Does being smart matter?

[maroon]

I work in software engineering. I have the misfortune, in my current job, to have worked in a department mostly staffed by people who were not smart enough and who were managed by people who were not smart enough. Believe me, this sucks. Software development is an abstract intellectual activity; it requires thought, design, analysis and the ability to visualise complex patterns. Dumb fucks (forgive me, but I've had months of battling these chimps) who think they can throw things together because they can manage a spreadsheet or did a bit of javascript work for some websites once, they just create chaos when let loose on complex tasks. These people can't reflect on what they do, they can't abstract the general principle from the specific example, they can't understand that taking some time at the start to think through a proper design will save days or weeks of wasted work in the future, they lack the judgement to tell good code from bad code. And because senior management don't pay enough attention (and lack experience), there's no proper authority to appeal to, so those of us who do have these skills waste much time on endless arguments with the incompetent.

After months of struggle to see standards respected and enforced, I've finally managed to tip the balance in favour of quality. Just by recruiting one smart guy into a team of five, I nearly doubled its skill level and productivity. Not soon enough to save the company, unfortunately; it's going to go under because people who weren't smart wasted much time doing stupid things.

In my job, being smart matters.

I work with programming/software engineering too.
Why deal with the crap? If you are in fact a solid software engineer; getting a job somewhere else won't be an issue if you can put what you have to offer on the table in an interview. Working in a profession such as ours can not possibly fun if the colleagues are incompetent; so why deal with that? Sounds like endless frustration, and you have my sympathy.

Personally the one thing I find more annoying than dumb people are people that are unable to communicate or deal with any social situations or teamwork. It's almost as bad, but actually less critical on the deliverables overall I'd say. The best is a solid combination of both in my opinion.

Good luck anyway, I hope it picks up or you sort yourself out with a new place

Edit: I'm absolutely no genius but I've programmed for about 10 years now and have a Comp. Sci. degree. You don't need extreme intelligence to be good at our job in my opinion. Just some experience, a respect for standards and a continuous drive for improvement. Being able to see patterns and reflect on different solutions given a problem are minimum requirements. Would people without these traits ever get into software dev. in the first place? If so, why? Maybe I'm just young and got lucky with my first job...

[itsbruce]

Being able to see patterns and reflect on different solutions given a problem are minimum requirements. Would people without these traits ever get into software dev. in the first place? If so, why?

The ability to judge competence is a feature of competence. The incompetent are typically not aware of their limitations, which is one reason why they do not learn or improve. That's why such people go into software engineering. As to why they are allowed in, well,

• IT is an ever-expanding field and the requirement for skilled people is much higher than the supply.
• Most people who are not software engineers do not realise the level of complexity and skill required. They do not respect the profession and think anybody can do it. When that is true of senior managers, they often appoint idiots and not just because they lack judgement; skilled software engineers often make them feel inadequate or tell them they can't have what they want.
• Following on from the above point, incompetent people in management or team leadership positions tend to promote and nurture other incompetent people under them. Competent people threaten their sense of self worth, whereas incompetent underlings make them feel wise and paternal.
• Some of the organisations with the most rigorous approach to standards are also the most deathly dull, initiative-killing places to work (e.g. large consultancies like Capgemini or Accenture).
• Software Engineering is the last refuge of the cowboy. It's difficult for most other people to judge what we do and many in the industry, even highly skilled people, like it that way. Unfortunately, this contributes to the same appointment of idiots mentioned a couple of points back.

There are more reasons but those cover a lot of it.

I prefer to work in small to medium size organisations - web start-ups, research outfits etc. This gives much more scope for learning, initiative, breadth of experience and opportunity but also has a very high luck factor in terms of the quality of people you end up working with.

Maybe I'm just young and got lucky with my first job...

