I would think that most passionate programmers have this personality to some magnitude, but it's the magnitude that really counts. There is a threshold where a hacker's isolation outweighs their technical flair. It's a potentially dangerous situation, because when there is no chance to challenge a hacker's perceived authority on what would otherwise be a reasonable conclusion, the hacker can remain under the notion that the conclusion (and often subsequent, unrelated conclusions) are infallible.

At some point in a hacker's career, no matter how smart they are, they're going to be wrong about something. They will respond one of two ways: they will retract into their shell and fortify their position, or instead, poke their head out and learn how someone on the outside formed their opinion.

Curiosity begets discussion begets socialisation. Hackers are touted to be curious by nature, and I wouldn't imagine that curiosity excludes human beings. We are, after all, the strangest contraptions we're ever likely to encounter. If a hacker's reasonable conclusion is rejected, then isn't the better response to open a dialogue as opposed to assuming that your rejector knows no better?

The hacker needn't have been rejected by management either. If the hacker disallows a fellow hacker the opportunity to understand and challenge their perceived authority through deliberate interference, how can they claim to be a hacker? They're applying the same management practices they claim to detest to achieve superiority.

In the end, it comes down to having a curious mind and an open ear. If you don't have these traits, you can't seriously consider yourself to be a good hacker - or a good manager.

i couldn't have answered this any better than danielle did, so i'm going to let it stand. heh!

i guess we're all somewhere along the cubicle-worker-bee/cowboy spectrum. i'm closer to the cowboy end. as is anybody serious about being involved in a startup, i think.