[lugg]

Software engineers aren't special.

Please stop treating them as some enlightened class. They're not.

Software engineers face the same idiocy as everyone else. Every other industry has smart, creative, individuals willing to buck the system and try new things for an edge.

If you truly believe people can't express a simple argument for trialing this sort of thing without losing their jobs maybe they should be looking for a new job because their current one sounds like a train wreck waiting to happen.

[sillysaurusx]

The idea that you can simply find a new job is itself a privileged point of view.

Software engineers are special in the sense that they’re expensive to replace. It costs time and effort, both of which are much more scarce than money. Businesses are also usually expanding, so there’s no shortage of openings. This gives us more freedom by definition.

However, some sectors of software engineering are much more strict. You wouldn’t take a “Just do it” attitude in aviation, for example. It’s easy to say “move to some other sector,” but eventually most devs try to build a career in one area.

[Consultant32452]

What do you think is being suggested here? All I read out of it is to dedicate some portion of your time at work towards self improvement. Why wouldn't you recommend that to someone in aviation?

[vertex-four]

Because that person’s work is probably scheduled and tracked to a higher degree than most software engineers, and if they’re seen to be slacking off they probably don’t get the excuse of “waiting for the test suite to finish”.

[Consultant32452]

There's down time in virtually every job. If your employer discourages you from using down time to get better at your job, then get a new job. I did it even back in college working at a chain pizza store. I learned some management tasks, how to proof dough properly, etc. I'm sure there's some jobs out there where it's not an option, but I feel like you guys are really stretching it to find ways to say people are incapable of self improvement at work.

[lugg]

It's not a privileged point of view. You can find a new job. You might not like it. It might not be possible for everyone. But the idea that there are only jobs in tech is asinine.

All qualified and experienced people are expensive to replace.

That's not unique to software.

[hazz99]

I work in a bar. If I was to take 20% of my time to learn new things and sharpen my skills (without being told explicitly by management), I would be fired very quickly.

It is a privilege not shared by the large majority of jobs.

[samvher]

You're right that it wouldn't be as easy for different kinds of jobs and working in a bar is a good example. Even there though, I think you could be clever about it - you can find opportunities that blend in with your work (e.g. coffee foam art, small talk in a language you're learning). These probably wouldn't increase your value as much but with some creativity I'm pretty sure in most jobs there is some kind of opportunity for learning.

[OneFamousGrouse]

> I'm pretty sure in most jobs there is some kind of opportunity for learning.

This is absolutely not the case.

[krageon]

There is a vast swathe of jobs that are labour under very strict conditions imposed on you by middle management, for example anything in a harbour or construction context. That's not the sort of rule that you can just opt to take some time for self improvement under. I would wager the percentage of jobs with such conditions is probably higher than without.

[amosquito]

Mate you are mental. This simplified thought drives me nuts.

Software Engineering has a massive IQ-based barrier to entry. Not only that, your advantages are in large part, from a purely technical perspective, are reflected in your ability to consume algorithms, techniques, and hold more variables in your head at a faster rate than others.

It's an incredibly unique union of art and engineering, we are in demand as every industry needs it, and there is a genetic bottleneck.

We suffer from massive privilege because even semi-technical people have no idea what the fuck we are doing, so oversight is limited at best.

As someone who came from being a huge overachiever in a different industry, we are insanely privileged.

[organsnyder]

"Genetic bottleneck"? Really?

Certain people do tend to have an easier time with skills that make it easier to be a developer, but there is a VAST untapped potential of people that think of our work as "coding" and assume they're unable to learn. We really need an influx of people with systems thinking and other "high-level" abilities—development skills are required, but not the deep technical abilities our field has traditionally prized.

I've worked with plenty of "genius" types who can write advanced algorithms with lightning speed, but aren't able to see their work in a larger context—nor able to explain to others what they're doing. And I've worked with "normal" people (usually with an oversized dose of Imposter Syndrome) who are so much more effective because they understand the why as well as the how, while also being better communicators.

And let's cut out the IQ bullshit until there's a proven link between IQ and ability to deliver business value.

[Consultant32452]

https://www.businessinsider.com/why-your-iq-strongly-influen...

>A growing body of research suggests general cognitive ability may be the best predictor of job performance.

I don't think there's any doubt between IQ and delivering business value. Some argue EQ is more valuable, but that doesn't mean IQ isn't important.

[organsnyder]

I'm not a member of BI Prime (nor do I have any intention of becoming one), so I can't see what they use to justify that bullet point.

Even given studies that show a link, there's a big difference between requiring a minimum IQ of 85 to join the US Armed Forces (as mentioned in the Wikipedia article on Intelligence Quotient) compared to asserting a minimum IQ of 120 (or whatever) to be a software developer, as amosquito seems to be doing in their comment ("...massive IQ-based barrier to entry..."). Of course there has to be some floor of intelligence to perform the job—but I'd argue it's a lot lower than many in our field believe.

[Consultant32452]

This isn't an argument for or against anything, just some real data.

https://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/Occupations.aspx

[organsnyder]

Interesting. Assuming the data is accurate (a big assumption, given the controversy and inaccuracy inherent to these discussions), "computer occs" has a range of ~90-130—well over half of the population. Of course, "computer occs" is quite a broad category...

[overkalix]

This might be one of the most obnoxiously deluded things I've read all year.

[tmn]

Can you refute their points more directly?

[hmschreck]

First, there is no IQ barrier. I have several friends who, based on psychologist-administered IQ tests, are very, very close to average, who do well in the industry, usually better than me. They worked hard to get where they wanted to go. Sure, you probably can't do this work if you have an IQ under 85, but the same can be said for most any knowledge or even office job. It's not like we're unique in that regard.

Second, a "genetic bottleneck"? That absolutely reeks of genetic elitism. It implies, rather heavily, that they are genetically superior to those who cannot (or just don't) do this work.

The idea that we are special because no one understands us - finance, biotech, pharmaceuticals... No one really gets those, either.

[tmn]

Thank you