Ask HN: I am the dumbest person in the room. What should I do?

196 points by byrain ↗ HN
I see a lot of articles and posts about hiring the right person, dealing with underachievers, etc, but still did not see one with underachiever's perspective.

I was hired 4 months ago to work for a quite desirable software company. On my interview and first days I was quite confident and a bit cocky I must admit. I thought I knew more that I actually did, but at the same time was aware that I was lacking specific experience needed for that particular job, but was very willing to work hard to develop myself, and actually saw that as a desirable challenge! I thought that mentoring and time was given to ramp up and learn the missing pieces. Non of that happened.

My teammates have tons of experience, and there is a clear “every man for himself” mentality. Most of them have big egos and really rotten and bitter attitudes. They are stars, they know it, and treat people who are not at the same level like idiots (like idiot me).

As a result, I stress through the work days trying to decode what my co-workers are thinking, and trying not to say the wrong words (which keeps me silent for most of the meetings, work days and then bleeds out into my personal life). By night I have a quick dinner and bury myself in intense study. Honestly, its horrible. My self esteem plunged, I am ashamed to communicate with talk with other people. It is wearing me out. I question myself several times per day if this is really worth it.

Questions:

1. I feel I handled this wrongly, and started with too much confidence. If I am the least knowledgeable person, and a co-worker ignores, despises and almost makes fun of me for your lack of experience, how should I act in order to maintain my dignity but also be humble enough to acknowledge the co-worker's knowledge?

2. Is it normal to be hired as a junior and just being thrown to the lions, with no help or time to ramp up?

3. Do all star/ninja/rock-star software developers have rotten attitudes?

190 comments

[ 1.9 ms ] story [ 331 ms ] thread
My experience is that these are the situations where you learn and grow the most. It might be horrible now, but think about boot camp (the real thing). It's horrible and miserable and you want to quit. But at the end you're stronger and (better) prepared for what might come.
Basically, intelligence is a speed of processing.

Assumedly every human being, given enough time, would be able to solve the same set of problems.

The thing is that we only have 80 years to solve them! And also, there are more problems to be solved than anybody can in this small time frame, even with a IQ of 1000 (speed of processing).

Now what does that mean for the slower minds, in a competitive environment?

You can still provide useful output, by restricting yourself to a small set of problems, and by employing more persistance and constance on solving a choosen problem.

The faster guys will often grow bored with a single problem and will have to skip from one problem to another (ADHD, etc). This is your opportunity: stay on the same problem longer than they can, and you will find solutions while they're busy approaching multiple other problems.

Yes, perhaps over a given period of time, they will be able to find ten solutions to ten different problems, but this doesn't mean that you cannot provide one solution to one problem, that they will have not approached and found.

People who are really great and competent at what they do, are usually very able and willing to teach (or at least give hints) to juniors and newbies, as long as you show signs of personnal studying and researching your problems. They don't like to spoon-feed lazy newbies. In general, you will also find this attitude on the Internet (irc, newsgroups, web forums), where you will find a lot of help, as long as you start by trying solving your own problems yourself, and are able to explain what you tried and where you're stuck.

If your professionnal environment doesn't allow you to learn with your colleagues, then you may consider changing it, because even if you were yourself a rock-star developer, you would still have a lot to learn.

> Assumedly every human being, given enough time, would be able to solve the same set of problems.

In the immortal words of Richard Karn: “I don’t think so, Tim.”

There are lots of things that are out of scope for a given person at a given time, and no amount of study will make them tractable.

The biggest issue with respect to the OP’s Impostor Syndrome is that very few of those things are relevant to the typical work of a programmer in a startup.

That's your definition of intelligence. You could solve problems quickly with a failure rate of 2%, but that 2% error actually kills off, deforms, or ostracizes 10% of your population, and that 10% contains 100% of what you need to solve your next set of problems. You destroy yourself by creating a definition of intelligence in the first place.
Yeah, so, I would have said it the other way around, myself: speed of processing is an intelligence. To be sure, I subscribe to the multiple-tracks-of-intelligence view.
> The faster guys will often grow bored with a single problem and will have to skip from one problem to another (ADHD, etc). This is your opportunity: stay on the same problem longer than they can, and you will find solutions while they're busy approaching multiple other problems.

This.

Companies need a balance between 'move fast and break things' and 'keep things stable so we can make money'.

