[zelos]

"The article also purports that the higher level of communication inherent in engineering jobs may be vital. A healthy communication in a marriage is vital for its survival."

Yeah, us software engineers are renowned for our communication skills.

[dudifordMann]

Hey, don't keep pushing that stereotype on us. Software engineering, much like other disciplines, have people from all backgrounds and capabilities. I hate the idea that the persistence of these beliefs can effect the industry further, possibly leading to some sort of self-fulfilling prophecy where good communication skills are not expected.

Routinely software engineers need to give presentations to customers, have to collaborate with other disciplines, and provide clear written and verbal communication.

This type of thinking is, I believe, the same mentality that keeps women out of STEM career paths. Just because you have a small sample set that leads you to believe we are poor communicators, do not broad brush it and assume most software folk are as inept.

[rjzzleep]

I'm sure you enjoy dilbert a lot.

But more seriously, software engineers are merely the loudest of all engineering professions. Hardly the end-all and be-all. A significant portion of software engineers, never even had a scientific education(programming doesn't have to be scientific, though it can be, and almost every programmer calls himself a software engineer).

> This type of thinking is, I believe, the same mentality that keeps women out of STEM career paths.

i'm probably going to get a lot of hate for saying that, but

... no offence, you just pulled that out of your ass. people don't generally know what professions are like until they actually start working in them. Law is arguably way more racist, sexist and whatnot, but that doesn't stop women from doing it. The same goes for banking. It's just better marketed in central european culture.

and if you're going to make such an argument be sure to include the socioeconomic background that is relevant to that statement.

i personally had to witness the culture clash, when all the persian part of the family was encouraging a girl on how she's going to be successful doing her engineering studies and all the german part of the family saying she couldn't do it and she should instead just study language. incidently iran is also the country where 2/3s of the stem graduates are women and they recently passed laws for male quotas. when i say family, it includes aunts/uncles/cousins and even friends of the difference social backgrounds.

Not once in the entire discussion did anyone consider the potential work environment, the study environment or anything of the likes, nor would they even know. It was just a difference in mentality. The only people truely capable to make qualified statements on the matter were people that watched her teach math to friends high school friends.

And yes, I know, empirically proven doesn't mean it applies everywhere, but then the same applies to your statement.

EDIT: i kind of knew, but so much hate and not even a comment to justify. so, one just started learning angularjs and has now become a frontend (software) engineer and may now not only speak on behalf of the entire engineering population of the globe, but also on behalf of stem in general. that's at least questionable don't you think?

[apta]

> A significant portion of software engineers, never even had a scientific education(programming doesn't have to be scientific, though it can be...

Such people can't be called engineers then. I find it amusing when I see titles such as "JavaScript engineer" or "HTML engineer", etc.

> ...and almost every programmer calls himself a software engineer

This seems to be a culture in the USA mainly. From what I have seen, Canada is much more strict about having the proper credentials to be able to call yourself an engineer.

[golergka]

> I find it amusing when I see titles such as "JavaScript engineer" or "HTML engineer", etc.

It is amusing indeed, but for a different reason — because "iron engineer" or "rubber engineer" (in case of hardware engineers) would be just as amusing.

The lack of formal scientific education doesn't mean that engineer in question doesn't have the exact same amount of knowledge — it merely means that he chose other ways to acquire it.

[dudifordMann]

I'm having the hardest time following the flow of your statements, which are riddled with assumptions that I, at their base, don't agree with.

> A significant portion of software engineers, never even had a scientific education

I'm not sure that I follow. What is it that you consider a "scientific education"? where do you get your significant figure from?

>... no offence, you just pulled that out of your ass.

I was not stating any statistical evidence, just a belief I have that if you cast a particular field in a negative light, claiming that a majority of people in those fields are poor communicators, that anyone might avoid that field, which I would imagine includes women, so perhaps I should have abstracted away a bit.

> i personally had to witness the culture clash...

