4 ms·
I read your post before the article so I expected something completely different. You're clearly reading this article through a very interesting lens. You clai
by abandonliberty 11y ago
I read your post before the article so I expected something completely different. You're clearly reading this article through a very interesting lens.
You claim that "The author identifies that technical people aren't strong on "Problem solving, teamwork, self-teaching, communication, attention to detail, organization, etc." What the shit? These are exactly what makes technical people so strong."
You may want to reread the first paragraph, because it AGREES with you:
"I have number of recent example of people . . . already SO strong on the non-code aspects of programming . . . Problem solving, teamwork, self-teaching, communication, attention to detail, organization, etc. "
Your other observations may have merit or they may be just as clouded as this one, so you don't seem like a very reliable source here.
- overgard 11y agoI got the impression from the article, like the parent post, that the author thinks these skills are more prevalent outside of tech. Why else would he suggest hiring for this above all else? Does he think that it's impossible to get people that are BOTH good communicators and solid engineers? These people aren't unicorns! I'd say the vast majority of coders I've worked with are totally fine at soft skills. If the author thinks that technical people can be equally strong in these people skills, then why are they advocating explicitly hiring non-technical people for the job? It's not like there's a scarcity of engineers that aren't total mouth-breathers. Just hire engineers that also happen to have good communication skills. You don't have to go to some absurd extreme of hiring incompetent people.