Intelligence is not about problem solving but understanding. I can explain some complex topic to someone less intelligent ten times in all the ways I can imagine it being explained, I can try to break it up into pieces, I can try to take the pieces even more slowly... but in the end, if the person does not have the capacity, they don't grasp the whole picture.

Oftentimes intelligence translates into speed: speed of understanding new concepts; speed of doing things, but far from always. In fact the latter is typically just practice, no matter how smart you are.

(comment deleted)
Since you provided no citations yours is just an opinion at best. I'll throw mine in. You are wrong, IQ is about context. The more context you have about a subject the smarter you will seem. Your IQ will increase proportionally with the number of subjects you acquire context in. It is better if the subjects are diverse. Also, the more context you have the faster your processing speed will seem to get (In reality it stays constant, your neurons will only fire so fast)

Sure, raw learning ability, or memorization speed which is what you are talking about, matters. But as long as you don't have a learning disability it pales in comparison to context. And we all have pretty much the same learning ability. Also, those people that are really smart have put in thousands of hours to acquire lots of context. The genius who can absorb new material by reading any subject in a single pass is a myth.

There is a strong correlation between IQ and reaction time. A leading theory is that IQ is basically a measure of reaction time.

On the other hand, IQ is steadily increasing on average. This may, however, reflect how as society develops better abstractions, it tends to increase our reaction time.

Experienced people seem fast at solving problems because they have seen similar solutions before. Not necessarily because they have a faster mind.

It's a mistake to assume that because someone is better than you at something, you are less intelligent. It simply doesn't follow, and as the OP is experiencing - leads to low self esteem.

Not all cultures are unhelpful and competitive. Take it for what it is - a tough culture rather than a group of unpleasant individuals.

You have little to lose by assuming that you are correct in your belief that you can learn and by being respectful but persistent in recruiting your colleagues to help with that.

What. I can't even...

This is non sense. Intelligence is not speed of processing.

True: intelligence is speed of processing and the capacity of the person's working memory.
Am going to say that it has more to do with the size of ones working memory capacity. The depth that one can examine things.
Intelligence, the engineeringly problem-solving version anyway, looks like focus to me. So the superfocused win. The autistics win.

But those guys like to eat their own poo.

FFS, autism isn't about focus. Find a more meaningful and less insulting word.

You'll find that those on the spectrum who gravitate to technology jobs do so not because they can focus any better, but because they are more comfortable with systems that are predictable (computers) rather than capricious, condescending, noisy and random (humans).

It is very tempting to classify people. It makes you have the illusion of understanding their behavior. Don't fall into the trap. People my think a certain way twenty years and change in a day. I have heard tjat people think in a million different ways....
I speak as someone "on the spectrum" and the father of a boy "on the spectrum" - it's not a sweeping generalization, it's a matter of how the brain differences affect the "theory of self" in the "autistic mind", to turn a phrase.
Autism, being "on the spectrum" is very much about focus. It is permanent focus. A chronic pinching of awareness. You are stuck, focused. Bright and narrow. It is a different shape of human. It brings a strength and a weakness.

I speak from personal experience. I've been studying the subject my whole life. My family has much AS.

Also, the discipline of meditation sheds much light on it.

(comment deleted)
'Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.' - George Carlin
Who cares if you can solve the wrong problem quickly. I'll take the person who knows what problem to solve. In my experience those are often independent.
Your co-workers sound horrible. While I agree that you could learn a lot from the experience, even so I wouldn't want to work with those people.
Everything is relative. When someone is defensive and self-conscious, it's incredibly hard to give feedback of any sort without them feeling "like an idiot".
Yeah I have a hard time telling what's definitely going on from the OP's description.

I personally find the most difficult people to work with are the people who have trouble filling the gaps in their knowledge themselves AND are evasive when they don't know something.

1.- Don't quit. 2.- This is only going to make you stronger. 3.- Rockstar developers are most of the times people with small social skills and/or with little empathy. This is a BIG generalization, but what you say proves my point. Dealing with this kind of people is not easy, you must entice them to show their skills so you can learn from them.
Google "imposter syndrome"
Well, to be fair, some people that have imposter syndrome are actually imposters.

Not implying this applies to OP, but in general.

This is relevant. I wonder how many of the people in OP's company suffer from this, and to what degree it's the cause of their behavior. OP should stay put (being the smartest person sucks too) and stop worrying about being thought of as an idiot. As soon as he does that, he'll start asking questions and engaging and my guess is it'll seem less and less like he's an idiot.
Here's a different perspective: Don't compete along the dimension where you're outmatched. Sounds like you could win a lot of points by playing the grasshopper to their kung-fu master and act as the glue for the group working to gain a holistic view of the team.