I don't discount that cultural or familial background does not play a role in where a person ends up in his or her career, nor did I claim that work/study environment cannot play a factor. But stereotypes, both positive and negative, can have an impact on anyone's perspective on any field.

As to your Dilbert comment, I'm assuming you're trying to be funny or use some sort of straw-man to discredit my statement? Good job, you did it.

<edit: missing some carriage returns>

[ck425]

> people don't generally know what professions are like until they actually start working in them.

Which is exactly why stereotypes are so harmful because it puts people off ever trying and learning differently. Your story just reinforced the point, people often make judgements about careers based on stereotypes not actual data so it's detrimental to our industry to encourage these stereotypes.

[fizzbatter]

Fwiw, i feel like that is the key to my relationship. I'm a (mediocre) software engineer, and by far the driving force of the communication in the relationship.

Now, my SO and I are both a bit "broken" individuals, so it's not like we're perfect by any stretch of the imagination.. but i'm certain that without a constant push for communication and a lack of "letting things stew" that we would be in a far worse state at best - and at worst, broken up.

Disclaimer: I'm not trying trying to say that my relationship is somehow more thanks to my efforts.. sometimes i feel like my push for communication can be a fault.

Regardless, it's one of the things i obsess about - being clear and open with each other.. and it's the things i obsess about that i define myself by. I wouldn't be surprised if this personality trait (obsessing about rules/structure/"healthy"-behavior) was more common in engineers. Though, the data seems impossible to meaningfully correlate.

[sosuke]

No need for the disclaimer, I completely sympathize with your position and agree that communication is essential. I push constantly for communication and it helps to kill those little nagging voices and thoughts. Sometimes we're shocked at what the other is thinking that we were meaning or thinking! When left in a room alone without communication your imagination can get the best of you.

[onion2k]

Communication in a relationship is eminently hackable. On the first month 'anniversary' of seeing my girlfriend I bought her a book (one she'd mentioned wanting to read) and wrote a couple of lines in the front about how well it was going. From there on we've bought each other a book every month and written a short note in the front. We've been seeing each other for almost three years without any 'communication problems'. There are advantages to this approach - namely we get time to think about what to write and we both get lots of books.

The fact you're not great at vocalising your feelings on the spot (something I am definitely not good at) shouldn't be a barrier to communicating. You just have to find an approach that works for you.

[jbattle]

To give totally unsolicited advice - 3 years is easy - it doesn't get really hard for another 5 years. Don't stress about it but also don't take it for granted that your communication will always be as great as it is now (without ongoing effort).

[ad-hominem]

In what world do you live where a meaningful 3 year relationship is easy? Thanks for belittling essentially all unmarried people plus some married couples.

[schrodinger]

Where the heck do you keep all those books?

[QuercusMax]

A large part of engineering involves problem-solving and designing systems with lots of unknowns, as well as finding patterns and fixing problems (debugging). Persistence is also key - you won't last long in engineering if you give up the first time your design doesn't work!

Perhaps these same skills translate into relationship stability? If something isn't working, try tweaking things.

Or maybe our attention to detail just makes us better in the sack. :D

[pconner]

You do need good communication skills to be an effective software engineer.

[gsam]

The general programmer, no. But, at the risk of inflating the title, software engineer is supposed to mean something. Especially in places where they actually are part of professional bodies. In my studies, computer science and software engineering impart two very different experiences. That's not to say that X is better than Y at Z, but the focus is different. I very much do believe that anybody who calls themselves a good software engineer should have great communication skills.

[xexers]

I suppose engineers do tend to be direct and to the point. I can't think of any engineers that are manipulative in social situations.

[scoggs]

I think this is something I laughed at at first and then very suddenly realized it's actually probably one of the bigger points driving home the lower divorce %'s for engineers. If you can initially put up with the courting of an engineer and you are willing to marry them then you are prepared for their pragmatic and direct approach to almost every situation. Honestly, after being young and playing the run around game that sounds absolutely refreshing.

