[wrikl]

I know this is petty and on a slight tangent, but for some reason I get a bit irritated by the constant use of software development-specific terminology (e.g. Anti-Pattern) in articles talking about psychology, human nature, and other general topics. In this case the author could have simply used 'stereotype' or 'personality type' which would have been perfectly fine.

It provokes a similar reaction to when I see people using 'grok' unironically in general conversation: it just feels a bit awkward and almost forced.

Commenting on the actual article, I agree with others who have pointed out that this article isn't particular helpful. It's a gross simplification of human behaviour and makes me wonder what the working culture is like at an organisation that would be 'disheartened' by a newhire asking questions like that.

[pionar]

(I'm not commenting on the actual article's contents, as I think we agree on the value of it).

I think it is useful to use development-related terms when discussing non-development processes and concepts. Analogies are a great way to communicate subject matter that the audience may not be familiar with, especially when that intended audience is a narrow band (e.g., developers).

My girlfriend is a flutist (or, flautist for European readers), and oftentimes, when we're discussing something like octatonic scales, it helps for me to think of these concepts in a way that I feel comfortable (set theory).

[wrikl]

I do understand where you're coming from, and I also find myself using such analogies as often they are the quickest way to communicate a concept to an audience of developers. However, I think it's often worth considering if there are other ways to communicate the same ideas using methods more accessible to non-technical people, or those who might be new developers. I think my gut reaction to the (over)use of such terms is more of a reaction towards a potentially exclusionary culture which I dislike strongly.