What other holes in their skillset can you fit in?

Holistic hole-filling is pretty much my secret sauce. I endorse this tactic.
May you expound on this holistic hole-filling? Thanks!
Ask the most questions. Do not "try to decode what others are thinking", ask them. If they are going to be terrible then let them be, your job is to ask questions.
Life is too short to spend it like that. Find a team that accepts you as you are and is willing to grow with you. The learning available from coworkers like that is not positive growth.
1. Learn your work environment, your code, your company's business. This shouldn't take long, some months of close attention and you become maybe not a star, but a knowledgeable man who will get visitors coming and asking for advice regarding things you now know after all this time. Seen this happen to a guy, it was impressive, from a complete newbie he learned the whole thing he operated on and was a desired person to see for any sort of related question.

2. As junior you learn and grow up into senior. Seniors don't grow on trees. Well it can be harsh sometimes when people around are unhelpful, you can give up and drown or swim hard and float up.

3. Happens quite often. I was one for once, i was nice to others. Then i changed company and became equal to who are around me, lost the attitude. We have stars too.

Plot twist: nobody has a clue of what they're doing either.
Related: Some of us know where we're trying to go, though. Maybe.
1. Act they way your Grandpa would have: with deference to their knowledge and a healthy dose of confidence (you did get hired by these people). There's a pecking order, and that's OK, but don't let the socially deficient define how you feel about yourself.

2. Sadly it's been the norm at both my jobs. It gets better after a while.

3. Yes and No. I've met some unbelievably smart people who are amazing teachers. "Rock Stars," however, are known for trashing dressing rooms. "Ninjas" are best known for backstabbing. And "stars" are divas.

My long view of every developer called a rock star, ninja, or other superlative around me: Burnouts, egotists, manic-depressives, except for a couple who healed and chilled out and became mature developers.

People who sign up for those roles get rode hard and put up wet.

I can't tell you how reassuring this is for me, and probably others.
For what it's worth I'm comfortable with the idea that you may want to switch jobs; there are an awful lot of fantastic software jobs out there.

If you do decide to switch I'd make sure you're willing to stick it out a few years wherever you wind up. There's very little stigma (if any) to changing software jobs frequently, but more than one ultra-short-tenure job can look suspicious on a resume.

Assuming, however, that you want to stick it out at this "desirable" job, the above are my answers to your questions. Starting a new job is always hard. If you stick it out you'll learn a lot. If you don't no one will judge you for it.

The environment you work in has a toxic culture that is absolutely hostile to junior level folks. Unfortunately, this is a sad state of affairs in our entire industry right now. You have to specifically look for environments where the management team is making a concerted effort to improve onboarding for new hires.

My suggestion would be to look for another gig. You learned a hard lesson about being humble and not inflating your ego during the crucial hiring process, but don't prolong this pain any longer.

The way I see it there's two possibilities here, and really these are possibilities on a person by person basis, but we're mostly concerned about the majority of your coworkers/teammates:

1) Your coworkers really are douchebags. In which case, you should find another job. Working with douchebags is never worth it.

2) Your coworkers are OK people (I think it's safe to assume they're not nice), but afflicted with all too common terrible tech industry inter-personal skills. Being more experienced and knowledgeable than you, they recognized your over confidence right away and it turned them off of wanting to be too friendly with you. They assumed you are the douchebag, not entirely wrongly.

The second case might be fixable, if you talk to them honestly. Ask for some advice or help. I wouldn't just come to them teary eyed with your heart on your sleeve, but try being friendly. Most people will take it as a compliment if you ask them for help.

Of course if they react badly to your inquiry, then yeah, they really are awful turds and you should find a new job. This time try to find one with a better environment.

Typically I'd say give it at least 6 months before making a decision about whether you'd want to stay in the job. Obviously at 4 months in you've already given it some time, but a little longer won't hurt (well, clearly from what you've said it will hurt, but I'd hang on a little longer, just to see if things suddenly 'click').

On the other side of the spectrum; I began a contract job about this time last year...and I gave it 4 days before jacking it in. The job was just awful, but the people weren't the problem; it was the system we were working on (their revamped mobile website). It was already a year late (and still unreleased to do this very day) and architected from scratch by another contractor in a weird and unorthodox way. It was painful to work with, and as a contractor you feel like you should "know your shit"; it's embarrassing to have to keep asking the permies how the hell something works. Fortunately for me IT contract jobs are plentiful in the UK at the moment, but I'm guessing you're not in quite such a cushy situation.

