disagree with this. there is clearly a difference between "technical" and "non-technical" people. the definition "technical people" are using when they make th

disagree with this. there is clearly a difference between "technical" and "non-technical" people. the definition "technical people" are using when they make that distinction is close enough to 1a of Webster: "having special and usually practical knowledge especially of a mechanical or scientific subject" now, it's fine to be non-technical. but don't try redefine "people-people" as "technical, but in a different way". part of being a good manager of technical people is to understand the distinction and the different way they think. i've had great managers and leaders that were technical people that became managers. and the very best managers i've had were non-technical people that were extremely skilled leaders. they grew to understand, trust, and manage technical people. they knew the difference and thrived by providing complementary viewpoints and skills. but i've seen a whole lot of amateur politicians that didn't really understand people as well as their supposed expertise was touted to. they don't have strong technical skills or even the right mindset, so the recast themselves as being good at other things instead (if not good at engineering, they must be good at management, right?). they chafe at people calling it "soft-skills" or "non-technical". they use analogies like basketball a lot (and sewing, and rock climbing). to try to equivalate a technical engineering mindset to the way the author thinks is a tell that they don't understand the difference at all. the attempts to change the reality by changing language. mis-ascribing phrasing as some kind a value judgement or slight. all of this tells me this person is not as skilled in technical fields OR with people as they think they are. [1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/technical https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/technical