I literally created a Hacker News account solely for the purpose of observing that this is a terrible article and the author should feel terrible for writing it.
The idea that social maladaptation and/or rudeness is some sort of marker for talent is garbage, and wrong.
Furthermore, the idea that talent is or should be an EXCUSE for social maladaptation or rudeness is ALSO garbage, and wrong.
You hit on something important which is there's a difference between being a programmer and being a programmer on a team. Working together on something creative like a codebase or a design is a whole different set of skills that's arguable more important than just being good at programming.
Many people see successful people who are socially maladjusted and try to emulate the maladjustment part in hopes of replicating the success. Correlation <> causation
What the hell is this? "There are two kinds of people" reductionist nonsense with some "10x engineer" nonsense AND some "you should let people play video games at work" nonsense thrown in to boot?
Anyways, this strange "2 kinds of people" logic never fits in the real world. My old manager was a hacker by this guy's understanding, and he did both roles well. And not all "hackers" are actually all that good at actual software engineering - they might be interested, interesting, different, etc. but they don't ALWAYS ooze productivity and talent. People exist on a spectrum that stupid blog posts like this eschew in favor of punchy, compact worldviews that appeal to people ("managers") who don't have time to understand people personally.
None of the words used to describe the hacker category applies to me or any hackers I know in real life. The manager description is much better for your average hacker, especially the bits about morality, and forgetting about how other people can be different from them.
The hacker category is described almost perfectly, in my experience. It fits the truly high level people I've been fortunate enough to know.
It's probably important to realize that most devs aren't hackers. Not in the traditional sense of the word. I aspire to be, but in many ways I fall short. And I work every day, all day on it, most days.
Simply being a programmer doesn't automatically make you a hacker, just like having a boyfriend doesn't automatically make you in love. And like love, you probably know whether you are.
The defining characteristic of a hacker is probably an unusual sense of blending computers with your own identity. Computers are seen as a tool for changing the world, not merely a means to a paycheck. And that necessarily means that your identity with your work extends outside of normal work hours, since it's inseparable from who you are.
Good hackers have a variety of other hobbies, of course. But the base traits described in the article seem to line up nicely on average (if it's even possible to average the highest echelon of programmers).
If that's the definition of "hacker", then I'd argue that they should be avoided. The most effective devs are the ones that are able to understand the needs of their customers, communicate, and weigh competing priorities. The technical skills are table stakes.
The whole thing reads like it was written by a hacker that I would hate working with. Bunch of self-absorbed bullshit.
> May have intense powers of concentration. Prizes an offbeat and clever sense of humor. At times, painfully aware of inconsistencies that are invisible to the people who are acting hypocritically. Marches to the beat of a different drummer, and needs to work at understanding people like managers.
The article is not totally wrong but it goes into stereotypes way too much. I have seen managers and hackers all over the introvert/extrovert spectrum. Maybe hackers are on average a little more introvert but not to the level that this generalization is useful. Alan Kay's "more ways to kill the golden goose" is more helpful.
While the article is poorly written, it highlights the fact that there may be genuine differences in the way the two categories work.
I am a hacker at heart. At 47 I learn everyday, challenge developers all the time and spend an inconsiderate time building more or less useless IoT devices.
I am also a very senior manager for 20 years. I managed all kind of people but it was always vastly easier to manage hackers than standard (and good) employees. I usually say at interview time that I am not a good manager and expect people to be very independent.
I am also in this incredibly lucky situation to have a fantastic boss who somehow understands this (he is extremely intelligent but not a hacker at all). I believe that companies would gain a lot matching hackers-managers with hackers, something which rarely happens.
Only if you refuse to apply a hacker-like mentality to spirituality. Hackers will tend toward agnosticism or outright atheism more readily than the average person, sure (they're less likely to take scripture at face value), but will also do so for more obscure or lost-in-history religions (paganism comes to mind), or perhaps a parody religion (SubGenius, pastafarianism, etc.).
In my case, I like to explore what makes different religions tick and try to sort between "hey, this is a good idea" and "oh wow, that's a bad idea". That sorting ultimately determines my own "religious" beliefs. Whether I take the existence of God or the afterlife or what have you literally is immaterial to whether I apply those teachings to my own life.
I certainly agree that organized religion is antithetical to hacker nature. You probably won't find many hackers who are regular churchgoers (at least not to the same church each time), and they're probably not going to be the ones following scripture to the letter. Organized religion is only a subset of religion, though.
It's interesting that the only ones speaking up are those that seem to have a problem with the article. As a counterpoint, I find the article apt.
Like men who worry when they start to go bald, you're more likely to notice when you don't have some trait that seems desirable. No one else really cares whether you identify as a hacker, but it's interesting how many people here seem to.
I think it's important to be aware that being a programmer does not automatically make you a hacker. The real hackers are few and far between, and if you claim to be one, you might want to reexamine that notion. It's like claiming to be an Olympic swimmer: a very specific skillset that people work all their lives to attain, and few are good enough to swim with the best.
The reason so many people are complaining is that "I worked with a terrible co-worker who was incapable of understanding that working well with others is an essential part of being a great engineer" is a near-universal experience. And this article literally puts that terrible co-worker on a pedestal and says "If you have an engineer who is bad at their job, leave them alone and let them continue to be bad at their job."
The idea that social maladaptation and/or rudeness is some sort of marker for talent is garbage, and wrong.
Furthermore, the idea that talent is or should be an EXCUSE for social maladaptation or rudeness is ALSO garbage, and wrong.