[sieisteinmodel]

Makes it sound as if those things were mutually exclusive. They are not.

I don't like the attitude of this article. Good soft skills will not compensate lack of smartness. This might not appear in a job interview (although good interviewers will notice), but it definately will later on.

Thus: also read books.

[mcherm]

> Good soft skills will not compensate lack of smartness.

Sure they will. I work with quite a few people who have been very successful in their careers on the basis of their soft skills, and who are (how do I put this) "not notably smart" in classical book-learning skills.

[AtlanteanTec]

I think this article is trying to say "Dont just read books". Not that the soft skills and book smarts need to be mutually exclusive. It just that with the current traditional way of teaching, there is a lot more emphasis on book smarts, good grades and other academia than there is about teaching "street smarts".

I completely agree that good soft skills or "street smarts" are no substitute for actual knowledge but sharp soft skills tend to land more interviews than being smart (Natural networking and all).

Ultimately though, I agree with you. Soft skills and "book smarts" shouldnt be mutually exclusive.

[gadders]

> Good soft skills will not compensate lack of smartness

Ish. So for instance you can't be a complete fool, but if you hire people that are smarter than you are, and get them to work together as a team then soft skills can compensate for lack of smartness.

Obviously, to do this you need to have a realistic view of your own limitations. Dunning-Kruger sufferers need not apply.

[Aardwolf]

In other words: Being smart is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition. And so is soft skills.