Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login
The high-return activity of raising others' aspirations (marginalrevolution.com)
96 points by jseliger on Oct 21, 2018 | hide | past | favorite | 19 comments



I saved this comment from jlcfly from an AskHN that was answered a long time ago and have reposted it many times, as I feel it is an excellent philosophy for making your team better.

> "Teach them to be better than you. That may seem counterproductive. I have a type A personality, and I have decent coding skills.

I've been in your situation a number of times. I also know there's these mythical expert developers out there that I can't seem to find (or afford). So, what to do? A few years ago I realized that if I continue down this path, I'll end up with some serious health issues due to the stresses that come along with having a reputation for being a really good developer.

So, I decided that instead of searching for developers better than me, I would teach developers I work with how to BE better. It's taken a lot of patience.

And it's taken me quite a bit to LET GO of my way of doing things. I had to take my ego out of the picture. (VERY hard to do.) Nowadays, I realize that developers don't have to BE better than me. I simply have to ALLOW them to do what they do without being so obsessive about it. Turns out, even junior developers really CAN do good work. They just need a little guidance that only comes with experience, and then they need me to get out of their way.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8649415


How do you separate cases where it's your ego acting up from where you are actually making better design decisions? Long-term better.


I’m not the OP but I would probably enlist other individuals at a tech lead level from other teams for a design review. Remove yourself from the decision.


"...even junior developers really CAN do good work..."

Yes. In fact they will do good work, if I just get out of the way.


I appreciate that this route can help counteract the self-selection bias for narcissists in higher level roles. Most managers/directors/VPs/CEOs etc only become such because they think they belong there. We probably want more humble individuals to get pushed into those roles because others think they belong there.


We don't really need a lot of the leadership positions we currently have. Hierarchies are possible/required when networks aren't fully connected up. As an extreme example to convey the point, Genghis Khan and Napolean play a huge role when the world is disconnected. But today the world is hyperconnected, so what does society do with its Genghis Khan characters? These people are busy trying to assert their innate Genghis-ness (see Mark Zuckerberg) but the network is so much more massive it will steamroll them sooner or later. Whats important in hyperconnected networks is consensus on direction. We are going through a transition from hierarchy to a fully connected network and we still have too many self deluding/self important characters trying to resist that.


What makes you think that now, rather than all points in history, our "transition from hierarchy to a fully connected network" will work? Seems to me entities made up of many people are organized hierarchically for good reason.


Yes there are very good reasons for hierarchy.

Stability of the group being the main one (i.e. preventing it from splintering). Who ever is at the top of the hierarchy is expected to resolve the battles/differences unfolding at the lower levels to keep it stable especially when it is in competition with another hierarchy.

Will the transition work? Yes it will because we are at a point where no one individual or org has the power to dominate the network anymore. The network has grown orders of magnitude larger than any single hierarchy within it. And the pressure on each hierarchy to NOT splinter away is huge.

Just watch the guys at the top being overwhelmed. The 2008 financial crisis showed what happens when the network is threatened. It just pushes people to keep the larger network intact. It doesn't matter what their job titles are or where they individually stand in the hierarchy.

Same pressure you will see coming to bear on one Genghis Khan type character after another try to wrestle for overall control or disconnect to maintain control. Things will keep blowing up in their faces with all kinds of unintended and unpredictable consequences. Look at Facebooks fakenews response from 2 years ago to today. Look at whats happening with Brexit pushback. Look at Iran and North Korea not wanting to be isolated. Look at China realizing the impact of a trade war. Look at Saudi feeling the pressure to change. Look at Google unable to get its own employees to build a Chinese search engine.

All these are signs the guys at the top of all these hierarchies are struggling to get their hierarchies to do what they want because these hierarchies are now part of a much much larger network. And the only way they maintain its stability is to keep that network intact.

At these scales we aren't operating like a troupe of chimps or a pride of lions anymore with alphas. We resemble more a shoal of fish or a wildebeest herd. There is no central leadership.

And thats not a bad thing if you have ever seen a bunch of murmurating starlings. It will take some time for the Genghis Khan types to get with the programme though, at a cost to lot of people at the bottom of the food chain.


Are you being serious?

I almost agree with your sentiment however the prerequisite is that the group size is around 20 people. Earth has grown beyond where that is feasible and TCP/IP ain't gonna change shit. If you think about everyone on Earth in a connected graph the number of possible relationships in the world is 7 billion factorial. You're ever fully connecting that graph ever. And it will never be stable.

It's kind of stunning if you look at the majority of Africa and the Middle East and parts of South American those conquerer types are alive and well and steamrolling the network all day long.