[lectrick]

> Yeah, us software engineers are renowned for our communication skills.

I like to think that I have some pretty good communication skills, and that they make me a better programmer.

[balabaster]

Everyone thinks they have good communication skills... it's the paradox of self evaluation. You evaluate yourself based on your perception of those you evaluate yourself against - which in turn is largely biased based on your own perception of your self image.

If you hang out with people you perceive as more intelligent than you (which may or may not be true, it's a biased perspective), then you're more likely to evaluate yourself as less intelligent than you'd like. If you then evaluate yourself against people you perceive as less intelligent than you (which also may or may not be true, again a biased perspective), you're more likely to bolster an impression that you're more intelligent than you are - which again, may not be true.

So do people always agree with you? Do you perceive these people as more or less intelligent than you? Do they always agree with everyone? Do you perceive their ideas as valuable as yours?

It's hard to evaluate your own communication skills... because no matter the metric you use to attempt to evaluate them, your interpretation of the metric is biased in one way or another.

[thewhitetulip]

>I like to think that I have some pretty good communication skills

You can have excellent communication skills, but there is this 'nerdism' that comes from being totally into computers, and that renders people away from social skills, I feel the OP meant that. So you having pretty good communication skills is an exception rather a norm

[balabaster]

I was thinking the exact same thing when I was reading this... amongst all the engineers I know, I don't think there are many - none I can think of who I would consider having a "higher level of communication". They might talk more... but I'll leave that sentence unfinished :P

[bsbechtel]

Many engineers I know take their communication skills for granted, without realizing areas where improvement is needed...especially when it comes to discussing emotions or other areas vital to a relationship.

[cyberpanther]

I would say the engineers that can't communicate aren't the married ones, thus, not bringing the average down. So yes I agree but that doesn't mean that the article is false either.

[Fuxy]

If I had to guess I would say it's the cause of 2 factors:

1.Certain professions attract certain personality types so you won't see a lot of extroverted social people choosing engineering as their profession

Extroverts social as they are will always have more options and are less likely to stick around if things get sour.

2.Financial stability means that even if the woman is unhappy in the relationship she is more likely to stick around because it offers stability.

Why do you think all the girls always have a boyfriend even if their not that into him.

Society tells them you're a looser if you don't have a boyfriend so they always keep one around that doesn't mean their not willing to upgrade though :)

Edit: I analogize for generalizing and saying engineers are all men it is mostly true however as pointed out in the comments below not in all cases however I cannot say anything about the reverse case.

[UnoriginalGuy]

> 2.Financial stability means that even if the woman is unhappy in the relationship she is more likely to stick around because it offers stability.

There's so many assumptions made in that sentence...

1) Women care about money more than happiness

2) Engineers are awash with money

3) Women aren't engineers

4) Men are engineers.

[balabaster]

Also... there's a huge assumption that more money equals less financial problems. One thing I've learned from the experience of my own finances is that the times in my life when I've been flat broke, I had less financial problems than in times when I've been flush with cash.

The higher your income, the higher your debt load - and this is caused by easy access to credit, social conditioning to chasing the dream, climbing the ladder, bigger house, more expensive cars - because you deserve it! You work hard, you deserve to play hard too and who cares your income doesn't stretch to that, here's a credit card, you can have as much money as you need... as long as you can afford the minimum payment for the rest of your life. Society conditions you towards using your financial abilities to get into more debt than you can afford to repay and the illusion that because you have a high income, you can afford to repay it every month in full... and then as long as I pay most of it... and then at least keep up the minimum payments... and then well, this one's not due until the end of the month, so I'll live on this card and I'll pay the minimum payment and keep this card for emergencies... and then an emergency crops up and hey, I'll just pay my hydro bill with this card instead of paying cash and I'll use the cash to pay my credit card off and the cycle escalates until you lose your house.

