There’s a large, high effort comment chain surrounding the wording of “autism” in the title, but the differences in opinion seemed modest, and both original positions seemed reasonable and humble.
On the other hand, there’s a much more substantive issue: two of the leaders mentioned in the post have terrible traits that I don’t think any effective altruists like.
These traits make them bad people and also bad “leaders” in a way that undermines the post.
In fact, the issues are so severe that I have to temper my views and omit details in this comment because one of the people mentioned is manipulative and personally vindictive on social media.
These two people are indeed far more influential and successful than almost any other human being. They’re much smarter than me too.
However, I doubt they are more intelligent or technically able than many effective altruists and their success does not make them good leaders or role models. This is because they are successful and well known because of the outcome of the tech boom, more specifically, financial engineering and ability to use narratives to extract talented labor in this environment.
Even with these tailwinds, these people are so self destructive that their excesses could have crushed them in a slightly different realization of events, such as missing a single key deal.
I don’t know them personally, but I believe I have inside knowledge of their behavior that strongly supports the idea that they are systemically predatory. I also have other information, such as direct accounts from financiers who view the leadership of one as an absolute negative.
By the way, the speaking style of one of these people is so pronounced that it is suspected of being a ploy specifically to extract goodwill for “non-NT” people. This seems plausible to me and makes their use of an example for “autism” succeeding particularly misleading.
There’s dozens of people, and popular figures, such as Bill Gates or Jeff Bezos, would be much better examples for this post (setting aside the apparently large effort needed to drag around social constructs).
I know my comment seems unbecoming, but it is relevant to the author’s point in more than one way.
I would be interested in a counterpoint, but it seems difficult to get an informed opinion except from someone senior in these industries who have experience with senior leadership.
Uh,
There’s a large, high effort comment chain surrounding the wording of “autism” in the title, but the differences in opinion seemed modest, and both original positions seemed reasonable and humble.
On the other hand, there’s a much more substantive issue: two of the leaders mentioned in the post have terrible traits that I don’t think any effective altruists like.
These traits make them bad people and also bad “leaders” in a way that undermines the post.
In fact, the issues are so severe that I have to temper my views and omit details in this comment because one of the people mentioned is manipulative and personally vindictive on social media.
These two people are indeed far more influential and successful than almost any other human being. They’re much smarter than me too.
However, I doubt they are more intelligent or technically able than many effective altruists and their success does not make them good leaders or role models. This is because they are successful and well known because of the outcome of the tech boom, more specifically, financial engineering and ability to use narratives to extract talented labor in this environment.
Even with these tailwinds, these people are so self destructive that their excesses could have crushed them in a slightly different realization of events, such as missing a single key deal.
I don’t know them personally, but I believe I have inside knowledge of their behavior that strongly supports the idea that they are systemically predatory. I also have other information, such as direct accounts from financiers who view the leadership of one as an absolute negative.
By the way, the speaking style of one of these people is so pronounced that it is suspected of being a ploy specifically to extract goodwill for “non-NT” people. This seems plausible to me and makes their use of an example for “autism” succeeding particularly misleading.
There’s dozens of people, and popular figures, such as Bill Gates or Jeff Bezos, would be much better examples for this post (setting aside the apparently large effort needed to drag around social constructs).
I know my comment seems unbecoming, but it is relevant to the author’s point in more than one way.
I would be interested in a counterpoint, but it seems difficult to get an informed opinion except from someone senior in these industries who have experience with senior leadership.