If you are working somewhere with a high skill quotient, savour it. You will not always have this luxury. I am not so young and have a divorce draining my savings, so I have to think carefully about my career progress and stability and don't have the freedom simply to walk. Also, like a lot of geeks, I often find myself stuck in a broken workplace trying to fix it, because broken systems offend me, long after the idiots who helped to break it have cheerfully left. Many poorly-run software outfits keep going only because of this character trait in some of their employees.

[maroon]

Being able to see patterns and reflect on different solutions given a problem are minimum requirements. Would people without these traits ever get into software dev. in the first place? If so, why?

The ability to judge competence is a feature of competence. The incompetent are typically not aware of their limitations, which is one reason why they do not learn or improve. That's why such people go into software engineering. As to why they are allowed in, well,

• IT is an ever-expanding field and the requirement for skilled people is much higher than the supply.
• Most people who are not software engineers do not realise the level of complexity and skill required. They do not respect the profession and think anybody can do it. When that is true of senior managers, they often appoint idiots and not just because they lack judgement; skilled software engineers often make them feel inadequate or tell them they can't have what they want.
• Following on from the above point, incompetent people in management or team leadership positions tend to promote and nurture other incompetent people under them. Competent people threaten their sense of self worth, whereas incompetent underlings make them feel wise and paternal.
• Some of the organisations with the most rigorous approach to standards are also the most deathly dull, initiative-killing places to work (e.g. large consultancies like Capgemini or Accenture).
• Software Engineering is the last refuge of the cowboy. It's difficult for most other people to judge what we do and many in the industry, even highly skilled people, like it that way. Unfortunately, this contributes to the same appointment of idiots mentioned a couple of points back.

There are more reasons but those cover a lot of it.

I prefer to work in small to medium size organisations - web start-ups, research outfits etc. This gives much more scope for learning, initiative, breadth of experience and opportunity but also has a very high luck factor in terms of the quality of people you end up working with.

Maybe I'm just young and got lucky with my first job...

If you are working somewhere with a high skill quotient, savour it. You will not always have this luxury. I am not so young and have a divorce draining my savings, so I have to think carefully about my career progress and stability and don't have the freedom simply to walk. Also, like a lot of geeks, I often find myself stuck in a broken workplace trying to fix it, because broken systems offend me, long after the idiots who helped to break it have cheerfully left. Many poorly-run software outfits keep going only because of this character trait in some of their employees.

What you say makes a lot of sense.
I have worked a bit with several hired Capgemini consultants. They were/are all very skilled at their job and a pleasure to cooperate with. I never asked them how they liked their job though but I do assume they operate within pretty limited terms as far as creativity goes. I have a feeling that their wages make up for this in terms of motivation though

I am not so young and have a divorce draining my savings, so I have to think carefully about my career progress and stability and don't have the freedom simply to walk. Also, like a lot of geeks, I often find myself stuck in a broken workplace trying to fix it, because broken systems offend me, long after the idiots who helped to break it have cheerfully left. Many poorly-run software outfits keep going only because of this character trait in some of their employees.

I completely understand given the circumstance. Sounds like you are doing the right thing in terms of stability and doing the job you were employed to do! Must be frustrating that the leadership is not being able to separate a solid design and implementation from a poor one though. Credit should be given where credit is due and problems should be dealt with head-on; not left for a few individuals to pick up the pieces.

About senior management hiring unqualified people in the first place... I think some of the key criteria for successful software development teams are the management either having past experience as a developers at a high level of competence OR have an overall solid understanding of the actual complexities involved and therefore coordinate certain decisions with other employees that possess the necessary understanding to keep things rational and not some crazy gamble.

By the sounds of it your employer is lucky you aren't a walker/quitter. Hopefully one day they will realize this. Unfortunately if they are not upto speed it would probably require your absence for them to notice.

[thefinalsql]

Being smart does matter for lifting. Easier not to injure yourself if you are smart enough to follow directions and act upon them. You are even smarter if you can read differing instructions to follow and determine which instructions are the proper ones.

I applied analytical skills, separating a whole into its parts for study and interpretation to the Strong Lifts program, and decided before even trying it that is the right program for me.