Just because you're an engineer and just because you have a high gross income doesn't mean you have the financial wherewithal to maintain a stable financial life.

So yes, none of the assumptions here stand up to scrutiny.

[Fuxy]

I don't have a credit card for this exact reason. I get at least 5 invitations by mail every week but i don't really need it.

Spend the money you have not the money you can get.

[dcherman]

If you treat a credit card the same as cash, then there is literally no difference in how much you should be spending, but you need the discipline to actually do that.

There are a number of benefits to using credit cards that cash doesn't have:

1. Build a credit score

2. Fraud protection

3. Related to 2, but if I lose my card it's not a huge deal, cancel it and get a new one. If I lose 300$ cash, it's just gone.

4. Rewards! ( 1-3% back on 20K spending per year is a few hundred bucks )

5. Extended Warranties. Often times, you can get an extra year or more on warranties through your credit cards. That's why I put my new kitchen appliances on my Amex.

6. Free loans! I re-did my kitchen last year at about a 10K cost. Although I had the cash to do so, I instead signed up for a new card with 18 month 0% interest. That gave me another year and a half of saving before paying that off, so it's less of a hit to my balance at once. IMPORTANT I would not have done this if I did not have the cash to pay this off at any point in time.

It's really, really simple too - just pay off your statement balance in full each month and you'll never pay interest. I can count on one hand both how many times I've paid interest, and how much I've paid in interest. All of them were due to my own screw ups with scheduling payments ( off by a day - oops! ), however I've benefited far more from the cards than I've ever paid out. In most of those cases, the banks waived the fees anyway since there was a track record of 3-5+ years of never missing a payment, always paying in full.

[balabaster]

There's a built in assumption here that you need credit... if you don't need credit then all this is moot. Everyone's so keen to be part of the system that they never stop to wonder what they're chasing... there are justifications and rationalizing and whatever else it takes to belong. None of it's necessary. The 1-3% cash back and the air miles and the fraud protection and all these other goodies they promise you are bribery to use their card so that they can get the scale they need to make the system profitable for them. They sell your information, aggregate it to marketing companies, it's a means to track your every purchase electronically etc. etc.

If you'd paid cash you could have got a better deal from suppliers by negotiating cash discounts and nobody would be aggregating your information or tracking your purchases to target advertising to try to further their way into your wallet. If you'd paid the $10K up front, which you had the cash to do so, what did you do with that $10K? Did it just sit in your bank giving you an illusion of a bank balance or did you invest it to make some return to justify putting it on credit and putting off until tomorrow what you could have paid for today? You purchased this kitchen effectively putting a lien on that money, it's no longer yours... but having it in your account still gives you the illusion that it is. It only takes something unexpected happening and that money that's not yours [which is still in your account] is easy to dip into for an emergency with the expectation that you'll pay back into it another day when you can afford that - a day that never comes, until that kitchen you've been enjoying for the last 18 months and now can't live without needs paying for...

It's ridiculously easy to get sucked into the trap of cycling one debt after another and then you're stuck with your only options being: Sell everything you own to pay it off, claim bankruptcy and start again from scratch or strive for a higher paying job, putting yourself under extra stress... and for what? The ability to raise your debt load. It's not really much surprise, the entire capitalist economy is built on debt, without it, there would be no economy. The U.S. currency is loaned (at interest) by the Fed to the U.S. Government, so debt goes right to the very foundation of the entire economy. So it's an ever perpetuating cycle.

There are rationalizations on both sides of the fence. For the record, I'm not dead against credit, I'm just saying that for every rationalization that can be offered to use credit, there are equally many reasons to avoid it.

[mattdotc]

Hopefully you're building up credit some other way. You can still spend the money you have with a credit card. I pay my balance in full twice a month, just to ensure I never pay any interest.

It's better than paying with a debit card because you aren't on the hook for fraud. I learned this lesson the hard way.

[15155]

> Hopefully you're building up credit some other way.

