5 ms·

At least in Germany you can only call yourself a software engineer if you've got an actual engineering degree. > The professional title "engineer" is legally p

At least in Germany you can only call yourself a software engineer if you've got an actual engineering degree. > The professional title "engineer" is legally protected under the German Engineering Act [0]. [0] https://verwaltung.bund.de/leistungsverzeichnis/EN/leistung/99147006000000/herausgeber/BB-101725307/region/12 https://verwaltung.bund.de/leistungsverzeichnis/EN/leistung/...

seanhunter 2y ago
Oliver Heaviside[1] was rejected when he attempted to join the society of telegraph engineers because they said he was a clerk and not an engineer. Thing is, noone cares about them and his achievements live on. People protecting titles by putting an arbitrary barrier associated with possessing a piece of paper rather than actually having skill and knowledge should be treated with scorn in my opinion. [1] “Heaviside step function” and the “Coverup” method for partial fraction expansion when doing integrals are among his discoveries. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Heaviside https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Heaviside
- elcritch 2y ago
  While I agree with the sentiments, there is a societal need for gatekeepers in some professions. The engineer title often comes with legal liabilities. It’s not necessarily just about talent. Of course it often becomes misused as well.
  - sponaugle 2y ago
    "While I agree with the sentiments, there is a societal need for gatekeepers in some professions. The engineer title often comes with legal liabilities. It’s not necessarily just about talent. Of course it often becomes misused as well." I fixed this for you. "I disagree with the sentiments, there is no societal need for gatekeepers in most professions. The engineer title rarly comes with legal liabilities. It’s not necessarily just about gatekeeping. Of course it often becomes misused as well."
- qwertox 2y ago
  Maybe it's just about the ratio of scammers vs. honestly capable people. You should also have mentioned that: "This riled Heaviside, who asked Thomson to sponsor him, and along with support of the society's president he was admitted 'despite the P.O. snobs'".
  - seanhunter 2y ago
    Thanks. I didn't actually know that - just knew that he had been rejected initially. The guy was a total beast of a mathematician so I have a lot of admiration for him. Reading that wiki page is facinating. I knew about him because of vector calculus etc, but among a bunch of things the dude invented the coaxial cable and went nuts at the end of his life painting his nails pink and using granite blocks as furniture while ranting against the theory of relativity. Really something else.
- meigwilym 2y ago
  I understand your point, but having an engineering degree is not just the possession of a certificate. It's a piece of paper that testifies that the holder has the skill and knowledge, and has passed exams designed by experts in the field. The response given to Heaviside does suggest that snobbery was a more likely reason for refusing his membership, but that's just my impression.
- lenkite 2y ago
  > People protecting titles by putting an arbitrary barrier associated with possessing a piece of paper rather than actually having skill and knowledge should be treated with scorn in my opinion. Would you say the same about a medical degree ? How do you judge skill and knowledge in medicine without a professional association ?
  - AnotherGoodName 2y ago
    Medicine has a lot of issues around this honestly. Obviously you don't want someone unqualified practicing but the flip side is that around the world various countries have been setting various types of quotas on who can become a doctor with serious negative effects to society (long wait times for medical care, expensive care, etc.). A system where qualifications and experience are well documented but without the quotas controlled by vested interests would be much more preferable. Software engineering is lucky not to have the shackles that medicine had here. The door is more open. We still require people to prove their capabilities but we don’t allow organisations such as engineering or medical associations to add limits.
    - seanhunter 2y ago
      Medicine is even more weird with titles. At least in the UK if you get qualified people call you “Doctor” unless you’re a surgeon in which case you are called “Mr/Ms/Mrs/Miss/etc” unless you are a professor which some consultants are in which case it’s “professor”. But if you work in medicine and call a consultant surgeon “Dr <whatever>” they will actually correct you. https://www.bma.org.uk/advice-and-support/international-doctors/life-and-work-in-the-uk/toolkit-for-doctors-new-to-the-uk/doctors-titles-explained https://www.bma.org.uk/advice-and-support/international-doct...
  - hombre_fatal 2y ago
    Yes, the medical field has its share of bureaucracy that mainly serves as job gatekeeping. Just consider the cases where a small lateral move in the medical field means you have to go back to school to recredentialize in the thing you've already been doing. It's very HN and self-aggrandizing to act like the software 99.9% of us are writing is so important that it needs gatekeep credentials. And the important software that does exist already needs its own processes for quality and safety, not depend on software engineers having some feelgood credentials. If its status you want, then just get a higher status tech job.
