I've more recently come a little bit to terms with this whole abrasive thing being a brain chemistry artifact, and not just being an asshole for assholes sake. Because it seems to disproportionately impact those of us in the technical field. Not to excuse it, but to understand it.
It seems like it does hit the tech field more often, yet overwhelmingly I see leading people in tech get softer, more empathetic, and more open to outside ideas the longer they work and the more experience they gain.
Perhaps this is selection bias (the people I see are the "popular" ones, so of course they are the ones with more social awareness), or perhaps there is no hard and fast "genius requires ego". Note: I'm aware you didn't say that it did, you only mentioned that abrasive-ness seems disproportionately frequent in the tech field.
I'm all for improving our understanding and ways of communication - I've definitely known people in the "asshole" category that were surprised and bothered to discover that was how they came across - but I'm not interested in normalizing abuse as a necessary cost. Which, again, you didn't say nor imply, but the concepts are related to what you've brought up, so I mention it here because the topic is interesting, not as a counterpoint.
Indeed. I don’t have to abide such people, and neither do you. Now if he had found a cure for cancer, would we have more tolerance?
I wish people stopped repeating it over and over. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23250748
Yes, which invalidates your statement that said "refuses to admit when he makes a mistake".
> And that negates all the other times he refused to admit he was wrong
No, I personally think that he should have awarded the 2005 report.
Considering that we have one example where he rewarded the bountry and one where he did not I would say that "he has such a big ego and refuses to admit when he makes a mistake" is just as valid as "he is humble and admits it when he makes a mistake"
I really hate supporting that.