
Academic Assholes and the Circle of Niceness (2013) - denzil_correa
http://thesiswhisperer.com/2013/02/13/academic-assholes/
======
Htsthbjig
As an entrepreneur I believe everybody should be an asshole when necessary,
and nice when necessary.

What happens is that we have "nice people by default" that can't be assholes
even if they want, and assholes that could not be nice even if they want.

For example, I have managed people controlling machines that could squash a
person against the wall if you are not careful, or rip your hand or
strangulate you(industrial lathes or mills or motors with your own scarf).

I was the manager with less accidents or deaths(none of course) in the
company, by far, because every single time I saw someone was doing stupid
things that could harm them or someone else I could become an asshole if they
don't listen to me the first time I told them.

With an industrial press you need to press two buttons at the same time at the
side for the press to go down. If you leave people alone, they will put wood
sticks on them so they could be faster and earn more.

People don't want naturally to wear masks or put safety goggles because they
believe they are in control, and they are 99.5% percent of the time, but this
0.5% could change your life for bad forever.

When you do what you should most people will consider you an asshole, because
they don't see what you can see.

I had several people thank me years after managing them!! and telling me
something like: "Thank you for doing X. At the time I though your response was
excessive, but now that I have seen what happened to coworker Y(lost a limb,
the eye or whatever) I could see how important it was what you tell us to do."

Being nice has its limits, death or important stuff like environmental waste
or corruption are some of them.

I have seen nice people not denounce corruption when they saw it because of
fear of facing the corrupt. Yes men that always smile.

~~~
brlewis
Not tolerating repeated serious safety violations does not make you an
asshole.

Tolerating repeated serious safety violations absolutely, positively does not
make you nice.

Only by replacing "an asshole" with "confrontational" and "nice" with "non-
confrontational" does your comment make sense.

~~~
marcosdumay
Whatever you want to call him, you can be sure he got called asshole plenty of
times.

------
randomsearch
Academia is particularly political. I've worked in industry and seen a lot of
politics there too, but in academia the problem is much worse. I think that
this article is just examining one consequence of the politics in academia,
which is that people sometimes come across as assholes. The article doesn't
get to the root cause of the problem.

For a while now, I've been trying to understand why there is so much political
behaviour in academia, as I really don't like it and I'm not interested in
participating. Recently, I found the answer perfectly summarised in this essay
by Ben Horowitz:

[http://www.bhorowitz.com/how_to_minimize_politics_in_your_co...](http://www.bhorowitz.com/how_to_minimize_politics_in_your_company)

Ben also explains how to solve this problem, and I couldn't agree more.

This essay is included in his book, "The Hard Thing about Hard Things," which
gets a lot of mentions on here and is definitely worth a read.

~~~
arethuza
What put me off academic research was essentially the utter lack of "genuine"
teamwork - when a lot of interactions with a colleague become negotiations
about whether your name goes on their paper and if so in what place it all
becomes a bit tedious.

That might have been the lab I was in - while everyone was nice there was a
distinct weird cutthroat element to it that I haven't encountered anywhere
else.

Edit: I should correct that - this was in the UK so everyone _appeared_ nice,
I know there was a bit of back stabbing from on high directed at anyone who
looked likely to be too successful.

~~~
randomsearch
> the utter lack of "genuine" teamwork

I've also seen this, and it is explained by the essay I mentioned.

You _do_ get genuine teamwork in academia in the UK, essentially I've had to
identify like-minded people who are principally here to do great work rather
than further their own career. I've found lots of people like that, and have
collaborated with them and found it a very pleasant experience.

I've also experience people as you describe, and I generally just stay away
from them as much as possible. Life's too short to associate with people like
that, leave them to their agenda and get on with doing research.

------
jupiter90000
I couldn't help but think, although the article is focused on academia, that
doesn't mean these issues don't exist in industry or even other groups of
people (families, friend groups, etc). I don't necessarily think the answer is
always 'niceness,' although on some level everyone is deserving of respect, in
my opinion. However, I also respect myself enough to leave situations that are
not healthy for me (sometimes that is easy to do, sometimes not).