- imtringued 2y ago
  Nobody cares in Germany, because nobody is calling themselves "Softwareingenieur". Everyone says "Softwareentwickler" aka software developer, or colloquially just "Entwickler"/developer. As a fun bit of trivia: entwickeln also means to unravel, with ent=un and wickeln = to ravel.
  - AnotherGoodName 2y ago
    That should put a lot of the arguments in this thread to rest. Employers aren't actually seeing any difference in the gate kept title and aren't hiring for that title in Germany.
    - qwertox 2y ago
      This is true, as long as you are aware that if you have to state your occupation to an authority, you better be an engineer if you tell them that you're a software engineer. Or if your employer requires this, but they'd check the documents anyway. So you'd better err to the side of being a software developer, because you'd always be telling the truth (and hope your subtly arrogant German engineer colleagues don't pick on you).
- mlhpdx 2y ago
  > People protecting titles by putting an arbitrary barrier associated with possessing a piece of paper rather than actually having skill and knowledge should be treated with scorn in my opinion. What’s your solution then? No attempt at providing professional standards at all? Systems made by people will always be flawed. That is the reason for and criticism of certification and regulation.
  - klodolph 2y ago
    I think professional standards around titles should only be in place where there’s some underlying public interest. Like, you’re developing some land, and it turns out you need a geotechnical engineer. The engineer you hired is certified, their plans get put on file with government records office, and the contractors you hire are responsible for following those plans. Among other things, it creates a paperwork trail to figure out who gets the blame if your building collapses and takes out three neighboring apartment complexes with it. I think we should have these kinds of rules for people who design bridges, medical equipment, and passenger airplanes. I don’t think we should have these rules for people who design hard drive controllers, compilers, and physics simulation software.
    - feoren 2y ago
      > some underlying public interest ... I think we should have these kinds of rules for people who design bridges, medical equipment, and passenger airplanes. I don’t think we should have these rules for people who design hard drive controllers, compilers, and physics simulation software. You mean the hard drives that are storing inspection records for those bridges, and the compilers that were used to build that medical-equipment software, and the physics simulation software that was used to verify the required load strength of that passenger airplane?
      - fc417fc802 2y ago
        It's up to the (licensed) people working in the high risk industry to account for the potential issues caused by any "consumer" level gear they choose to incorporate. If you require audited and certified simulation software then it's on you (the licensed professional) to choose to use that instead. Verified programming languages and compilers for safety critical systems are a thing. Khronos even has some APIs for use in safety critical applications.
- teleforce 2y ago
  I think we should stop glorifying Heaviside for his short sighted view on the usage of quaternion for EM field that he considered it as unnecessary "evil" [1]. He then developed a crippled version of the unintuitive vector calculus, a mathematical hack that some people still considered it as the golden standard for doing EM calculations. IMHO by doing this and going against quaternion he has hindered much progress in EM for more than century since that's what being taught in textbook, and most people including EM engineers don't care to look what's available beyond the run-of-the-mill textbooks. There's a very famous saying by Einstein, make it simple but not simpler, and in this case Heaviside's "Vectors Versus Quaternions" paper and related advocacy has caused more harm than good to the math, science and engineering of EM based system by doing simpler than simpler (pardon the pun). I have also a hypothesis that perhaps someone can research into, if Einstein is exposed properly to quaternion based EM, and using it he would have solved the general theory of relativity much earlier than he took of 10 years after the special relativity discovery. The quaternion form of relativity has been even presented by L. Silberstein in 1908, just three years after the discovery of special relativity [3]. It is a shame that even today apparently the Wikipedia entry of both special relativity and general relativity do not even mentioned quaternion (zero, nada, zilch) as if it is a taboo to do so, perhaps partly thanks to Heaviside of his seemingly very successful propaganda even after more than century of progress in math, science and engineering. [1] Vectors Versus Quaternions (1893): https://www.nature.com/articles/047533c0 https://www.nature.com/articles/047533c0 [2] General relativity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity [3] Quaternionic Form of Relativity. L. Silberstein (1912) [PDF]: https://dougsweetser.github.io/Q/Stuff/pdfs/Silberstein-Relativity.pdf https://dougsweetser.github.io/Q/Stuff/pdfs/Silberstein-Rela...
- feoren 2y ago
