> A person with a PhD in human things and who deals in human problems and human solutions cannot ever be Technical no matter how dense her statistics are, how many conferences she speaks at, and how comprehensively she has given examples of generating outcomes that are often beyond engineering to generate (change over time; impacts on humans; making legible even an imperfect approximation of just one single emotion). These things can be useful, interesting, valuable, heartrending, inspiring and memorable to tech, but they cannot be legitimate.
This is clearly falsifiable, so I'm not sure what the idea is behind dragging this essay out for miles. The author doesn't feel like they're a technical person, fair enough, you do you and your labels. However there are plenty of people out there who tick all of those boxes despite you saying it can't be done. I know many people like this and they're often the best of both worlds, they bring a balanced and well rounded world view to bat.
This point is so obvious and self-evident that I'm really amazed that anybody is acting as if that's not the central thesis of the essay. One of the first links is to a PDF with a title by Mar Hicks called "Sexism is a feature, not a bug." Every single time someone argues sincerely or otherwise that sexism is no longer a problem in software development communities, please think back to the time that all these self described hackers couldn't read an essay spelling out in detail that the "technical" designation is socially constructed by everyone else without your permission and often is along gendered lines - they all read that, missing the point, and said "sure you can!" How many of these same commenters have described and will go on to describe a colleague with more mathematical, statistical, and scientific rigor than they and be like "oh, she's not that technical"? Will it be all of them?
The author wants to move the boundaries of technical to include her skill set. But her skill set could be compared to the business class (who also consume numerical research), and those people are not considered technical either, regardless of gender or race or anything else.
Business class skills are generally considered a tier above... all of society.
The author isn't asserting that they feel this way. They are saying that the world doesn't see them as technical.
And it is demonstrably true. Go to any (technical) conference and see how even the most technical people are denigrated or dismissed if they don't fit into the preconceived notions of the audience.
I wish I had an excuse not to be technical. But I will not complain about not having it. Neither I will fake being what I am not so I can get that sweet free out of jail card.
I am a dumb tech boy who is fragile and broken. And I am not upset about it. I will kindly help you without putting you in a pedestal.
As an example that nearly everyone here will now, Evan You, the creator of Vue.js, Vite and etc, has a degree in art and art history. By any metric imaginable, he's also deeply technical with a very strong track record.
There is a lot to like about this article. I would not be at all surprised if the author was really enjoying writing "I am not technical" and embedding the thought in one of the least technical essays I've ever read on HN. She clearly understands dot points well and is determined to stay a safe distance from them.
I don't think there are any actual take-aways beyond an appreciation of rather well done nontechnical perspective take on what the technical world looks like. Although that is rare enough around here to make it quite interesting.
I think I understand what the author is trying to get at, and if I’m right then I agree with them, but this seems purposefully written in a style that inhibits understanding by the exact group it purports to be addressing.
But, I don't know if the core thesis has anything to do with the matter of being technical. Dehumanization has always been a side-effect of corporatism, and the modern corporation just happens to be a tech company.
For what it's worth I'm a liberal arts major that's coded professionally and is considered technical by my peers. The humanity of it all is never too far from my mind, and I've worked with many people like me. I suspect your mileage will vary based on where you work and who's around you.
Is this an attempt to justify being non-technical? Because you don't have to.
Can I ask you to expand on this? I am curious as I had trouble making my way through it. I am also seeing people stating they gave up trying to understand it.
So, I am genuinely curious to hear what makes it well written according to other people.
Do you mean to say that from a literary perspective, the essay has strengths? Like the use of vivid metaphors, style, clever grammatical sentence structures, distinct voice, etc? Because these I can agree with, but these do not make a well written essay in my opinion.
At least in my mind, well written means that the message comes across. Meaning that clarity and readability are factors that weigh heavily into a well written essay. Here it very much falls short, again in my opinion.
Sentence length is high, the vocabulary swings between conversational and academic and has trouble following through with what is being said. It feels like it meanders, circles ideas without directly stating them. Basically it lacks a clear organizational structure. By which I don't mean the typical bullet point madness that people seem to overly rely on to make clear points these days. What I mean is that simple things like signposting (basically drawing conclusions at appropriate places) are lacking.
Given that multiple people have actually stated they like the writing, I am almost wondering if this is a different form of “technical” where reading long form texts in this same format is a learned skill. Because it reminds me of the sort of writing I see in certain academic circles. Which causes a lot of the same reading "fatigue" I experienced with this specific article.
The writing per se flows well, where most writing does not. I did find several places farther in where the author's comma-phobia cost me a few milliseconds, and a couple passages that would probably need to be heavily re-arranged for basic clarity to be achieved.
I had to get all the way to the end, though, to figure out that this is about a particular kind of "big tech" culture among a very few people in a very few places, which is why I spent most of the article failing to understand WTF it was about. It does not communicate well at all, and in fact, even knowing that now, it assumes familiarity with that kind of culture to such a degree that I'm still in the dark about most of the piece.