> Most of them have big egos and really rotten and bitter attitudes. They are stars, they know it, and treat people who are not at the same level like idiots (like idiot me).

This is not a place you want to work, these are not people you want to work with. Even if you are their equal. A truly desirable employee doesn't have these qualities, you can't use ability to make up for being a bad person.

If you're the dumbest person in the room, become the hardest working now.

Also, if management are OK with your work, screw your coworkers opinions.

I doubt you are the dumbest. Probably just the least knowledgeable.

You landed the job you wanted! That's awesome. That's success. In all seriousness everyone has a lot of holes in their knowledge. Nobody knows all these things, we don't live long enough.

The youngest/newest person on the team always has the advantage when it comes to the newest technology. You don't have as much to unlearn, so you will pick it up faster.

If you can get yourself a niche, become the expert/specialist in a particular new technology that the team needs (or could use), but has little experience with you can suddenly make yourself very valuable.

1 month of hard learning should allow you to up your game pretty significantly.

6 month + hands-on experience should get you very close to level playing field.

It been said that 1 year is enough to become an expert in any field having enough focusing and persistence.

What important in this is not their attitudes. It's your attitude on stuff that surrounds you.

If you believe that you need to call yourself dumb and punish yourself with thoughts and feelings of guilt while being surrounded with people who has more experience in certain fields - that's your belief/attitude.

It does not need to be this way - but it's your decision whether it is something that you are benefiting from and whether it make sense to change your attitutes|belief|definitions toward certain things.

> 1 year is enough to become an expert in any field having enough focusing and persistence.

In this case I'd agree with you because the company probably does specific things and learning to do those well enables you to do your job well. But I don't think it's generally true that you can get an expert in any field within a year.

Yes to this! Just by virtue of you asking this question means you are not the dumbest guy. You at least know you need to learn. Truly dumb guys...well...
All I can say to that is that you modt likely do know. Given from persinal expeeience, not only has intelligence demonstrated itself to me in the form of concise communication but also at a level best expressed in high overview. And being able to bring up the details as you go from there. In essence I would be focused on refining a particular area of your intelligence that you'd want to focus on. And learn how to best iterate struggle and the understanding in the back of your mind.
if you're suffering, just move on to a more friendly place.
I'd go work somewhere else and here is why:

You can learn anywhere, why work with a bunch of people who are not going to build you up and encourage you to improve yourself and by extension, the team/project. What are you really getting from these guys if it's "every man for himself" anyways?

1. Forget that, be confident. Just focus on improving yourself and on things that can make you better at your job.

2. No. I expect my junior guys to learn on their own but am always willing to step in and provide guidance.

3. There can be some rough people in IT. If they're rotten they are probably less confident than you think they are, probably more so than you, but don't want you to realize it.

Lastly, I can tell you from experience, if you don't think it's worth it, it's not. There are fun jobs out there, go and get one.

I agree, I think the environment sounds toxic.
This is a natural response.

But isn't this a spiral down? and impact your confidence with signs of quitter?

Say OP is in a startup currently , this downgrade will mean a jump to a big MNC to a services offering to a outsourcing company. The issue at hand has to be handled at some point right?

You would be surprised at how difficult it is in any company (large or small) to make a change on culture. That is completely driven top-down, and normally the "spiral" you speak of is more inline with a individual contributor (non-manager) trying to "change" the culture, even if it seems positive to the individual, in an even more toxic relationship.

"Signs of a quitter" should never be used as an excuse to continue with a toxic company. You should also not be surprised at working 70-80 hours a week, going "above and beyond" then being let go for a Sr. management bonus :)

Loyalty is pretty illusive now days on the side of companies it seems. It is still an employers market, despite the "we can't find talent" laments.

OP's not in a startup company; he said he was in a quite desirable software company.
Couldn't have said it better myself. There is nothing to be gained from elitist attitudes. Sounds to me like they want to hoard their own job security.

On top of all that, the "every man for themselves" mentality is a way to make sure that developers look out for themselves instead of the company as a whole. This is of no benefit to the company, and the leadership should recognize this and act accordingly.

What good can come from behavior that ensures other teammates don't improve at the rates they should be?

I heard a quote recently:

"What if we teach them everything and they leave?" "What if we don't, and they stay?"