Literally any installment credit will be better for credit-building than the vast majority of revolving credit individuals have access to.

CCs are far superior to debit cards in almost every way. If you don't possess self-control, maybe that sentence doesn't hold true. There are a number of disadvantages to using a debit card where a credit card can be used instead.

[bryondowd]

A higher income means more options. Yes, you have more options to get yourself into trouble, but you also have more options to keep yourself taken care of.

I was making about $12/hour before I finished my CS degree. I had no debts and some money in the bank because I had no real expenses.

Now I make about twice that, but I got my own place with my fiancee and raked up far more debt (on top of student loans) than I can afford to pay at my current salary. My quality of living has actually been decreasing.

Does this mean I have more financial problems than I did before? No, not really. I have plenty of options now that I didn't before. In the worst case scenario, I can declare bankruptcy and start from scratch, where I'll have no debts (aside from student loans) and still have twice the income I would have otherwise, and be able to find a maintainable quality of life significantly higher than I would have with the lower income.

A low income doesn't mean you have less problems, it means you have fewer options and have to simply accept a worse outcome.

[eloff]

Nevertheless those assumptions are true more than false, which is what matters if you want to make broad sweeping statements about a diverse population. Well I don't think #1 is true, but it's also a straw man. Women do care about money and stability, surprisingly much depending on the culture.

[MollyR]

After I got fired from my first job, I had to move back in with my parents because I couldn't pay my rent, and . . . it was miserable.

I was forced to care about financial issues over my own happiness.

Money matters. Money matters to everyone.

[alanctgardner3]

Just to clarify, in your view women: don't work, can't be engineers, always want to be in a relationship, and are terribly unfaithful and will leave you for somebody with more money? Also, maybe stop calling adult women "girls".

[Fuxy]

I use the terms interchangeably. I know there is a subtle difference mostly of maturity but don't care enough to pay attention.

No need to get offended over every little thing.

[alanctgardner3]

There's a big difference, calling someone "boy" or "girl" instead of "man" or "woman" is demeaning. How often do you honestly refer to male engineers as "boys"?

> don't care enough to pay attention

Surprisingly, it doesn't matter how much you care.

[cllns]

Yes. The post was also heteronormative.

[madez]

their != they're

[protonfish]

Software engineers are great communicators, which is why they are often awkward and unpopular. Getting along in groups and knowing your place in the social hierarchy order is much more dependent on effective lying.

[balabaster]

Being a great communicator equals selling ideas in terms that your audience can easily ingest with the intent for which it was served. Nothing more. It doesn't mean lying, it doesn't mean not lying. Social politics is often grey. For better or for worse, selling an idea often involves playing on the emotions of your audience. Getting buy in means selling your ideas in a way people can relate to.

...and knowing your place in the social hierarchy is irrelevant. Knowing how to speak such that your place in the social hierarchy is blurred enough that everyone assumes you're at their level is the most useful approach. Not having people look down on you because you're socially beneath them, but also not having people write you off because they feel you think they're below you. Being a good communicator is being able to stand head to head with the CEO of a multi-billion dollar corporation and discuss your ideas with the respect of equals in terms they can understand, and also speak with the homeless person on the street with the respect of equals in terms they can understand.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men [and women] are created equal"

Believe this, I mean truly believe this and treat people with the respect this statement garners and the rest is easy. You are not above anyone else in the social hierarchy and they are not above you. That huge mansion they live in and the country club they belong too were purchased with the money. Their access to money doesn't make their life more valuable than yours. You hold different jobs because you have different training, social conditioning and peer groups. So I think there is little value to knowing your place in the social hierarchy. All it does is serve to allow society to write your destiny. Is that what you want or would you prefer to write your own destiny?

[halcyondaze]

Being a great communicator != never lying.

[oldmanjay]

well and let's undercut the ridiculous conceit directly, being an engineer also cannot be equated to never lying.

[lucozade]

Maybe they're all lying about their marital status?