  Requiring the sheet of paper is less about ensuring the person is qualified, and more about having something you can revoke if they act negligently. It turns out to be important some small percentage of the time that you can say "we will revoke your license if you aren't more careful in the future". And engineers can reject terrible suggestions from non-technical bosses by saying "I'd lose my license if I did that." That's it's main value-add. I've been to work social events where all the alcohol was provided by the company, but they still had to hire a bartender. You'd pick up a drink, hand it to the bartender, and they'd open it and give it back to you. It sure seems like a stupid, wasteful ceremony; that is, until someone is on their way to getting blackout drunk and the bartender can start refusing to open more drinks for them. They can even use the line "I could lose my bartending license if I keep serving you." The requirement for a licensed bartender was not to make sure someone knew how to open the drinks, it was to make sure someone had the authority and accountability for keeping things under control. (Not to mention making sure everyone was over 21.) Requiring a stamp from a licensed professional seems pointless up until it prevents a big problem. I'm not opposed to requiring that a Licensed Software Engineer (or whatever) sign off on the software running on chemotherapy machines, as long as that licensing is all done in good faith.
  - WillAdams 2y ago
    Case in point: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therac-25 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therac-25
  - bsoles 2y ago
    Having an engineering diploma is not the same as having an engineering license though. In US, 99% of engineers do not have a professional engineer license.
    - feoren 2y ago
      I'm not sure what that has to do with my comment at all, but your 99% number is definitely way off. The number of PEs in the US seems to be around 500,000 per NCEES. That represents way more than 1% of all "engineers" -- there are not 50 million "engineers" in the US, unless Subway has started calling their employees "Sandwich Engineers" now. What are you counting as an engineer, if not a PE? For this discussion, an engineer would be someone working in a profession where a PE license is available, matching their day-to-day work. You could say "what about software engineers?" but that will skew your numbers, because we don't know how many SEs would be licensed PEs if a licensing program was available (which is kinda what we're discussing here). The question is: for those professions where a PE license is available, how many get it? This is a number that seems a bit hard to find, but the consensus seems to be around 20%. So you're off by a factor of 20x. Please don't just make up random stats, or you will be contributing to the misinformation in the world.
ramonverse 2y ago
I didn't study Engineering. I work in Germany and all my software positions said literally "Engineer" in the contract (both in German and English version). Maybe if it is in English it's not illegal who knows.
- wink 2y ago
  IANAL but I actually think "Engineer" in Germany is not the same protected word, thus companies use this, or "Software Engineer". You also don't always get a say what they put in your sig or on your business card (and I think internal names would not matter anyway).
belter 2y ago
The real problem is that coding is more like being a great musician than a traditional engineer. It's like telling Eric Clapton, Jimi Hendrix, George Benson, or Wes Montgomery that they're not qualified to teach at a music conservatory because they lack formal diplomas. Sure, technically they're not "certified," but put them next to your average conservatory professor and they'll play circles around 99.99% of them. Same goes for brilliant coders versus formal engineers.
- WillAdams 2y ago
  Trying to think of the coding analogues to those folks. The only ones I can think of are folks who are self-taught, e.g., Bill Gates, but he famously noted that he had read the three (then extant) volumes of Knuth's _The Art of Computer Programming_, sometimes taking an entire day to contemplate a single page/idea/exercise (and doing all the exercises) and then going on to say that anyone who had read all three volumes (and with the unspoken caveat of "also done all the exercises") should send him a Résumé. My best friend in high school was a self-taught guitarist, incredibly talented, he also had perfect pitch, and a wonderful insight into what a given piece of music was expressing. All? of the original self-taught programmers were in an academic context, no? Even those who aren't have either read or researched a great deal, or they have laboriously re-created algorithms and coding concepts from first principles. Maybe this is just another example of how society has not yet mastered the concept of education?
  - WillAdams 2y ago
    Or, to channel an old martial arts conceit: >There are masters of a thing, and then there are masters of a thing. Where the difference is, some folks can do, but can't teach/communicate what they do or how they do it, while other folks have both mastered a skill, and are able to raise others up in how to also learn that skill. My guitar-playing friend also would wear out cassette tapes and records playing back specific sequences working out how they had been played, and perfecting his technique....
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

