[LeonB]

I think that success isn’t from individual “great engineers” but from excellent teams and collaborations.

We over emphasise the myth of the solo genius, for example, as it fits neatly into “stories”.

There are many cases where the heroic genius “great engineer” seems to be the solution to all of the problems… until they get sick or fired and suddenly the remaining team becomes far more productive than they were before.

It’s a bit like in “moneyball” — how the talent scouts were looking for batsmen that could hit a home run, but the real value was in the batsmen who could consistently make it to first base.

Attributes like “personal motivation and curiosity” — are also filtered through the interviewer’s perception — they become: “personal motivation and curiosity in a form which I can immediately recognise because it fits the patterns I am predisposed to expect” - and this lead to very narrow selections. By looking for this trait (and believing that you can detect it), what other traits are you missing? (Hint: all of them)

[citizen_friend]

So no such thing as a good or bad engineer? Just teams then? Have you ever worked by yourself?

I think the bias today is actually against individuals and for community.

Money ball didn’t get them the best team it got them the better team than others expected for less money.

[BoiledCabbage]

In my opinion, you have a very simplistic view of the world and our industry. I formed this from reading quotes like the following:

> If you haven't been naturally excited to work on your own projects during this downtime, this field might not be for you. reply

Being successful in this field doesn't require programming in your spare time - especially so not while going through a difficult period in life. To think that is the case is a case of pattern matching on a simplistic pattern.

> Do you think you can become a really good engineer without being personally motivated and curious?

No one said that OP wasn't personally motivated nor curious. Again that (in my opinion) is faulty pattern matching. People can be both motivated and curious without taking your one prescribed path. Separately, nothing in this question was about OP trying right now to become a "really good engineer". If your top goal in life is only to be really good at your job, you may want to broaden your horizons w.r.t. your priorities in life. Studying a field, becoming good at it, and making a living doing that is a very wise choice - none of that requires becoming one of the top 10% at that role.

> So no such thing as a good or bad engineer?

No one made a statement even remotely like this. This is a strawman you chose to "reply to" rather than respond to what the prior commenter said.

I don't think your advice is good advice for OP nor a good outlook for anyone starting their career regardless of how ambitious they may be.

[citizen_friend]

> Being successful in this field doesn't require programming in your spare time

I already addressed this point.

> No one made a statement even remotely like this. This is a strawman you chose to "reply to"

No. My argument was that it’s important for a new engineers to have drive and curiosity to get started. The other poster replied that this wasn’t true because “teams”. So I was checking for understanding about why this individual does not need to take their personal development seriously.

> I don’t think your advice is good advice

This is why I am asking questions that seem stupid to you. You don’t think someone should have strong natural interest at the beginning of their career?

[BoiledCabbage]

> You don’t think someone should have strong natural interest at the beginning of their career?

Again I never said nor implied that. In fact I specifically commented about how incorrect this statement was. I see your line of approach consistently appears to be rather than reply to what is posted, pick a easy statement that nobody stated and argue against that instead. I think it's not a productive use of my time continuing further discussions with you as you are unable to engage with what's actually being said.

Take care.

[LeonB]

> So no such thing as a good or bad engineer? Just teams then?

Buddy I understood your original points — and once held them myself — but if this reply is how you construe what I’ve tried to share with you, you have not reciprocated with any genuine care in trying to understand the conversation I thought we were having.

Good luck!

[citizen_friend]

To refresh. My argument is that if you are starting out you need to have drive and interest. That’s it.