Live data from Hacker News

Short fat engineers are undervalued

nested.substack.com

181–190 of 269 posts

Re: Short fat engineers are undervalued

#181
post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

one could devil's advocate speculate the other way as well; e.g. If IQ declines with age, and exercise is a way to slow the decline[1], fatness could reflect lack of exercise and lifestyle which doesn't prioritise exercise, so would you expect to see lower value for fatter engineers in a pure meritocracy? If lower IQ correlates with obesity (" a 10‐point decrease in IQ was associated with a 1.10‐fold increase in the…

Maybe revisit that comment in your mid 40s or 50s. Up until around age 35 or so, I was generally very lean and did not get noticably fat regardless of my lifestyle. I know I haven't gotten any stupider. Hormonal changes are the most likely difference for me.

What difference does it make whether I am in the described groups or not? You can argue that IQ doesn't exist, or shouldn't affect engineer value, or that the correlations don't exist, but telling the author "you won't like it when it happens to you, so agree it doesn't exist" is weird.

> "Up until around age 35 or so, I was generally very lean and did not get noticably fat regardless of my lifestyle."

It's tempting to read this as saying "I didn't choose it to happen, so I'm excused from any negative effects", although that would be taking a negative view on it. But if not that, what else is this sentence here for? Maybe you're saying that there's more to fat than lifestyle - then skim read "Ten Putative Contributors to the Obesity Epidemic"[1] (PDF or online PDF) where they discuss things like viral infections, environmental triggers, socieo-economic contributers, and other things which aren't diet or exercise related. Does any of that change whether obesity does or doesn't correlate with IQ? Or maybe you're saying you got fat despite exercising - which only says exercise didn't save you, it doesn't need to change whether IQ and obesity are correlated or not. Plus exercise was suggested as a counter to age related decline, not as a counter to fat, only as a thing people might think when seeing fat.

> "I know I haven't gotten any stupider."

Who ever thinks they have? Would you honestly know? You ought to have lost some abilities just going from age 35 to 55 alone. See[2]: "Age and individual productivity: a literature survey" - "The ability levels of employed white men and women up to the age of 65, using data from the General Aptitude Test Battery collected in the U.S. from 1970-1984, is shown in Figure 2. These findings suggest a relatively sharp decline in most abilities, after maximum values are reached in the 20s and early 30s (Avolio and Waldman 1994). The decline of mental abilities from early adulthood is a universal phenomenon. The age-induced changes in cognitive abilities are similar across countries and within population subgroups, such as between men and women (Park et al. 1999, Maitland et al. 2000). Further individuals with high and low ability levels are subject to the same age-induced changes in cognitive functioning (Deary et al. 2000). Even among non-human species, ranging from fruit flies to primates, age-reductions in memory and learning capabilities have been observed (Minois and Bourg 1997, Bunk 2000)."

[1] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/40447388_Ten_Putati...

[2] https://www.demogr.mpg.de/papers/working/wp-2003-028.pdf

Re: Short fat engineers are undervalued

#183
post #180

In my career, I have met exactly one short fat engineer with >5yrs of exp that I was impressed by. That person is now a Product Manager at a FAANG company (albeit PM-ing highly technical stuff). I bring this up because I think there is a very good analogy to the point that the author is making and the distinction between PM and Engineers. Broadly put, PM's are good at figuring out the theta, and Engineers are good at…

>PM's are good at figuring out the theta, and Engineers are good at the r. I'm only familar with the options definition of theta and the reproductive strategy of r. Could you expand? Something like, PM's are good at long term (e.g. our product needs this feature, then this feature) and Engineers are good at fine detail (e.g. the feature should work like this)?

Theta is the angle, r is the radius.

Thus PMs are good at figuring out in what direction to concentrate their effort, and then the engineers make progress in that direction. That's how I interpreted it at least.

Re: Short fat engineers are undervalued

#184
post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a generalist, I agree with bulk of what you're saying but at least my personal experience seems to echo the fact that generalists in general are undervalued since when someone asks a person "what can you do for me", a specialist always has a better and sharper answer than a generalist - and that makes all the difference. Personally I'll take a generalist any day since specialists suffer from the "if you only have…

Sounds like the 'T' shaped skill set.

Sorry, not sure what you mean by ‘T’ shaped skill set. Could you elaborate..

Re: Short fat engineers are undervalued

#185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I too have a broken comb profile. Every now an then I get to have some fun and add or extend a few teeth. But for the most part the skills let me work through most tangles pretty well.

Its interesting that a history of doing hard things is less important than it once was at interview time. You still have to prove that you can do hard things.

The problem is, while I love my story of figuring out xmlhttprequest (before it was called ajax) in IE5 so I could rebuild our refresher frame to not refresh anymore because Windows had unexpectedly introduced a clicking sound for every page navigation and our application was now clicking every second driving our customers crazy, that situation will never come up again.

Every day, the specifics of tech experience matter less, and they reduce to "merely" signals of creativity, tenacity, etc.

Re: Short fat engineers are undervalued

#186
post #180

In my career, I have met exactly one short fat engineer with >5yrs of exp that I was impressed by. That person is now a Product Manager at a FAANG company (albeit PM-ing highly technical stuff). I bring this up because I think there is a very good analogy to the point that the author is making and the distinction between PM and Engineers. Broadly put, PM's are good at figuring out the theta, and Engineers are good at…

>PM's are good at figuring out the theta, and Engineers are good at the r. I'm only familar with the options definition of theta and the reproductive strategy of r. Could you expand? Something like, PM's are good at long term (e.g. our product needs this feature, then this feature) and Engineers are good at fine detail (e.g. the feature should work like this)?

[deleted]

Re: Short fat engineers are undervalued

#187
post #126
post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Diversity. I've had a conversation with a few bosses where at some point I stopped to say words to the effect of, "It's like you think I expect everyone a the project to be like me. I don't." A project with just me would have problems too. But every project needs at least a couple of people who think like me, which we aren't accomplishing. This whole expert thing isn't tenable on a long term project. The expert will…

The ideal is an expert who sets up the project, builds the guard rails, creates the patterns and basically sets up a framework for everyone to use. Then they teach everyone how to use it and why And from then it’s a mentoring role. The expert spends more time PR-ing and adding to the framework than building end product features. They build stuff that touches every feature. Force multiplier is the game.

I’ve seen this crash and burn too often. If you have someone build something, and then explain it, you don’t find out until after if they are capable of explaining it. Just like a product MVP, you have to explain it as you go along.

Without it, you start out with a multiplier but end with a divisor.

Re: Short fat engineers are undervalued

#188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems pretty clear that the model is relative to "total surface area". What you call a "tall and fat" square may be "short and skinny" relative to someone else's bar, but now we're just talking about total level of skill, which isn't really relevant.

I am saying you can be highly skilled in multiple technologies. Do you disagree with that?

I'm saying that highly-skilled is a relative term.

Re: Short fat engineers are undervalued

#189
post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds like the 'T' shaped skill set.

Sorry, not sure what you mean by ‘T’ shaped skill set. Could you elaborate..

It is used to describe a skillset which has a little experience in a wide number of areas (the top of the T) and deep experience in a single area (the stick of the T).

Re: Short fat engineers are undervalued

#190
post #3

The article itself isn't about this but one could theorize that the headline taken literally is also likely true.

Here’s a hot take on that front: “ The well-known association between height and earnings is often thought to reflect factors such as self esteem, social dominance, and discrimination. We offer a simpler explanation: height is positively associated with cognitive ability, which is rewarded in the labor market.” https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2709415/

Now let's make the same argument but with race or gender. :/
Post reply on HN