So I have a PhD, and do empathize with being "transgressive", but I'll say I think it's less about the PhD than it is about being right.

If you are bull headed and drive really hard in a new area, you better be right because you are taking responsibility and accountability for that area (whether you think you are or not). High risk, high reward - sound familiar? This is true at Google, at startups, in academia. So it's really more of a personality thing - if you're ok being obedient, you also don't need to bear the stress of accountability. But if not, well, no degree will alleviate that stress.

"...if you're ok being obedient, you also don't need to bear the stress of accountability."

I agree with most of what you're say, but I think this can be wrong. Management seems to push stress and blame down to the individuals, even if they are obedient. I see a lot of stress in my job and I'm only an intermediate developer.

>> those who "challenge the book" instead of "follow the book"

This is a valid position and one I can identify with personally, but as I've gotten more emotionally mature over time find it's a little more subtle. You need to include your risk propensity and methodology into the calculation. Even within established companies roles, teams and individual situations are going to be vastly different. Are you willing to take bet-your-career risks? Have you earned some shared vulnerability with the people you want to change? Do you truly care about them and your company? I've learned these are all necessary if not sufficient regardless of the corporate landscape.

I believe there is a third way where you work within the system to affect meaningful change (or bring it down from the inside, depending on how radical your viewpoint). I've come to the realization that small minorities want either dramatic change or none at all; the vast majority are just apathetic, which is your biggest enemy. Start-ups likely skew towards the big change camp. You can make a difference in the former environment but it is exhausting and risks turning you apathetic as well.

You should get a therapist (or a life coach?), these sorts of problems are rarely confined to just the work space.

Yeah, probably. It's certainly worth giving it a go.

It's funny how management tells us to think outside the box and then admonishes us when we do and they don't like it.

Defending and perpetuating the power structure is what institution building is. If you won't be a steward of the dominant institutions, then you're not an extension of its power, your a transgressor to it.

"Thinking outside the box" is cute virtue signalling but honestly that's what gets you kicked to the curb.

It will always be that way for any established entity because that act is fundamentally one of disestablishment

Completely agree. The only way to get power or money is to have the people who have power or money want give you some. The owner/leader of a company will only give power to others if it is necessary and they are sufficiently similar to themself.

>I wish more companies would value those who "challenge the book" instead of "follow the book" or that I could find a way to obediently follow it instead of challenge it.

it sounds like you've identified a personal problem with a clear goal, the next logical step would be to shop around therapists who think they might help you achieve that specific goal. and i think it's very important to shop them. Maybe even read a few books on how to find the right therapist for you. It's important to not get stuck on one who you don't like or who isn't interested in help you the way you want to be helped. I've found with therapy that sunk cost fallacy is real when you've found one that really doesn't fit with your goals.

I like the simplicity of your homepage.

I stopped feeling obligated to being fancy a couple years ago.

It's running off a raspberry pi at my apartment and is really more about giving me access to my network of computing resources here.

I've been meaning to make a generative poetry engine and just put it there without disclosing it. It could probably be pretty believably human if it's restricted enough.

You're reminding me of good memories. I made a (pretty bad) rhyming poem generator in middle school. Whimsical coding is a most enjoyable form.

No not at all. Nobody has ever quit under my management.

People quit bosses, not jobs and I've always kept my people. So I think I've been pretty good

Yeah, I know what you mean. I have a similar issue: just way too good looking for large companies. I could make more money and have less stress at a large company, but my good looks keep me out. Fortunately, this dinky startup is willing to tolerate someone this handsome.

I'm sorry, that's really uncalled for and a complete misrepresentation of the topic. Would you like to add to the conversation instead? I'll be happy to read whatever you have to say.

I am (obviously?) kidding, which you would know if you saw me. (Too good looking for startups too).

I did not mean to upset you.

You didn't! Just trying to steer things in a more fruitful direction.

In the startup world they usually call this employee waves. Hoffmann, Christensen & Collins all broke up different people as part of different waves (using different models) and that some people "belong" in certain waves. Others, such as say, Davidow and Von Hippel went into detail on how to insulate new technology from late wavers at established firms in order to successfully incubate it (Christensen talks about this as well). See Kidder's book on the Eagle project and Fergusons book on the IBM PC for some examples. Also search "sony missed ipod" for some really interesting counter-examples.

Also how BBN beat Raytheon for ARPAs IMPs is a fascinating example.

Anyway, I'm a first waver who wants to improve on being a much later waver.

I'm tempted to try a cover of the old 80s/90s era song Right Said Fred "I'm too sexy for your startup"

Thanks for unglooming my day!