[krisoft]

> There's a part of the world that makes a distinction between "technical" and "creative" which bothers me even more.

Depends on context of course. In game dev someone who is "technical" can be asked to make the FPS higher during the boss fight, but can't be expected to re-sculpt the boss to make them look more muscular. Someone who is "creative" goes the other way around.

Someone who is "creative" uses blender/maya/z-brush/photoshop to solve problems, someone who is "technical" uses a text editor/compiler/debugger/profiler. It is a very different role. Some can do both, which is great of course, but pretending that everyone is a unicorn will not make happy outcomes.

> Putting yourself or someone else in a bucket of "technical" or "non-technical" creates a subconscious barrier to expanding your skills beyond your label while also giving you an excuse, and others the same low expectations.

Or describing someone's skills accurately they can figure out what they could be improving on.

[AttakBanana]

Your first example is precisely what I mean.

Making the FPS higher, might require some creative hacks. Making a 3D model look exactly like your vision might require highly technical knowledge about your tools.

Going beyond acceptable standards, imo, requires both technical and creative skills. And I believe the split is closer than we think.

On the second note, I understand the point, however, it's subjective how it makes the person feel. I have seen many instances of "creative" people shy away from technical things because its "not who they are" and vice-versa.

[krisoft]

> Making the FPS higher, might require some creative hacks. Making a 3D model look exactly like your vision might require highly technical knowledge about your tools.

Of course everyone in a knowledge economy needs to use technical skills and also be creative. That is not what those job categories mean.