3 ms·

Most software engineering jobs aren't predominantly about things rather than people, so I doubt any of that research is relevant, regardless of its quality. You

by foldr 7y ago

Most software engineering jobs aren't predominantly about things rather than people, so I doubt any of that research is relevant, regardless of its quality. You can't just uncritically lump software engineering in with "science", "engineering" and "mathematics" (themselves enormously diverse fields). It's dangerous to do a "little bit" of research. What you'd actually need to do to get any information (if any really exists in this domain, which I doubt) is to become an expert and read through thousands of papers and books, including all the critiques of the ones you cite.

pdubs1 7y ago
>"What you'd actually need to do to get any information ... is to become an expert ..." I strongly disagree, citing the logical fallacy of appealing to authority: https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Appeal-to-Authority https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Appeal-... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority Taking your claim to heart would require a person to be so focused on becoming an expert (in an academic environment where new studies are constantly published) that they would be so focused on staying abreast of their expertise that they would be unable to comment at all-- for fear of missing some study somewhere. It would require a fanatical obsession with gaining all information and perspectives that one would be precluded from commenting at all: for fear of not being a 100% perfect expert. Hence, I think one can cite studies without being a 100% perfect expert on all angles within a discipline. I think your claim lacks introspection to be honest. >"Most software engineering jobs aren't predominantly about things rather than people" First I ask "Relative to what?" But let's backup: You state a claim of ratio, "most". "A claim of ratio, "most" "-- If we're getting into ratios of people within occupations, then I would ask for a quantitative assessment, though I suspect no confident, non-subjective one exists, to prove your point. "Relative to what?"-- I suspect people's experiences differ-- in my near future, I will be working on an engineering team. However, even there-- I suspect I will largely be sitting at a computer, typing into it for hours, rather than interfacing directly with a human for hours (as I previously did in Sales roles). Ultimately I dispute your claim via my personal experience: Working on projects (mostly by myself at this point) where I am programming for 6 hours per day and have little human contact, yet still accomplish project goals and receive my paycheck.

by foldr 7y ago

pdubs1 7y ago

>"What you'd actually need to do to get any information ... is to become an expert ..." I strongly disagree, citing the logical fallacy of appealing to authority: https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Appeal-to-Authority https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Appeal-... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority Taking your claim to heart would require a person to be so focused on becoming an expert (in an academic environment where new studies are constantly published) that they would be so focused on staying abreast of their expertise that they would be unable to comment at all-- for fear of missing some study somewhere. It would require a fanatical obsession with gaining all information and perspectives that one would be precluded from commenting at all: for fear of not being a 100% perfect expert. Hence, I think one can cite studies without being a 100% perfect expert on all angles within a discipline. I think your claim lacks introspection to be honest. >"Most software engineering jobs aren't predominantly about things rather than people" First I ask "Relative to what?" But let's backup: You state a claim of ratio, "most". "A claim of ratio, "most" "-- If we're getting into ratios of people within occupations, then I would ask for a quantitative assessment, though I suspect no confident, non-subjective one exists, to prove your point. "Relative to what?"-- I suspect people's experiences differ-- in my near future, I will be working on an engineering team. However, even there-- I suspect I will largely be sitting at a computer, typing into it for hours, rather than interfacing directly with a human for hours (as I previously did in Sales roles). Ultimately I dispute your claim via my personal experience: Working on projects (mostly by myself at this point) where I am programming for 6 hours per day and have little human contact, yet still accomplish project goals and receive my paycheck.