Power

What Hacker News says

1. frognumberFeb 2025
   That's generally my assumption, but with some exceptions. What selects for psychopaths is the process of climbing the corporate ladder. However, there are ways to get to the top of the corporate ladder without climbing it.

   For example, Larry and Sergei didn't seem like psychopaths. Neither did Omar Bose. Many other founders aren't.

   Ditto for most processes with extreme selective pressures (e.g. most senator, PoTUS, many elite academics, elite law firm partner, etc.). People win by optimizing to the process. People with ethics, or who don't cheat, don't win. There are exceptions, but they're in the minority. For example, if you are an extreme genius or stumble on a major breakthrough, in science, and don't have it stolen by a psychopath.

   You got downvoted, so I'll provide two references:

   * Power by Pfeffer

   * Dictator's Handbook by Bruce Bueno de Mesquita

   Very different takes, but same general conclusion. Both are respected academics at Stanford and NYU, respectively, with de Mesquita being far more respected, and an excellent read. Power is a bit less so

   Show morethread
2. motohagiographyFeb 2024
   Pfeffer's book "Power" will let you know pretty fast whether you are suited to or ready for leadership. +1
   thread
3. motohagiographyJun 2023
   Interesting, but the author is still sounding it out. Highly recommend Stanford prof Jeffery Pfeffer's "Power: Why some people have it...." book. The essential idea is that each field has a weighted triad of Performance, Credentials, and Relationships. Elite networks typically index on the latter two, and ascendant networks index on the first and last.

   I have spent a great deal of time in prestigious places, and I'm always sympathetic to the disappointment of people who have worked so hard to finally arrive there, only to be seated with me at the end of it after all their trouble. It's absurd.

   I'd say, why network when you can conquer and prevail? Being climby just means being irritating to progressively more powerful people. There is always a cluster of people around the powerful who try to be gatekeepers and pretenders. Their esteem has no value outside mediocre aspirations. Sure, there are careers to be made as mendicants, but that's what banking and politics are for. Tech is for improving the lives of others and solving problems as an honest service. Unless you are finding customers to make something they want, networking is inferior with a weak upside, imo.

   Show morethread
4. juujianMay 2023
   Ironically enough, I have a textbook for that: Jeff Pfeffer -- Power: why some people have it -- and others don't. It's good, and not what you would expect from the title.
   thread
5. Silverback_VIIOct 2022
   The problem is that the economy is not a very valid environment in which get useful & timely feedback. It's therefore almost impossible to become an expert. Moreover I think a large part of sucess is people skills.

   But there are certainly some key aspects which do help a lot:

   - Start with why(Simon Sinek)

   - Move (preferably were there is higher return - similar to hill climbing algorithms)

   - Discipline, Focus & Persistence

   - Improve your social intelligence

   - Learn about power dynamics (Power from Jeffrey Pfeffer)

   Show morethread
6. motohagiographyAug 2022
   Go to school and stay in it. Success is a function of (Performance, Credentials, Relationships) Read Pfeffer's "Power" for details. They are weighted differently in different fields. If someone is really smart, they can solve problems at higher levels of abstraction and with more open dynamics than in code. It's useful, but in that PCR triad, technical performance is only ranked highly in very narrow areas like hedge funds and a few tech companies.

   You can always leave academia but you can't pivot into it, so it may be worth just riding that system until you see an opportunity and only take it seriously enough to maintain its benefits. Use it to secure freedom to work on what interests you. People who make a lot of money tend to do it in a very short period of time, so there may be value in leveraging the relative freedom and low intensity of institutional living while you test concepts for traction.

   If you are really that smart, do this 'concepts in mathematical finance' course and choose a path that makes enough money that you can use it to scale your mind and ideas by investing in them, or solve the problems of the world as a philanthropist: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLUl4u3cNGP63ctJIEC1Un... . Bet on yourself and lose, then double down again until you don't. It takes a bit, but you need to be pretty smart just to understand what smart really is.

   Show morethread