I can't plus this enough. I hired a unicorn business minded, brilliant, can solve any software engineering or UI/UX problem engineer who happened to have a predilection for functional programming.
This is good advice that’s well intentioned, but (sorry), it can be interpreted as elitist, and in a way that’s detrimental to the reader.
I am no way suggesting that this is the intention or belief of the parent, but while I’ve got more miles on my odometer than I’d prefer, they’ve informed me that “reasonable” is better than “intelligent.”
My god how I’ve found that working with reasonable people is so much healthier, more productive and rewarding than working with the unreasonable* intelligent folks.
*I fully grant to my current and former colleagues, friends and associates that I have been irredeemably unreasonable any number of times. Consider this a small thanks :).
Totally get where you're coming from, but it's also kinda splitting hairs.
Being reasonable is part of being intelligent. Surrounding yourself with intelligent people doesn't necessarily mean "surround yourself with the highest IQ individuals you can find." (not saying you're saying that explicitly, just that i think you're just using a definition of intelligence that's narrower than the parent) Working well with others, understanding when one has made mistakes and being able to admit to it, understanding both the known unknowns and the unknown unknowns of a problem...these are a better mark of intelligence than a mensa membership.
Well the parent made sort of a case for why being reasonable is part of being intelligent, and your response was to claim there was no correlation without an argument.
I happen to believe that reasonableness is part of being intelligent, by the following criteria:
1. when you are reasonable you do not make unreasonable demands that will just be troublesome and cause workflow issues because in the end they are unachievable.
2. a reasonable person will be able to determine what other people are capable of in given situations, and be able to structure things in such a way that other people can perform to best meet expectations.
3. the root of reasonable is reason, a reasonable person can be reasoned with because they possess the quality of reason, in most of the history of philosophy if you do not possess the ability to reason you are an idiot.
Having worked closely with some dramatically different intelligent people, I really think intelligence and reasonableness are very different.
Being reasonable, is being someone with a strong genuine value for collaboration. They actively advocate for and work with others to optimize situations taking everyone's needs into account. Encourage give and take, constructive debates, and appreciate feedback. Etc.
An intelligent person can be all those things. Or none of them - but manifest them enough that, with some spin, they seem reasonable, while actually optimizing the environment primarily for their own long term benefit.
Very intelligent unreasonable people are disasters to work with.
Alright, my argument is that parent needed to redefine what those words mean. Intelligent means having high intelligences, high IQ. That does not imply being reasonable or having emotional control. It does not imply ability to shut up when you do not know what you are talking about either.
Moreover, being able to admit mistakes (specific thing mentioned by parent) is oftentimes detrimental for you. People who do not admit them are typically rewarded, people who easily admit them punished. So, what you are looking at is "ethics even if it does not benefits me".
> This is good advice that’s well intentioned, but (sorry), it can be interpreted as elitist, and in a way that’s detrimental to the reader.
There's nothing wrong with elitism as long as it leads to initiation rather than gatekeeping.
> My god how I’ve found that working with reasonable people is so much healthier.
Could not agree more. Most people can be trained well to do any job required of them. What cannot be trained, and certainly at the behest of the employer is interpersonal skills.
The one situation where I would prefer someone who is intelligent at the expense of being personable is if I intended to hire 2-3 absolute weapons to be the core of a startup.
> Most people can be trained well to do any job required of them.
I really wish this were true, but especially in programming I don’t think this is the case.
I’ve spent years as a programming teacher. Some of my students have been among the most wonderful, enthusiastic, hard working students you can find. And yet, despite both of us working hard for a year or more, some never develop any talent whatsoever for programming. Statements like “everyone can code” can easily turn into a rod for their backs. - “Therefore if I’m not succeeding like many of the other students, it must be because I’m not trying hard enough, or there’s something wrong with me”. I don’t think this is anyone’s fault. Perpetuating the lie that all our brains have an equal capacity to program is a terribly cruel injustice. Some students would be much better served by finding another career that they can excel at. The faster they figure this out, the better.
Programming isn’t for everyone. It’s hard. Not everyone has the same capacity for it. I believe accepting that is an act of kindness.
> I really wish this were true, but especially in programming I don’t think this is the case.
I should have made my prior assumptions clear. The "most people" I'm referring to are CS graduates or people with IT diplomas and the percentage among those who are trainable to a capacity of competence in most companies are roughly 70%.
> Perpetuating the lie that all our brains have an equal capacity to program is a terribly cruel injustice. Some students would be much better served by finding another career that they can excel at.
When I was still a uni student I used to be a CS tutor in a help desk setting and I especially remember one guy who used to come in a lot. He had a really great attitude despite being humbled by the fundamentals. He used to repeat to me: "Sometimes you have to ask for help when you need it." After that semester I didn't see him again. I also remember a particularly annoying guy who used to come in and waste my time and the other tutor's by bringing in a problem and then solving it himself within seconds of sitting down just so he could talk about how he solved it and how much he knew. The world is not a fair place.
Yep. Those two stories are in some amount of conflict. I agree that anyone who has passed a decent hiring bar can be trained to some baseline level of competence. But the difference in capacity between that baseline level and someone brilliant can be huge. And it matters. This is the difference between something being an ongoing issue for the team for months, and it just quietly never seeming like it was ever a problem in the first place. As you say, it’s totally unfair.
> What cannot be trained, and certainly at the behest of the employer is interpersonal skills.
I think that those can be trained as well. The fact is that just acknowledging the issue requires a level of self-awareness that not everyone has, and training THAT as well requires being aware of it. External input and help from a specialist or a dear friend can get the ball rolling.
I know OP already responded but people who are smart, kind, and are down to earth are special. You have to keep them close, and it’s pure bliss if you find a company filled with them.
It’s life goals to be smart, kind, and down to earth. It really
comes from a LOT of experience though.
People known for being purely highly reasonable people know that they don't know everything and aren't afraid to learn and be humble and are often a net positive.
People known for being purely highly intelligent people often think they know it all and are often a net drain.
I think [reasonable] falls under the heading of [honest].
Both honesty/reasonableness and intelligence are required. A family memebr is tearing her hair out about having to work with some assistants who are honest, well-intentioned, and pleasant, but who are just mentally incapable of keeping things straight — they literally screw things up and make more disorganization than they fix (fortunately, better help is supposedly on the way).
Overall, in hiring and working with people, most of the time, a warm body is definitely NOT better than nobody.
As the GP, yes good point about reasonableness. I didn't word it well: I meant people who act intelligently; intelligence by itself certainly doesn't yield that!
> it can be interpreted as elitist
If "intelligent" is taken as 'naturally superior intelligence', then I can see what you mean (and I think that idea is a egomaniacal delusion). What I mean is people who choose to act intelligently; that's quite democratic.
I suppose I’m a grey beard (in industry is 96ish) and I mean, it’s fine as a backend language in so far as dynamically (or even loosely) typed languages go. It’s just as easy (or hard) to write modular well tested code as in any number of other languages in wide use for backend services, in my XP.
> I don't have any particular answers to why string templating has been enduringly popular so far (although I can come up with theories, including that string templating is naturally reusable to other contexts, such as plain text)
My hunch is that it’s for the same reason folks love other plaintext formats: they’re readable and easily manipulated.
HTML has the added upside that it’s pretty straightforward for humans to write, which whether one likes it or not is why some folks would rather not learn some else’s DSL for generating it.
Btw, I suspect there’s a similar division in the write your own SQL vs ORM/linq world.
