of being a serious
programmer.

------
temphn
Unless you are Mozart himself, you will always be Salieri to someone.

~~~
datalus
My stepfather, who passed recently, always told me this in every discussion we
got into that was tangentially related to this sort of topic. I think he
really had it instilled in him while he was at MIT. It makes a lot of sense,
there's always going to be someone else better than you. With that fact in
mind, it becomes easier to be happier about not being top dog. It also makes
it amusing to watch people jockey for position, be confident in yourself and
fly as high as you can . Find like minded people who make you better and
enrich your life, there's no time to waste on the a-holes.

This may sound overly simplistic, but it's the best I've worked out so far
coming into the tech world as one of those CS undergrads who had their first
taste of actual programming at the collegiate level.

------
politician
After reading this blog, I have a genuinely honest question -- when women-only
events see high participation is the "wogrammer" a distinct subculture?

EDIT: I'm having difficultly phrasing this thought, please don't assume a
negative intent.

------
jodrellblank
"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." - Eleanor Roosevelt.

If only we'd find a way to teach this as a practical lesson early in school,
instead of a "sounds nice, if only" stumbled on as an adult.

You don't have to _feel_ inferior when someone else is behaving superior.
Society just assumes you do.

------
drivebyacct2
Normally when I see accusations of entitlement, it's quickly answered by
people who deny it or otherwise reveal their entitlement via their ignorance
of the problem. I truly hope that I'm not engaging in that, but I don't
understand the "entitlement" aspect.

I guess I'm confused as to what technical entitlement is? At some points in
the article it seems to simply be technical ability? Or is it technical
ability that's used (purposefully?) to put down others? The article seems to
place a girl soldering at a young age in with people who demean those who
score low on a test all under an umbrella of "entitled". But I'm not sure this
is intentional.

>I know logically that I’m pretty good. But I never feel like I’m as good, or
as experienced, as everyone else. I always feel like I’m behind, trying to
catch up to a group of super-elites who’ve been programming since they could
walk.

This is how I feel _all day, every day_ and yet because I started before my
peers and was a helpful resource when we were in our first CS classes they
regard _me_ in this manner. Most of the time I have to shrug and say "I don't
know" which they find surprising. Which leads back to me feeling like I'm
trying to catch up with those people that _do_ know it all. (Then again, I
also acknowledge that some people know more about somethings [surely _many_
things] than I do, but there are probably some things that I know more about.
We are the sum of our experiences after all). I think there is always someone
who knows more, and someone who knows less. I try to use that as motivation to
learn more and get better.

I think maybe I just take issue with the word "entitlement". It has a
different connotation to me.

I think I agree with the conclusion of the post. There's almost two issues at
the heart of this. On one hand, it's hard to enter _any_ field when your peers
have an upper-hand of any kind. On the other, your peers can do things to make
the field more approachable - like not be jerks, be helpful, etc.

Unfortunately, I'm not sure _how_ one solves this problem. Some people are
destined to be jerks, and when they see a strength over someone else, they
will use it to make themselves feel better. :(

((Just read the bio, I'm also an SDE Intern at MS. Small, small world.))

~~~
cluda01
My understanding of it is that technical entitlement is a characteristic of
someone who uses their early and rapid advancements with electronics or
computers to be a know it all jerk. The main problem stated here is that they
drive people away from the field before they get to honestly evaluate whether
or not computer science is a viable career choice for them.

Frankly this isn't new or unique to technology, these people crop up
everywhere humans do. Think unapproachable meat head at the gym. What's unique
to technology is that it's "ok" or perceived as socially acceptable for
technologists to behave this way. It's not.

She closes with (paraphrasing and generalizing) since mainstream society at
large thinks its acceptable (if only to be avoided by non-technically inclined
people) we need to change the attitude ourselves. From this the technology
field will advance with the huge increase in potential talent pool.

~~~
greggman
What does this have to do with entitlement though?

en·ti·tle·ment/enˈtītlmənt/ Noun: The fact of having a right to something. The
amount to which a person has a right.

Usually this is applied to someone that believes they are entitled to
something. Food, housing..,

I don't see anything these jerk programmers are thinking they are entitled
too.

------
abc_lisper
tl;dr: Nothing unusual, move along

~~~
tessr
(:

