> Bottom right should be "points lost" imo.
There's a certain breed of hot-shot dev who truly believes they're gaining status by making cryptic, in-the-know references, and there's another breed who falls for it. When it comes to social status games, if enough people believe it, it becomes true.
Yes, this is what I described in point 2. Again, I'm not saying it isn't a real thing. At the same time, I wouldn't call it the norm either.
I worked with a senior developer when I was a junior who would answer any question by starting from first principles.
I understand sometimes a question can betray a misunderstanding of foundational principles but this was decidedly not the case, at least in most of the incidents.
I eventually learned to just not ask him questions unless I was absolutely desperate, because it would take him 5-10 minutes to work up to the critical piece of information I was actually missing. I think he just liked to hear himself orate.
Empathy tends to drive my own novelistic explanations, not conceit. It might help to mention something if you haven’t yet. Everyone is different though.
I think his strategy had exactly the intended effect. If you had a real problem that required deep expertise, you knew to come to him.
If you didn't, you figured it out yourself, and thus grew your skills rather than having him feed you the answer.
It seems that this chart assumes:
1. Everyone is a baby that gets their feelings hurt when you imply they might not know something they do in fact know (top right).
2. Everyone loves being alpha nerd and making people feel dumb for not knowing things they know (bottom right)
While both of those are real phenomena, they are pretty dysfunctional. Many people (most people?) enjoy genuine cooperation within a context of mutual trust, learning things from others, and teaching others who want to learn. In that context, checking for knowledge is not a slight, and assuming things "are obvious" and failing to explain them is not a flex.