I could imagine in academia it could get especially tricky, if one was in a
tenured position, working towards an career in academia, several years into a
PhD program, etc and essentially facing a decision to possibly lose an
opportunity for some academia goal or to continue to work with some
dysfunctional person or group until the goal has been met (finishing degree,
getting tenure, not giving up a hard-won tenured position). I mean, there are
problems in industry too I guess, but the nature of the academia career track
seems to make 'just leaving the dysfunctional situation' a much more
meaningful decision, that could essentially end one's academic career or
reduce its trajectory. If I don't like the dynamics at a company outside
academia, it is relatively straightforward to find a new company to work at
with minimal consequences (in fact, the move could help my career).

~~~
marklgr
This could be like specializing in a technology used professionally by a
couple of shops only, with many prominent individuals already working there.
If a somewhat abusive culture develops over time, how much would you be
willing to put up with it, or even embrace it, knowing that resigning could
mean never working with that hard-learned technology again?

------
vlehto
>The budding asshole has learned, perhaps subconsciously, that other people
interrupt them less if they use stronger language.

But there should be some underlying reason why stronger language warrants more
airtime.

I have another hypothesis why assholes seem smart.

Sometimes I catch some error that people around me spread. But I can't quite
articulate it at first. Then it reappears and becomes somekind of norm. At
this point I get frustrated.

Then something happens which to me shows how fucked up things have gone. I
finally articulate what I felt was wrong. Also all that bottled up frustration
surfaces. This is probably when I appear most "smart", because well thought
out stuff goes public suddenly. It has actually nothing to do with how smart I
actually am. It's just that certain assholiness and talking smart stuff
happens at the same time.

Extrapolate and people who are assholes all the time seem inherently smart.

We are herd animals. Teams competing with teams is usually perceived as
empowering. Individuals competing with individuals is usually perceived as
grueling. Assholes are not the problem, they are a symptom.

------
truelson
I do want to point out in addition to Bob Sutton's research, there's Adam
Grant's research he writes about in "Give and Take." One of the main
takeaways, yes there are a LOT of jerks at the top, and nice people at the
bottom, but there are some really pretty amazingly nice people at the top as
well, and a large portion of the book is citing studies as to why certain nice
people are doormats, and certain nice people can make it past all the
"takers." Bob Sutton and Adam Grant's work complement each other nicely.

------
jonpress
Being an asshole isn't that effective. Not as effective as being a scheming,
manipulative backstabber.

------
bertr4nd
"If asshole behaviour is a route to power, those who already have positions of
power in the hierarchy and are widely acknowledged to be clever, have less
reason to use it."

I've noticed this a lot in my academic career. The nicest people to talk to at
computer architecture conferences are usually those with Eckert-Mauchly
awards.

~~~
jakejake
I suspect that there's also a phase of life factor too. People tend to chill
out when they get older. Especially those that are successful enough to where
they have a comfortable life. Generally you start getting awards and such when
your career is pretty well established.

------
yummyfajitas
I truly don't understand this article, or the comments on it:

 _Jerks step on, belittle or otherwise sabotage their academic colleagues. The
most common method is by criticising their opinions in public, at a conference
or in a seminar and by trash talking them in private._

Criticizing their opinions in public? How is this being a "jerk"? This is what
academia is supposed to be all about - you publish, others criticize, you
repair or you accept that you were wrong. That's how we approach truth. Trash
talking in private _might_ be jerky behavior, though given the prior statement
the author might just mean "I think XXX's theory is incorrect because of
[reason]" rather than "XXX has sex with goats, plagiarizes his students and
forges all his data".

Most theories are just wrong. The point of academia is not to be a polite
mutual admiration society providing easy and stable work for people who loved
college, it's to get closer to truth.

The comments provide better examples of jerky behavior. For example, a female
professor called the "IR Hulk" was privately supportive of someone's work, but
then she publicly ambushed them with criticisms she presumably did not share
in private.

I also don't even know what to make of comments like this: _Academia in
general is very hostile to forms of communalization and cooperation and
champions the rational individual (read: male)..._ The issue of favoring those
who provide valid rational criticism is "indeed feminist one"? Can someone
steelman this for me?

~~~
Rexxar

        >> ... by criticising their opinions in public, at
        >> a conference or in a seminar ...
        >
        > How is this being a "jerk"? This is what academia is
        > supposed to be all about - you publish, others
        > criticize
    

Criticizing people's results and conclusions in an argumented way in an
article is perfectly "academical". Asking them question after their
presentation is OK too. Criticizing them _harshly_ in public when they
presents their work and asking them to answer immediately to your objections
is maybe not the best way to approach truth.

~~~
yummyfajitas
I'm not sure why. If you don't raise the question immediately, other viewers
might be misled by the flawed presentation. Once you stand in front of your
colleagues and present something, you should be really sure you are right.