>and the modern corporation just happens to be a tech company.
I'd argue this is more aristocratic (or technocratic) social exclusion, which has gone on for far longer than compilers have existed.
There does seem to be a persistent coalescing of certain personalities to certain industries that loves to exclude people (before, finance; now, tech) using mercurial standards that really just boil down to "do I like you", "do you entertain me or kiss my ass", or even "will you bang me"
This is objectively wrong, going from the comments from the intended audience in this thread.
If half your intended audience had trouble understanding the author's goal or message, then it's a very poor essay. Barely a passing grade, if one were to grade it.
The whole point of an essay is to get your message across. If it can't do that, it's a failure.
This particular passage sticks out at me as the author not being able to examine their own bias:
> Walking across the street during a conference, a car pulled up intentionally fast and close to me and I hopped out of the way, scared. The men with me who did not jump roared with laughter, and this sparked a conversation (monologue) about innate personality differences (rather than, say, height differences). In that moment it was impossible for me to be a PhD who studies how we maintain beliefs about innate characteristics and generates empirical evidence around them and their impacts, even though I am. We are always constructing. In that street, my identity could not be made real against the identity that was offered out of the situation that aligned with a world they preferred, one in which some men could laugh at scared women.
Obviously I don't know these particular men, but from my experience "laugh at scared women" isn't what was happening in their minds. I think they would have laughed no matter the sex of the person who jumped, and if it was a man, he probably would have laughed at himself too - it was more like "laugh at reacting to a situation that didn't need that reaction". When stuff like this happens, men tend to use laughter as a bonding and tension-relief valve, not as ridicule.
The essay is beautifully written, but its argument doesn't land for me.
The understands "being Technical" as something to be granted for its own sake. But wanting to be Technical without any real problem to solve is hollow. Technical isn’t an identity you earn through argument, it’s something you become in the process of doing the work.
It's funny, I have almost exactly the opposite take. I find what she's saying is important, or at least a valuable personal story, but the faux-academic style makes the essay hard to follow. Some paragraphs are barely intelligible.
The various personal anecdotes are so lacking in detail that I read some of them three times and still wasn't sure exactly what had happened. They accomplish the opposite of grounding and illustrating the more abstract points: they make it more confusing.
I wouldn't really call this academic style, at least none of the research I read uses this sort of tone, let alone personal language (completely fine in an essay of course).
My main issue is how circuitous and rant-y it comes off as. Honestly the rhetoric style of argumentation and no qualifiers or even attempts to define terms makes it a really hard read.
Maybe in her own mind she doesn't want to take it even though it is earned. That is a common problem, and as a psychologist she should well be aware of that. (I believe that the problem is more common amount women - but I'm not the psychologist she is, and so it would be wrong for me to tell her truths in her field)
I don't recognise her requirements for "being Technical". I think she feels like an outsider because she doesn’t meet her own arbitrary standard for what "being Technical" means.
This essay is dripping with self pity. I do not care that you're a woman, I do not care that you have a PhD, I do not care that you used to be a barista. You can be technical if you apply that label to yourself. You cannot force others to apply that label to you, so why define yourself by their perception?
For what it's worth (very little), there are many of us for which the technical label means strictly "expertise in X domain".
> jungle of rituals and group identities and normative behaviors and seemingly abundant but actually restrictive sociotechnological covenants
As my tenure in the industry extends into a third decade, I find most real problems we face (in organizations) are not technical, but people-based. 99.99% of technical problems are solvable, especially for people whom OP labels as "Technical". You may think they are not, but they are -- because they can be reduced to time and resources, reliably. The 0.01% where you're inventing something new, blazing a path, that's different. But most of us are not doing that.
The real challenges arise from the tribalism of groups, from emotional immaturity of individuals, lack of self-knowledge, and from the dictatorship-like power structure of most organizations. The inefficiencies and roadblocks posed by these aspects dwarf by orders of magnitude any and all technical challenges we ever come across.
Readit News
This is clearly falsifiable, so I'm not sure what the idea is behind dragging this essay out for miles. The author doesn't feel like they're a technical person, fair enough, you do you and your labels. However there are plenty of people out there who tick all of those boxes despite you saying it can't be done. I know many people like this and they're often the best of both worlds, they bring a balanced and well rounded world view to bat.
The reality of being a woman in tech comes with serious problems, and how we're treated is one of the biggest contributors to those problems.
Business class skills are generally considered a tier above... all of society.
Dead Comment
And it is demonstrably true. Go to any (technical) conference and see how even the most technical people are denigrated or dismissed if they don't fit into the preconceived notions of the audience.
Or, to simplify, https://xkcd.com/385/
I wish I had an excuse not to be technical. But I will not complain about not having it. Neither I will fake being what I am not so I can get that sweet free out of jail card.
I am a dumb tech boy who is fragile and broken. And I am not upset about it. I will kindly help you without putting you in a pedestal.
Your move to be human.
