[nitrogen]

The more technical the crowd the more you hear this kind of thing but it really does bear mentioning that if these engineers could be doing it without these figureheads then really, they should do that.

This is an oldish thread, but I want to point out that the main reason engineers need figureheads is to attract capital. The second reason is to unify the engineers toward a common goal.

I do believe engineers deserve a lot more credit from society, and also that engineers underestimate the contributions of non-engineers. I feel that the subtly snide way you worded your statement ("really, they should do that") is needlessly derisive to both groups.

[mark_integerdsv]

You have my apologies for any perceived or actual snark.

I hadn't intended to insult anyone and in terms of derision, I am certainly in no position to be doling it out.

Going back to the comment in question though, it is kind of the crux of the matter as I read it.

There are some posts further up that are very sarcastic about the contributions of these 'figureheads' and my statement to those people stands for itself: if these 'figureheads' are not necessary then do it without them.

I go on to provide very popular examples of where this simply isn't how things work.

Note that I have never even so much as intimated that it couldn't work like that just that it doesn't often seem to.

I will admit that there is perhaps some of my own insecurity slipping in here. As someone with a technical background who now works in a less technical capacity I think I may have taken some of these comments personally and allowed for them to pile onto an already toppling pile of impostor syndrome type thinking.

The fact remains though that to build something you need engineers, you also need architects, you also need someone to bankroll the project. Asserting that one or more of these players are more important that others does seem illogical to me and it would probably take a lot to change that outlook on my part.