Look, I've attempted to publish things that were wrong. I fully understand the
negative emotions associated with having your work evaporate in front of your
eyes. But it's a necessary part of the search for truth.

------
Pxtl
It seems fairly obvious that this problem is not exclusive to the academic
world by any stretch.

------
detry
I think the asshole behavior as expressed by the author (i.e. _rude,
dismissive, passive aggressive or even outright hostile_ behavior) is not the
source of the benefits but are often seen together.

"Assholes" don't care what other people think and they don't seek validation
from them. As a corollary they don't tone down their opinions nor do they mind
confrontation. Since they express their opinions with confidence, they seem
smarter.

Assholes can take advantage of people, since most people want to please others
to some degree. There are also people who don't try please people, but don't
engage in the anti-social behavior assholes do. It's not the Nice vs the
Assholes.

In my opinion too much niceness can be a hindrance. Taking delicate care that
you express your opinions in a way that doesn't upset or offend anybody is
great for that warm good-feel between everybody but doesn't pave the way for
real progress. People should learn to take harsh critique and not let it
affect them too much personally. Likewise they should learn to give straight-
up, even harsh critique.

~~~
wpietri
> People should learn to take harsh critique and not let it affect them too
> much personally.

Well, my straight-up critique is that you're trying to pass your personal
preference off as some sort of broad rule, and I think that's bunk. If you
like being a jerk, godspeed. But other people get to think that you're a jerk
and ignore you if they want.

> Taking delicate care [...] but doesn't pave the way for real progress.

That's the opposite of my experience. My simple model for it is "trust
credit". If I'm generally kind and respectful, if I usually work to create
good feelings, then I slowly build up trust credit. The more trust credit I
have, the more people are willing to listen to difficult truths from me.

Today at work we did a project retrospective covering more than a year of
work. There were a lot of difficult things to say. But what got us through was
all the effort we put into building strong relationships as we worked
together.

~~~
detry
It seems to me that the reason you spend time accruing trust credit is to
maintain your likability among people when you're obligated to do things that
are unlikable. That's fine. But how much does that improve performance or
enable progress? What is the optimal amount of likability for healthy
workplace that performs well?

Let's take military bootcamp as a counter-example. People form strong
friendships in a high stress environment where they might actively dislike
their superiors. Their skills, abilities and tasks progress in leaps and
bounds. Obviously this doesn't directly apply to normal workplaces, but
provides an example of a situation where disregard for likability doesn't
result in a bad work environment.

I believe the sense of belonging is a core human need, and people go to
different lengths in making sure they have that. We all do at some level. What
you do with "trust credit" probably makes your workplace a nicer environment,
but I don't know how much it matters for performance.

~~~
wpietri
The military is a terrible example. It is literally illegal to leave. If you
leave during war, they can execute you. Boot camps are meant to deeply change
how humans behave so that they can survive war, a deeply traumatic experience
that often results in lasting psychological damage. When people apply boot
camp models in civilian contexts, abuse is widespread:

[https://www.google.com/search?q=boot+camp+abuse](https://www.google.com/search?q=boot+camp+abuse)

> but I don't know how much it matters for performance.

Sure, we can agree that you don't know. Maybe you should try it and find out.
But I'm saying that in my experience it has mattered a great deal, and as
recently as yesterday.

You're saying that you want people to be different, to learn to take harsh
criticism and subtract the harshness. I prefer to work with people as they
are, which is as human beings who are sensitive to harshness, people who have
a much easier time listening to people that they trust than people who are
assholes to them.

I'm not particularly good at it. I'm arrogant and self-centered enough that
I'd rather just say what I want in a fashion that is convenient and
emotionally satisfying _to me_. But if I am going to work with other people, I
often have to choose between the thing that is easy for me and the thing that
makes change easy for them. Even if I didn't want people to generally do well
and be happy (which I do), I just won't get very far in having the real-world
effects I want if other people are indifferent or hostile to me.

------
vfclists
In the kernel development environment this is known as the Linus factor.

------
mazsa
Original with 300+ comments: [http://thesiswhisperer.com/2013/02/13/academic-
assholes/](http://thesiswhisperer.com/2013/02/13/academic-assholes/)

~~~
dang
Thanks—changed from
[http://sasconfidential.com/2015/11/09/niceness/](http://sasconfidential.com/2015/11/09/niceness/).

