From what I can tell, Mr. Graham, at best, might be wrong about a handful of (evidently fuzzy) facts about painting. I do not see the logical bridge from that to his status as "big ole weenis." That's disappointingly puerile.
I would expect that you're correct, given your stint as a professional painter, something Mr. Graham cannot lay claim to. And it doesn't really matter.
The "Hackers and Painters" essay is not about painting, nor the strict similarities between "hacking" and painting. It is about the fact that "hackers" do both design and development. This is different from the conventional notion of product development existing separate from engineering. The painting analogy is merely a (successful) vehicle for communicating this distinction.
I think this is obvious, and I assume you know it. The bitterness in your riposte, especially the invocation of sexual neener-neenerism, perplexes a bit. Perhaps as a painter you take offense to the imperfect use of painting as an analogy. This seems excessive. "Tomate un geniol."
design at the micro-level = hypothesis formulation
direction of successful project at macroscopic level = repeated testing and reformulation of hypothesis
in other words, project success is science well applied
If the data is valid, I think the article establishes rather well that people who call themselves "lucky" are indeed measurably different from people who call themselves "unlucky." The latter group blew the photo-counting test, for instance.
It is at that point where I would inject your perspective. What other measurable differences are there? Are "lucky" people wealthier? Healthier? Laid more? Etc.
Then there's the matter of training people for greater "luck." I agree, the article is sketchy here, and I'm not sure of a reliable way to measure an increase in "luck" (unless we assume that the "unlucky" can be expected to flunk the photo count indefinitely).
In essence, I think the article is 1/3 of the way there. True, "lucky" people differ from "unlucky" people. So let's figure out if they differ in ways that we care about, and if we can make "unlucky" people become "lucky." Then we'll have something.
Emotions have no bearing on correctness, but they do have tremendous bearing on actions. Mastery of the former begets knowledge, whilst mastery of the latter begets results.
Well yes, I am being silly of course and deliberately taking things to the extreme. I suppose what I am trying to establish is a data point we can all agree is wrong so that those supporting the actions of the CEO have to separate themselves from this point somehow. The clear similarities are that the CEO is in a position of power over his employee and there is no attempt at rational engagement before the verbal attack.
The CEO has in effect told his managers that they should use threats as a normal management technique and that reasoned discourse is an inferior business tool. For a high-tech business this seems unlikely to be correct. I can't imagine this approach being routine at say Google.
Well said. There isn't really a universal answer to this sort of question, so it's good that the submitter included the particulars. Incidentally, this is an example of the benefit of having well developed business and social sense --- those "soft skills" which I would recommend cultivating.
"The principle of revealed preference." If he's not buying it, he's not really valuing it. Like the old joke about two economists who walk past a porsche. One remarks that he'd give anything to own that car --- the other responds, "Clearly not."
No. There are other kinds of value besides monetary value.
An artwork is not a porsche. Even if I had anywhere near enough money to buy a Kiefer, there would be no room for it in my house, and it would not belong there anyway. I think it is valuable simply that Kiefer's paintings exist, and would be even if museum's weren't willing to pay for them.
I think the point being made here is not that communism or any other system is better than capitalism, but that diligence and loyalty are socially exalted but economic rewards flow more towards opportunists and rent-seekers.
From what I can tell, Mr. Graham, at best, might be wrong about a handful of (evidently fuzzy) facts about painting. I do not see the logical bridge from that to his status as "big ole weenis." That's disappointingly puerile.