I can't agree with any of these perspectives, or the analogy to being a musician. Also, I find it to contradicts itself. Initially, you say: you need the core

I can't agree with any of these perspectives, or the analogy to being a musician. Also, I find it to contradicts itself. Initially, you say: you need the core knowledge of algorithms and data structures (like the circle of fifths and harmony) to do sophisticated improvisation.. so you're advocating for the importance of having a strong technical background. OK, fair. But I don't get your analogy to a rock band going on tour, and they either have it or they don't? What is the software analogy to going on tour? Is this working in a startup, when you just need results rather than finesse? How does this tie back to your initial point about jazz musicians needing a core base of knowledge? You also bring up the myth of the self-taught, scrappy musician (or programmer) who, against all odds,'has it' and is able to exceed the abilities of others who are the hardest-working and most studious. I find this concept pretty toxic. The Eric Claptons and the Jimi Hendrixs of the world are a rarity, a complete exception. Although often cited because they are incredibly visible, compared to the hundreds of thousand if not millions of others who either developed skills and capabilities through education and/or self-taught effort. Often without 'having it'. I think it can be pretty discouraging when everyone holds themselves up to ideal of Claptons and Hendrixs.. rather than considering there might be multiple, varied and nuanced paths to being an excellent engineer, or musician.