seanhunter 2y ago

Oliver Heaviside[1] was rejected when he attempted to join the society of telegraph engineers because they said he was a clerk and not an engineer. Thing is, noone cares about them and his achievements live on. People protecting titles by putting an arbitrary barrier associated with possessing a piece of paper rather than actually having skill and knowledge should be treated with scorn in my opinion. [1] “Heaviside step function” and the “Coverup” method for partial fraction expansion when doing integrals are among his discoveries. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Heaviside https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Heaviside

elcritch 2y ago
While I agree with the sentiments, there is a societal need for gatekeepers in some professions. The engineer title often comes with legal liabilities. It’s not necessarily just about talent. Of course it often becomes misused as well.
- sponaugle 2y ago
  "While I agree with the sentiments, there is a societal need for gatekeepers in some professions. The engineer title often comes with legal liabilities. It’s not necessarily just about talent. Of course it often becomes misused as well." I fixed this for you. "I disagree with the sentiments, there is no societal need for gatekeepers in most professions. The engineer title rarly comes with legal liabilities. It’s not necessarily just about gatekeeping. Of course it often becomes misused as well."
qwertox 2y ago
Maybe it's just about the ratio of scammers vs. honestly capable people. You should also have mentioned that: "This riled Heaviside, who asked Thomson to sponsor him, and along with support of the society's president he was admitted 'despite the P.O. snobs'".
- seanhunter 2y ago
  Thanks. I didn't actually know that - just knew that he had been rejected initially. The guy was a total beast of a mathematician so I have a lot of admiration for him. Reading that wiki page is facinating. I knew about him because of vector calculus etc, but among a bunch of things the dude invented the coaxial cable and went nuts at the end of his life painting his nails pink and using granite blocks as furniture while ranting against the theory of relativity. Really something else.
meigwilym 2y ago
I understand your point, but having an engineering degree is not just the possession of a certificate. It's a piece of paper that testifies that the holder has the skill and knowledge, and has passed exams designed by experts in the field. The response given to Heaviside does suggest that snobbery was a more likely reason for refusing his membership, but that's just my impression.
lenkite 2y ago
> People protecting titles by putting an arbitrary barrier associated with possessing a piece of paper rather than actually having skill and knowledge should be treated with scorn in my opinion. Would you say the same about a medical degree ? How do you judge skill and knowledge in medicine without a professional association ?
- AnotherGoodName 2y ago
  Medicine has a lot of issues around this honestly. Obviously you don't want someone unqualified practicing but the flip side is that around the world various countries have been setting various types of quotas on who can become a doctor with serious negative effects to society (long wait times for medical care, expensive care, etc.). A system where qualifications and experience are well documented but without the quotas controlled by vested interests would be much more preferable. Software engineering is lucky not to have the shackles that medicine had here. The door is more open. We still require people to prove their capabilities but we don’t allow organisations such as engineering or medical associations to add limits.
  - seanhunter 2y ago
    Medicine is even more weird with titles. At least in the UK if you get qualified people call you “Doctor” unless you’re a surgeon in which case you are called “Mr/Ms/Mrs/Miss/etc” unless you are a professor which some consultants are in which case it’s “professor”. But if you work in medicine and call a consultant surgeon “Dr <whatever>” they will actually correct you. https://www.bma.org.uk/advice-and-support/international-doctors/life-and-work-in-the-uk/toolkit-for-doctors-new-to-the-uk/doctors-titles-explained https://www.bma.org.uk/advice-and-support/international-doct...
- hombre_fatal 2y ago
  Yes, the medical field has its share of bureaucracy that mainly serves as job gatekeeping. Just consider the cases where a small lateral move in the medical field means you have to go back to school to recredentialize in the thing you've already been doing. It's very HN and self-aggrandizing to act like the software 99.9% of us are writing is so important that it needs gatekeep credentials. And the important software that does exist already needs its own processes for quality and safety, not depend on software engineers having some feelgood credentials. If its status you want, then just get a higher status tech job.
imtringued 2y ago
Nobody cares in Germany, because nobody is calling themselves "Softwareingenieur". Everyone says "Softwareentwickler" aka software developer, or colloquially just "Entwickler"/developer. As a fun bit of trivia: entwickeln also means to unravel, with ent=un and wickeln = to ravel.
- AnotherGoodName 2y ago
  That should put a lot of the arguments in this thread to rest. Employers aren't actually seeing any difference in the gate kept title and aren't hiring for that title in Germany.
  - qwertox 2y ago
    This is true, as long as you are aware that if you have to state your occupation to an authority, you better be an engineer if you tell them that you're a software engineer. Or if your employer requires this, but they'd check the documents anyway. So you'd better err to the side of being a software developer, because you'd always be telling the truth (and hope your subtly arrogant German engineer colleagues don't pick on you).
mlhpdx 2y ago
> People protecting titles by putting an arbitrary barrier associated with possessing a piece of paper rather than actually having skill and knowledge should be treated with scorn in my opinion. What’s your solution then? No attempt at providing professional standards at all? Systems made by people will always be flawed. That is the reason for and criticism of certification and regulation.
- klodolph 2y ago