The rule of "do unto others as you'd have them do unto you" applies just as much in work environments, and if you're working with a bunch of toxic/antisocial/whatever people it's bad all around - the company loses good people who don't want to put up with the toxic attitudes, coworkers don't benefit from working with the "experts," and of course the downside for the toxic folks: "Oh, yeah, I worked with him 2 companies ago. If you can put up with the prickish behavior he might do good things, but don't put him on my team."
Awesome quote! I'll definitely being using that in the future.
On 2, I feel like I know enough to get by, but can't really level up and do larger stuff. I make features and fix bugs and most of the time they stick (who knows down the road though!), but I'm in a similar situation as OP but feel like my language knowledge is just behind and my job doesn't feel like a source of learning. Is this ultimately my responsibility or do I just need a mentor to break through?
Having been a sw PM for 20yrs I think self-awareness and willingness to explain highlight those that are truly brilliant. They recognize their abilities and become accustomed to explaining their ideas. Your awareness of your own limitations is credit to your intelligence IMO. Others who get frustrated when having to explain or posture do so from posturing or insecurity. Being in a new position requires computation of many more inputs than a old timer too, slowing down thought by an order of magnitude. Who knows, you may be the smartest dude in the room. Good luck!
I agree with all that. I'd also add that I think the desire to get hired and be mentored is a common mistake. Coworkers don't have time to sit down and teach you 1on1. But what they do have time for is helping a coworker out if they are struggling on something. No they won't do your job for you but if theres something you don't understand ask for help. If you have to ask twice you didn't take good notes. Not asking more than once may seem insignificant, but people will notice that you don't pester them with the same questions over and over. They may know that you are not as experienced as they are but they will know you are on the right track and competent. Nobody learns everything overnight. You only get out what you put in. Lastly, if you don't like your coworkers, find a company with people you can work with.
I seem to remember being pretty overwhelmed by the whole system as a junior. A decent explanation helps. And documentation.
> how should I act in order to maintain my dignity but also be humble enough to acknowledge the co-worker's knowledge

There's no lack of dignity in asking questions and trying to improve oneself.

I've seen very smart and respected people asking basic questions during meetings (where I was trying to hide my ignorance... and thus not learning anything, which make things worse).

Remember you're a junior, so you're expected to know less than your expert colleagues.

This is how I felt going through my university course. I knew I needed to learn a lot at the beginning but it felt like everyone was way ahead of me. This made me nervous to talk to anyone and it also made me anxious about my grades. I didn't want to come across as an idiot and therefore I started doing what you are doing, intense self study and keeping to myself. Two things came from this, one (a good thing), I pushed myself hard, got a good final grade and I learnt how to progress. Two (a bad thing) I never interacted with my peers and the stress at some points was unbearable.

My advice (looking back at my experience), be honest, if I had just dropped my act and accepted that other people were ahead of me and stopped the measuring I would have found out that there were others that felt just like me and there were lots of people that were more than happy to help (I found this out way too late!). You will also find that the stress will be relieved and your days will become easier. Just keep up the self study and still have hard goals set. If you take this advice and things don't get easier at work - then I would take a long look at the environment at whether or not I would want to continue working in it.

This is how I felt going through my university course. I knew I needed to learn a lot at the beginning but it felt like everyone was way ahead of me. This made me nervous to talk to anyone and it also made me anxious about my grades. I didn't want to come across as an idiot and therefore I started doing what you are doing, intense self study and keeping to myself. Two things came from this, one (a good thing), I pushed myself hard, got a good final grade and I learnt how to progress. Two (a bad thing) I never interacted with my peers and the stress at some points was unbearable.

My advice (looking back at my experience), be honest, if I had just dropped my act and accepted that other people were ahead of me and stopped the measuring I would have found out that there were others that felt just like me and there were lots of people that were more than happy to help (I found this out way too late!). You will also find that the stress will be relieved and your days will become easier. Just keep up the self study and still have hard goals set. If you take this advice and things don't get easier at work - then I would take a long look at the environment at whether or not I would want to continue working in it.

George W. Bush should have known better than to have run for President.

Now if Bush had posted the same questions on here I am pretty sure we wouldn't be seeing any of the responses we have seen so far.

So I'll just end by paraphrasing from the Gita - You have freedom only to take action

You have no claim on the reward of that action

Whenever you take a risky action keep those (including yourself i.e. be self aware) that might get effected in the loop

If your actions are good rewards will come.

If your actions are misguided you will sooner or later suffer. And others will too.