Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd argue that it forces you to think clearly about problems. You cannot write a program unless you understand exactly what you want it to do. In contrast typical CEO excels at creating tons of meaningless fluff. Perhaps mathematics or philosophy may have similar effects on people's ways of thinking?
This is not a reply to you personally well not just but to everyone else... A) I think you greatly underestimate what other engineering disciplines bestow not to mention require B) Really? Have you seen modern software development practices? barely functioning MVPs, vertical slices, pivoting and hacks galore.... Like personally I would wager that most programmers do not understand exactly what they are building when…
What makes you think I underestimate those other disciplines? I do not. The other disciplines tend to focus on tangible rather than on abstraction. Programming (if you want to actually be good at it) requires you to tackle abstractions all day long. My theory is that that ability translates (in some people!) to being better CEO.
> B) Really? Have you seen modern software development practices? barely functioning MVPs, vertical slices, pivoting and hacks galore....
You are mixing stuff here. I can guarantee you that if you know what you want to build and have the clarity to make the right choices, the hacky project will turn out better than if you don't. Specific development practices (e.g. hacks vs. no hacks) has no relation to personal ability to formulate clear problem statement.