[rosser]

Please cite examples of calls for "replacing" hard skills with soft. That's far more a straw man than the one you "dispense with" — conveniently distracting from your own, I might add. I'm hearing a call for recognizing their value as complementary and essential in their own, independent ways. Soft skills do not supplant hard skills, but either is worth less without the other.

If you're arguing against that, then you're part of the problem.

It's also what we call a "false dilemma" to suggest that your proffered interpretations for this "trend" are the only interpretations for it.

[lhnz]

It's not necessarily that people are calling for hard skills to be replaced with soft skills, however they are writing articles in which they imply that soft skills are more valuable than hard skills at Google [1].

It's basic self-interest. If you believe that you're unable to sell your hard skills to an employer, it's in your interest to try to convince people that what you offer (superior generosity, motivational speaking, equality and empathy) will be more likely to bring success to an employer.

People don't need to literally call for hard skills to be replaced because that's not the end-goal. The goal here is that employer's realise that soft skills are more important so that the status of these careers is higher than that of software engineers.

  [1] https://twitter.com/joelgrus/status/945114254922825730

[rosser]

That "soft skills are more valuable than hard" is not what I read in that article. It sounds more to me like degrees in STEM correlate less well with success at Google than people expected. Not "negatively" — "less positively", and merely less positively than people anticipated. So what was the "wrong" here? People's assumptions. This is my surprised face.

But I'm probably biased to read it more generously than someone else might be; I was a philosophy major in undergrad, and actively repudiate the ludicrous notion that a broader, more liberal education is somehow wasteful. So YMMV.

EDIT: Look at it this way: you can be the most brilliant technologist in the history of ever. If you're impossible to work with, you're a liability, not an asset. You drive away anyone who tries to work with you, and/or your bus factor is, give or take, ∞.

Once again, "if you're arguing against that, then you're part of the problem."

[lhnz]

This 'brilliant technologist that is impossible to work with' mythos needs to die. The majority of us are normal people and don't deserve to be stereotyped in this way.

A broader, more liberal education isn't a waste, but I don't think that such a thing would lead anybody to call out nerds for social deficiencies while singing one's own praises. If it does, then yes, that is a shocking waste of an education.

Not being able to see this and trying to throw people under the bus with unfair stereotypes in order to get ahead is just as bad as having strong hard skills but being devoid of empathy. (It is practically a mirror image: having strong soft skills but being devoid of empathy.)

[rosser]

You're misconstruing my position. Yes, the rockstar asshole is rare, but I've worked with enough of them to know how destructive they are to the morale of the team. I was also once tasked with rewriting years of a rockstar asshole's code in months because said rockstar asshole left in a huff over not being treated the way he wanted, and no-one else had ever touched his deliberately impenetrable code. (All function and variable names were one or two letters, &c. But up until that point, he was just so productive, the employer put up with his behavior, and ignored the turnover on the rest of the team — which, miraculously, changed dramatically after he left. Go figure.)

So I'll freely own that I may have a small chip there. But at the same time, while the plural of anecdote isn't data, an existence proof is an existence proof.

[lhnz]

I don't think we disagree but I do think you're absolving the sins of social assholes because of the sins of asocial assholes.

I've met rockstar asshole programmer's before, but I think it is overblown -- I do not think there are as many as everybody thinks there are. Far more often I've met great engineers that were well-rounded, kind and decent people. And yet the myth persists...

[rosser]

I'm not absolving anyone of anything, and I'm curious what I might have said to suggest I am. I've met far more, as you say, "social assholes", and been thrown under buses by them far more often than by technical folk, of whatever caliber socialization they had to offer.

[PoachedSausage]

The problem we have is that fewer and fewer people are choosing to pursue hard engineering skills, partly because they're, well, hard and partly because soft skills seem to provide an equal or better living. I have nothing against philosophers, musicians and poets, I spent most of today being entertained by them on the radio, but without the hard skills the comforts of civilisation like running water, electricity and internet will disappear.

[rosser]

It's, again, anecdotal, and no small amount of confirmation bias, but I've been a technologist for over 20 years now. In all that time, most of my favorite technical colleagues, including their "hard" skills, were film majors, sociologists, historians, &c.