  I think professional standards around titles should only be in place where there’s some underlying public interest. Like, you’re developing some land, and it turns out you need a geotechnical engineer. The engineer you hired is certified, their plans get put on file with government records office, and the contractors you hire are responsible for following those plans. Among other things, it creates a paperwork trail to figure out who gets the blame if your building collapses and takes out three neighboring apartment complexes with it. I think we should have these kinds of rules for people who design bridges, medical equipment, and passenger airplanes. I don’t think we should have these rules for people who design hard drive controllers, compilers, and physics simulation software.
  - feoren 2y ago
    > some underlying public interest ... I think we should have these kinds of rules for people who design bridges, medical equipment, and passenger airplanes. I don’t think we should have these rules for people who design hard drive controllers, compilers, and physics simulation software. You mean the hard drives that are storing inspection records for those bridges, and the compilers that were used to build that medical-equipment software, and the physics simulation software that was used to verify the required load strength of that passenger airplane?
    - fc417fc802 2y ago
      It's up to the (licensed) people working in the high risk industry to account for the potential issues caused by any "consumer" level gear they choose to incorporate. If you require audited and certified simulation software then it's on you (the licensed professional) to choose to use that instead. Verified programming languages and compilers for safety critical systems are a thing. Khronos even has some APIs for use in safety critical applications.
teleforce 2y ago
I think we should stop glorifying Heaviside for his short sighted view on the usage of quaternion for EM field that he considered it as unnecessary "evil" [1]. He then developed a crippled version of the unintuitive vector calculus, a mathematical hack that some people still considered it as the golden standard for doing EM calculations. IMHO by doing this and going against quaternion he has hindered much progress in EM for more than century since that's what being taught in textbook, and most people including EM engineers don't care to look what's available beyond the run-of-the-mill textbooks. There's a very famous saying by Einstein, make it simple but not simpler, and in this case Heaviside's "Vectors Versus Quaternions" paper and related advocacy has caused more harm than good to the math, science and engineering of EM based system by doing simpler than simpler (pardon the pun). I have also a hypothesis that perhaps someone can research into, if Einstein is exposed properly to quaternion based EM, and using it he would have solved the general theory of relativity much earlier than he took of 10 years after the special relativity discovery. The quaternion form of relativity has been even presented by L. Silberstein in 1908, just three years after the discovery of special relativity [3]. It is a shame that even today apparently the Wikipedia entry of both special relativity and general relativity do not even mentioned quaternion (zero, nada, zilch) as if it is a taboo to do so, perhaps partly thanks to Heaviside of his seemingly very successful propaganda even after more than century of progress in math, science and engineering. [1] Vectors Versus Quaternions (1893): https://www.nature.com/articles/047533c0 https://www.nature.com/articles/047533c0 [2] General relativity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity [3] Quaternionic Form of Relativity. L. Silberstein (1912) [PDF]: https://dougsweetser.github.io/Q/Stuff/pdfs/Silberstein-Relativity.pdf https://dougsweetser.github.io/Q/Stuff/pdfs/Silberstein-Rela...
feoren 2y ago
Requiring the sheet of paper is less about ensuring the person is qualified, and more about having something you can revoke if they act negligently. It turns out to be important some small percentage of the time that you can say "we will revoke your license if you aren't more careful in the future". And engineers can reject terrible suggestions from non-technical bosses by saying "I'd lose my license if I did that." That's it's main value-add. I've been to work social events where all the alcohol was provided by the company, but they still had to hire a bartender. You'd pick up a drink, hand it to the bartender, and they'd open it and give it back to you. It sure seems like a stupid, wasteful ceremony; that is, until someone is on their way to getting blackout drunk and the bartender can start refusing to open more drinks for them. They can even use the line "I could lose my bartending license if I keep serving you." The requirement for a licensed bartender was not to make sure someone knew how to open the drinks, it was to make sure someone had the authority and accountability for keeping things under control. (Not to mention making sure everyone was over 21.) Requiring a stamp from a licensed professional seems pointless up until it prevents a big problem. I'm not opposed to requiring that a Licensed Software Engineer (or whatever) sign off on the software running on chemotherapy machines, as long as that licensing is all done in good faith.
- WillAdams 2y ago
  Case in point: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therac-25 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therac-25
- bsoles 2y ago
  Having an engineering diploma is not the same as having an engineering license though. In US, 99% of engineers do not have a professional engineer license.
  - feoren 2y ago
    I'm not sure what that has to do with my comment at all, but your 99% number is definitely way off. The number of PEs in the US seems to be around 500,000 per NCEES. That represents way more than 1% of all "engineers" -- there are not 50 million "engineers" in the US, unless Subway has started calling their employees "Sandwich Engineers" now. What are you counting as an engineer, if not a PE? For this discussion, an engineer would be someone working in a profession where a PE license is available, matching their day-to-day work. You could say "what about software engineers?" but that will skew your numbers, because we don't know how many SEs would be licensed PEs if a licensing program was available (which is kinda what we're discussing here). The question is: for those professions where a PE license is available, how many get it? This is a number that seems a bit hard to find, but the consensus seems to be around 20%. So you're off by a factor of 20x. Please don't just make up random stats, or you will be contributing to the misinformation in the world.