It's not about being stable but the pressure on everyone to keep the fully connected network stable that matters. Wrote up a longer comment here - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18271594


Hmm I disagree with your conclusions.

What you seem to be describing is geopolitics. Honestly, not much has ever really changed.

I mean if I were to give a metaphor for how I see geopolitics has changed in the last 150 years I would say:

Imagine we are a group of kids going on a camp. First there is the argument over whether we should go on a camp at all. Next is the argument over where we should go. The last thousand years equates to fighting all the way there in the car. WWI and WWII were arguing over who got which bed after we arrived in the room. The first night came and went and followed by the first full day of camp. The first day of camp was going fine until it wasn't. That was brexit + Trump. A minor hiccup here and there but everyone lives in such close quarters at the moment we are all starting to get on each other's nerves. But mum and dad (The UN) tell us not to fight. One could break out but we try to keep the peace otherwise we know it's going to be miserable for everyone. Full scale warfare is a food fight away.

Human nature never changes but scale which it was never designed for tends to expose the very rough edges.


I am going to remember your going camping metaphor :) Minus mum and dad. This is the period where everyone figures out how to get along. Fingers crossed!


Sadly I think we hit peak getting along about 2 years back.

As in the microcosm, so in the macrocosm. If you think about even the difficulty of maintaining stable relationships with the handful of people you know it's actually really damn challenging. Occasionally you have fights and disagreements and sometimes you think fuck it I just can't deal with you anymore or right now. If it's like that for everyone on Earth in their personal lives then that's what Earth is going to be like in aggregate roughly speaking.

I don't mean to be a downer about it. I just think we have a very rosy view of "the world gets better and progress gets made and that's the natural state of things". I've come to realize that that doesn't really hold up to scrutiny when you look at the history of the world over the last 12 to 13 thousand years.

As it stands this is mostly a happy accident. Scariest thing is it can all go back the other way.


This is true in the sense that there is no nice safe straight path up a hard to climb mountain.

There are going to be ups and downs. And yes we are fucking things up right now, because exploiting each other is easier than helping each other climb. But its all part of learning. The more we fuck up the more we learn how not to fuck up. And have learnt a lot. About human behavior thanks to trump and brexit. If tech and psychology can mislead entire populations by pushing a couple buttons, it can also do the opposite. Those buttons are being cooked up as we speak.

I don't think we are going to have any more great world wars (people around the world aren't as desperate to enroll in the military as they once were for employment) but we are going to have huge shocks to the system that will force us each time to learn from our fuck ups. It's not going to be a nice pleasant stroll up the mountain. But human nature is to climb nonetheless.


I 100% agree with this approach and the pleasure at seeing the successful outcomes.

This is something more than continual encouragement or simply being a mentor or sounding board. This is looking at the universe of possibilities and, seeing a good potential, pushing a small stone down a steep angle of repose.

I'm a senior data scientist, and occasionally come across exceptionally bright but self-limiting people. If we get to know each other a bit, I've taken several under my wing and sponsoring their transition into statistics/data science activity. It's my absolute favorite thing to do as a mentor, both for selfish and selfless reasons.

I'm careful with this, of course. The antithesis to this notion is encouraging to work towards something then wasting your and the person you're encouraging's time. Much of this is self-selecting.


This reminded me of an assignment I had for health class in my senior year of high school to help someone. I chose to encourage another kid in my dorm to go to college after graduation (he wasn't from a family with a tradition of going to college). I would just talk to him about where I was thinking about going and all the different options. By the end of the semester he was talking about going to college too. No idea what became of him, but I like to think I had a positive impact on his life.


I dated a girl who went to MIT at the end of high school, myself as a drop out. If not for her I’d probably not have considered education seriously. “Why would anyone go to more school?” was my attitude. She never pushed me to do anything, but imagining her trajectory was inspiring. She’d had immigrant parents who got educated in the US. 8 years later I finished a bachelor’s degree, full time during my major courses. My path gets no love from the outside, but I am happy with it when compared to outcomes of others sofar from similar backgrounds.


Two of my favorite stories about my life are examples of this kind of thinking.

Once, during the doldrums after the dot com bust when our old firm had gone out of business, I interviewed for a position that was a bit too junior for me, but a reachable step up for a friend of mine. I left the interview, called her, she applied, got the job, and it trained her for the next one.

In grad school, one of my brilliant classmates had an intern offer in hand from a bank, and they were rushing her to accept it. We, but especially my wife, the guidance counselor, urged her to believe in herself and hold out for one of the big tech firms. She did, had two very successful internships at one of the biggies, and now works there full time. She gave us a coffee mug from the firm, I smile every time I see it.


How would you apply this advice to a drug addict or a person who just got evicted?




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: