The basis for the negativity here is a "score" which you, the OP, have scored in a way that makes you feel like a loser. Try not to get suckered into that. It is really hard to do but write down all of the things you aspire to. It can be trivia knowledge it can be computer languages known, it can be chemical constants memorized it can be states capitals. Doesn't matter what but it has to be honest and come from inside you.

You might say, "I want to be a valued employee." (a bit self serving but its an example). Now you need want to find out an objective way to evaluate your value. Talk to your boss, talk to your peers, talk to others. Ask them what do they consider valuable in employees. Collect all of that data and write it down, now rank it based on your internal values. What do you consider makes you a valuable employee. If there are things that aren't on the list write those down. Do one last checked with your boss and peers about what you think the top 10 things are that make someone valuable to see how close you are to consensus. Now for each of the things on your list, write down three things; first a way that value is demonstrated, second a way that value is diminished, and third an activity that you can practice that will contribute positively to that value.

It may seem like a crazy thing to spend your time on but the key is that you will have turned a fuzzy thing into something that can guide your actions. And if you ever want to know if you're valuable you can go through the list and see the things you've done to contribute to your value. And when you're thinking about what to get done you can prioritize by your value structure. This is basically a away for you to convert an implicit (and ever changing) score, into an explicit and measurable thing.

What they will answer though is likely not going to be what they respond to - the answer might be 'diligent and focused' (which is already completely hollow and ambiguous to begin with) while the truth is 'similarity to myself'.

Thanks!

While I largely agree with your main thrust, I must take issue with this. Many of us (older generation perhaps?) were culturally incentivized to not exhibit any of our nerdiness, and were ostracized or worse for doing so. Many of us developed a "dumber" external persona and explicitly avoided demonstrating cognitive excellence specifically because of negative social incentives regarding being a nerd.

Me, I'd think we would be better than moose, butting heads to prove our dominance, but...not always?

This shape can work well if you have a good alpha. It provides direction and confidence in the team. It can be a great antidote to team staffed entirely with prima donnas. When done well, it actually provides a safe place for people to learn and experiment because the alpha is the only one that takes political risks. On more democratic teams I've seen many junior/intermediate developers absolutely melt down when they suddenly discover that they aren't as good as they thought they were.

I thought this was an interesting set of anecdotes about dog roles: http://www.massachusettsdogtrainer.com/page11.php

Maybe you don't personally, but I'm positive this sentiment exists from others in your generation.

I'll fight hard for my ideas, but not at the cost of missing what other people have to say. I'm reasonably old (nearing 50), I've been coding professionally since before college, and have a reasonably good head on my shoulders.

But so do other people, and ignoring what they're saying, or dismissing it because I'm not saying it, is a lost opportunity. Even if that opportunity ends up cementing my owb belief. I owe it to them, and more selfishly, to myself, to consider the possibility I'm wrong.

(A verrrrrrry remote possibility, but ya' never know ;)