ramonverse 2y ago

I didn't study Engineering. I work in Germany and all my software positions said literally "Engineer" in the contract (both in German and English version). Maybe if it is in English it's not illegal who knows.

wink 2y ago
IANAL but I actually think "Engineer" in Germany is not the same protected word, thus companies use this, or "Software Engineer". You also don't always get a say what they put in your sig or on your business card (and I think internal names would not matter anyway).

belter 2y ago

The real problem is that coding is more like being a great musician than a traditional engineer. It's like telling Eric Clapton, Jimi Hendrix, George Benson, or Wes Montgomery that they're not qualified to teach at a music conservatory because they lack formal diplomas. Sure, technically they're not "certified," but put them next to your average conservatory professor and they'll play circles around 99.99% of them. Same goes for brilliant coders versus formal engineers.

WillAdams 2y ago
Trying to think of the coding analogues to those folks. The only ones I can think of are folks who are self-taught, e.g., Bill Gates, but he famously noted that he had read the three (then extant) volumes of Knuth's _The Art of Computer Programming_, sometimes taking an entire day to contemplate a single page/idea/exercise (and doing all the exercises) and then going on to say that anyone who had read all three volumes (and with the unspoken caveat of "also done all the exercises") should send him a Résumé. My best friend in high school was a self-taught guitarist, incredibly talented, he also had perfect pitch, and a wonderful insight into what a given piece of music was expressing. All? of the original self-taught programmers were in an academic context, no? Even those who aren't have either read or researched a great deal, or they have laboriously re-created algorithms and coding concepts from first principles. Maybe this is just another example of how society has not yet mastered the concept of education?
- WillAdams 2y ago
  Or, to channel an old martial arts conceit: >There are masters of a thing, and then there are masters of a thing. Where the difference is, some folks can do, but can't teach/communicate what they do or how they do it, while other folks have both mastered a skill, and are able to raise others up in how to also learn that skill. My guitar-playing friend also would wear out cassette tapes and records playing back specific sequences working out how they had been played, and perfecting his technique....

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]