I think this is a really helpful remark.

If you look at where this works, the team simply needs to execute -- largely not think creatively. I can see, then, why this is a comparatively rare form of organisation in programming teams.

I wonder if there's room for it in programming training. Imagine being drilled to produce the same algorithm in a variety of languages over-and-over. Would this be useful? (I use to drill myself in writing dynamic dispatch MVC frameworks as a teenager; I could produce a whole framework and app in a 1hr technical interview -- is this useful? I dont know).

I raise this because I've become increasingly interested in rationalising the Ramsey-esq autocrat, as its always been a part of myself I have been most self-critical of; because I am at once very sensitive to upsetting people but also "brutally attentive" to their (and my own) failure.

I have recently been asking myself: is this brutality actually useful? How much? Does it really require the humiliation a Ramsey or drill-sarg engages in?

Recent western cultural mores are aimed at ameliorating ego-injuries. Is there value in causing ego-injuries? Is there value in humiliation? Clearly there is -- it works in some cases.

Its a weird question to ask though: our culture is so preoccupied with preventing ego-injury... it seems immoral and absurd to suggest causing them.

I don’t think there is value in humiliation. I feel like it will attract a certain kind of personality. Maybe you want that in a group of Marines who make life and death decisions. Most programming jobs luckily don’t involve those kinds of choices (the exceptions may be medical devices, manned rocket software etc).

Importantly you are discouraging a whole bunch of folks who might have much to contribute but have been chased away by the distasteful practices in the industry.