It’s reading a long essay by a girl who wasn’t invited to a classmate’s birthday party.
Just make your own community, and call it whatever you want.
No it isn't.
(Elaborate? You first.)
Deleted Comment
I don't think there are any actual take-aways beyond an appreciation of rather well done nontechnical perspective take on what the technical world looks like. Although that is rare enough around here to make it quite interesting.
But, I don't know if the core thesis has anything to do with the matter of being technical. Dehumanization has always been a side-effect of corporatism, and the modern corporation just happens to be a tech company.
For what it's worth I'm a liberal arts major that's coded professionally and is considered technical by my peers. The humanity of it all is never too far from my mind, and I've worked with many people like me. I suspect your mileage will vary based on where you work and who's around you.
Is this an attempt to justify being non-technical? Because you don't have to.
Can I ask you to expand on this? I am curious as I had trouble making my way through it. I am also seeing people stating they gave up trying to understand it.
So, I am genuinely curious to hear what makes it well written according to other people.
Do you mean to say that from a literary perspective, the essay has strengths? Like the use of vivid metaphors, style, clever grammatical sentence structures, distinct voice, etc? Because these I can agree with, but these do not make a well written essay in my opinion.
At least in my mind, well written means that the message comes across. Meaning that clarity and readability are factors that weigh heavily into a well written essay. Here it very much falls short, again in my opinion.
Sentence length is high, the vocabulary swings between conversational and academic and has trouble following through with what is being said. It feels like it meanders, circles ideas without directly stating them. Basically it lacks a clear organizational structure. By which I don't mean the typical bullet point madness that people seem to overly rely on to make clear points these days. What I mean is that simple things like signposting (basically drawing conclusions at appropriate places) are lacking.
Given that multiple people have actually stated they like the writing, I am almost wondering if this is a different form of “technical” where reading long form texts in this same format is a learned skill. Because it reminds me of the sort of writing I see in certain academic circles. Which causes a lot of the same reading "fatigue" I experienced with this specific article.
I had to get all the way to the end, though, to figure out that this is about a particular kind of "big tech" culture among a very few people in a very few places, which is why I spent most of the article failing to understand WTF it was about. It does not communicate well at all, and in fact, even knowing that now, it assumes familiarity with that kind of culture to such a degree that I'm still in the dark about most of the piece.
I'd argue this is more aristocratic (or technocratic) social exclusion, which has gone on for far longer than compilers have existed.
There does seem to be a persistent coalescing of certain personalities to certain industries that loves to exclude people (before, finance; now, tech) using mercurial standards that really just boil down to "do I like you", "do you entertain me or kiss my ass", or even "will you bang me"
This is objectively wrong, going from the comments from the intended audience in this thread.
If half your intended audience had trouble understanding the author's goal or message, then it's a very poor essay. Barely a passing grade, if one were to grade it.
The whole point of an essay is to get your message across. If it can't do that, it's a failure.
> Walking across the street during a conference, a car pulled up intentionally fast and close to me and I hopped out of the way, scared. The men with me who did not jump roared with laughter, and this sparked a conversation (monologue) about innate personality differences (rather than, say, height differences). In that moment it was impossible for me to be a PhD who studies how we maintain beliefs about innate characteristics and generates empirical evidence around them and their impacts, even though I am. We are always constructing. In that street, my identity could not be made real against the identity that was offered out of the situation that aligned with a world they preferred, one in which some men could laugh at scared women.
Obviously I don't know these particular men, but from my experience "laugh at scared women" isn't what was happening in their minds. I think they would have laughed no matter the sex of the person who jumped, and if it was a man, he probably would have laughed at himself too - it was more like "laugh at reacting to a situation that didn't need that reaction". When stuff like this happens, men tend to use laughter as a bonding and tension-relief valve, not as ridicule.
The understands "being Technical" as something to be granted for its own sake. But wanting to be Technical without any real problem to solve is hollow. Technical isn’t an identity you earn through argument, it’s something you become in the process of doing the work.
My main issue is how circuitous and rant-y it comes off as. Honestly the rhetoric style of argumentation and no qualifiers or even attempts to define terms makes it a really hard read.
Her argument is that she's done quite a lot of such work and is still not guaranteed to be afforded the rank of Technical.
For what it's worth (very little), there are many of us for which the technical label means strictly "expertise in X domain".
As my tenure in the industry extends into a third decade, I find most real problems we face (in organizations) are not technical, but people-based. 99.99% of technical problems are solvable, especially for people whom OP labels as "Technical". You may think they are not, but they are -- because they can be reduced to time and resources, reliably. The 0.01% where you're inventing something new, blazing a path, that's different. But most of us are not doing that.
The real challenges arise from the tribalism of groups, from emotional immaturity of individuals, lack of self-knowledge, and from the dictatorship-like power structure of most organizations. The inefficiencies and roadblocks posed by these aspects dwarf by orders of magnitude any and all technical challenges we ever come across.