3 ms·

I think I can see your point. If you're the kind of engineer described in this article, you don't need to read this article. You have always naturally behaved

I think I can see your point. If you're the kind of engineer described in this article, you don't need to read this article. You have always naturally behaved this way and there is a natural trajectory that you're on because of it. You find this article just resonate deeply with you. If you're not the kind of engineer described in this article, you probably can't become one. You will try to follow advice and wind up falling flat. Thats because the kind of engineer described in this article isn't following advice, they are following instinct. And if you don't have instinct then you have nothing to follow.

ridaj 7y ago
That's one way of looking at it. The question of whether there is a path that someone who doesn't have good product insights can follow and learn to have some, or if it's all "instinct", is an interesting one. No one was born with those skills out of the womb, so it's obviously a learned skill, but it's one that we haven't quite broken down to a teachable course. I agree that following simple advice probably won't work, but I personally believe intentional practice can actually help people get better at this — only there has to be more than a desire to communicate out, there has to be a desire to put oneself on the line and evaluate oneself honestly based on result.
- james_s_tayler 7y ago
  I sort of half agree half disagree. My mental model on this is that for a given skill/outcome everyone sits somewhere on a continuum of possibility with upper and lower bounds depending on intrinsic factors. So, in that sense I agree there are those people who could develop a certain aptitude through a clear pathway of study. My model assumes their highest level of aptitude they can attain is capped at that lower than those who are "naturals". Conversely if you are a natural and you never seem to develop your aptitude, you will bumble along likely doing OK or even accidentally doing well, but those who can reach the absolute top of the aptitude spectrum are those who a) realize they are a natural b) seek out a pathway to accelerate their progress and c) actively work really hard at it.

ridaj 7y ago

That's one way of looking at it. The question of whether there is a path that someone who doesn't have good product insights can follow and learn to have some, or if it's all "instinct", is an interesting one. No one was born with those skills out of the womb, so it's obviously a learned skill, but it's one that we haven't quite broken down to a teachable course. I agree that following simple advice probably won't work, but I personally believe intentional practice can actually help people get better at this — only there has to be more than a desire to communicate out, there has to be a desire to put oneself on the line and evaluate oneself honestly based on result.

james_s_tayler 7y ago
I sort of half agree half disagree. My mental model on this is that for a given skill/outcome everyone sits somewhere on a continuum of possibility with upper and lower bounds depending on intrinsic factors. So, in that sense I agree there are those people who could develop a certain aptitude through a clear pathway of study. My model assumes their highest level of aptitude they can attain is capped at that lower than those who are "naturals". Conversely if you are a natural and you never seem to develop your aptitude, you will bumble along likely doing OK or even accidentally doing well, but those who can reach the absolute top of the aptitude spectrum are those who a) realize they are a natural b) seek out a pathway to accelerate their progress and c) actively work really hard at it.