I think people often pre-judge others on their typing ability like some judge the intelligence You're likely correct, and I've found myself doing this with som

I think people often pre-judge others on their typing ability like some judge the intelligence You're likely correct, and I've found myself doing this with some of my coworkers, however, over time I've come to understand it for what it is: There are many occasions in coding where I do not find it necessary to type quickly. I can type at the speed a typical person speaks -- and accurately -- and without effort (including symbols, numbers and other elements that are uncommon in spoken language but common in programming languages). I have never met an effective developer who is a "hunt and peck" typist, but I've met plenty that land in around 30 wpm. The distinction, I think, lies in how much effort it takes our 30 wpm individual to produce 30 wpm. Touch-typing (which I define as being able to type without looking at or for the key you're looking to hit) means not having to actively "think" when I type. I know where the keys are by instinct/muscle memory. I can keep my eyes on the screen, or on my hand-written "napkin note", or on my white-board (and often a mix of the three) and transfer that information to implementation without perceivable interruption. Like it or not, the keyboard is a bit of a tool of the trade. That doesn't mean you have to be a perfect typist (I don't use my pinkies to hit the letter "p", and until I purchased a split keyboard, I always reached with my left for the "y"), but a reasonable analogy would be one of a chef who can't properly handle a knife. Successful chefs don't always cut the way you're taught at the CIA (or wherever), but they handle the knife with precision and accuracy (and without effort or injury). They don't have to think about it, they just know what the finished ingredient is going to look like when their hands are done with the motions. For example someone with a slow southern draw to their speech, relative to the listener, is often assumed less intelligent. I couldn't resist responding to this one: I remember having a calculus teacher with a serious Southern drawl and I recall thinking he was very unintelligent. It was an error in judgment because I could barely understand him in a lecture setting and struggled in his class as a result (this was remedied by taking advantage of office hours and tutors). After a while I got used to it and it had a sort of accidental side-effect. I had to actively listen to understand him which resulted in my actively paying attention. He was a brilliant individual, and a gifted instructor (as well as a patient one ... willing to explain things one-on-one with a student (me) who was struggling at the time). Maybe teaching with a serious southern drawl in a northern state made him less effective, or maybe not. I'm not sure. Food for thought.