You do not need a STEM degree to be an outstanding technologist, or even a competent one. Far and away, the most valuable skill for this kind of work is critical thinking, and I've never seen classes teaching that offered outside the "liberal arts".

[quotemstr]

The bridge designer imagining failure modes for a new bridge design isn't critical thinking, but the liberal arts autoethnography about the colonial etiology of Daft Punk, that's critical thinking?

Reality is the opposite of your assertion: critical thinking is largely dead outside STEM, and that's because only in STEM does reality punish you for indulging sweet-sounding nonsense.

I've also met good developers over the course of over 20 years writing software. Many of them had no degree or an irrelevant degree. I respect them tremendously, but they're exceptions.

The kind of thinking that today's liberal arts departments encourage is contrary to the rigor needed to solve real engineering problems, and it's rare that you find in a single individual both a knack for the cold logic of engineering and the social sensitivity needed to succeed in a world of post-modern, post-logic quicksand.

[rosser]

No, "critical thinking" is evaluating ideas and arguments, including one's own, for flaws. That you conflate it with engineering further suggests that you don't actually know what it is, and continue to over-value the "hard" skills beyond their (admittedly incredible and irreplaceable) worth.

It also tells me we are utterly talking past one another here. I have better things to do with my afternoon than refute yet more straw-men.

[PoachedSausage]

From what I have seen critical thinking, as a natural aptitude is quite rare. You can probably encourage it, but I doubt it can really be taught, even if those in authority wanted it.

[oceanghost]

You've locked onto the exact reason here. The incentives are all wrong.

Learn how to work people like a psychopath manager? Unlimited earning potential. Learn hard skills? Pigeonholed as "too valuable" to promote while being taken advantage of by those psychopaths until you connect enough dots to expose them or are deemed no longer necessary to their evil plan.

[quotemstr]

> if you're arguing against that, then you're part of the problem

That's in incredibly dangerous and irresponsible thing to write. We need to entertain all arguments, not enshrine some things in untouchable dogma. Calling people personally awful for stating an argument --- instead of addressing the argument --- is the reason that today's public discourse is bonkers.

The line I quoted above turns disagreement into a witch hunt.

[Viliam1234]

>> if you're arguing against that, then you're part of the problem

> That's in incredibly dangerous and irresponsible thing to write.

Also quite ironic, in context of an article advising to "make sure that everyone’s voice is heard, and that important warnings don’t get lost because someone didn’t feel safe saying so". Because this is how the warnings get silenced.

[rosser]

When "the problem" is over-valuing hard skills, and under-valuing soft skills, which is TFA's thesis (and mine, for purposes of this discussion), then it's rather less a "witch hunt" — which is speciously hyperbolic language in the first place, and the use of which, I submit, is far more contributory to the state of "discourse", such as it is.

I also, you'd do well to note, never called anyone "personally awful" (more specious hyperbole, hmm?). I said, paraphrased, that certain behaviors and positions are contributory to ("part of") "the problem", which we've already established is pretty narrowly defined.

[quotemstr]

No. You don't get to do that. You don't get to call people "the problem" just for making an argument. You don't get to just declare yourself the victor by impugning the character of your opponent. If this style of argumentation is what "soft skills" in tech means, we're heading to a dark place.

[chandanrai]

Technology and technologists are to solve the problems, they're not the problem or a part of it.

I have spent more than a decade working with brilliant technologists but haven't found anyone impossible to work with. As in technology, I have found some compatibility issues among/with technologists, but that can be worked out.

Also I have seen some technologists are unable to put forth a strong defense verbal or written when accused wrongly and thus becoming aunt Sally, people find them easier to put blame on.

[DrScump]

  they imply that soft skills are more valuable than hard skills at Google

More valuable, or just more difficult to find there?

[xkcd-sucks]

I've seen 'soft' vs 'hard' skills treated as a constant-sum quantity, e.g. somebody who conclusively demonstrates hard skills must not have soft skills so they must be a bad person to work with, won't be able to teach/learn, probably works badly in a team, etc. This is in the context of hiring meetings to discuss candidates. Interestingly, the opposite isn't as strong: a candidate with soft skills is presumed capable of picking up hard skills quickly, although it doesn't actually happened in most of these hires