Nornagest comments on The Importance of Sidekicks - LessWrong

127 Post author: Swimmer963 08 January 2015 11:21PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (203)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: wadavis 21 January 2015 04:48:04PM 6 points [-]

Upvoting is not sufficient given the very difference perspectives in the comments here.

I read the above article and nodded along the way thinking 'this is insightful and adds a great context to discuss and think about many industrious relationships' never once did gender cross my mind. I was floored to see it a major item in the comments.

I am male. I have high testosterone. I love competing and winning. I am ambitious and driven. I like to make a lot of money. I make a lot of money. I prefer the sidekick role.

Ditto. I've never identified as subservient, but my entire career I've found leaders to work for whose skill set I could compliment. I saw this as an issue of too many cooks ruin the stew and too many chiefs, not enough indians.

To sum this up, I think the Sidekick role is a matter of effective team building and is as far from gender as anything else in the world.

Any links to discussions on this item elsewhere? As some rationalist said, two rationalists with the same info can't help but agree.

Comment author: Nornagest 21 January 2015 07:31:48PM 6 points [-]

As some rationalist said, two rationalists with the same info can't help but agree.

...given some assumptions about the mathematical structure of argument that probably don't hold for humans, rationalist or otherwise.

Aumann is a remarkable result in many ways, but it's not one that neatly lends itself to social engineering.