These 3 statements are absolutes (ie. there is no "most" or "sometimes" or "might") as raised by the original Twitter thread. That is a fairly specific set of minimum requirements to have for a "10x engineer".
When absolutes were not used, strong generalisations were used instead:
While generalisations are just that (not covering every case), the specific phrasing indicates a "more often than not" to a "far more often than not" set of additional criteria for a "10x engineer".
With my summary, the "narrow and stereotypical view" covers the absolutes. The "super" (though also "stereotypical" again) covers the generalisations. At most, I'm probably over emphasising the absolute criteria in my summary.
Just because there is no generalization like "Most humans have hair on the head" people are interpreting a seemingly harmless statement as :
"In order for you to be called a human, you MUST have hair on the head"
Even if every absolute they gave was a generalization, they are listing strong generalisations for a "most often" case. This "most often" case happens to be a stereotype-ridden person.
It isn't that one statement was taken out of context, they did a series of tweets along the same lines and many people drew the same conclusions. Either their message is exactly like we are interpreting or their message has come across very poorly and needs a better explanation.
If you're adamant that they were just misinterpreted, write an article explaining where we've gone wrong and what the real intention of the "10x engineer" thread actually was.
Based on the Twitter thread, to be a "10x engineer" you have to:
These 3 statements are absolutes (ie. there is no "most" or "sometimes" or "might") as raised by the original Twitter thread. That is a fairly specific set of minimum requirements to have for a "10x engineer".
When absolutes were not used, strong generalisations were used instead:
While generalisations are just that (not covering every case), the specific phrasing indicates a "more often than not" to a "far more often than not" set of additional criteria for a "10x engineer".
With my summary, the "narrow and stereotypical view" covers the absolutes. The "super" (though also "stereotypical" again) covers the generalisations. At most, I'm probably over emphasising the absolute criteria in my summary.
Refer to my hair/bald analogy.
Just because there is no generalization like "Most humans have hair on the head" people are interpreting a seemingly harmless statement as :
"In order for you to be called a human, you MUST have hair on the head"
Even if every absolute they gave was a generalization, they are listing strong generalisations for a "most often" case. This "most often" case happens to be a stereotype-ridden person.
It isn't that one statement was taken out of context, they did a series of tweets along the same lines and many people drew the same conclusions. Either their message is exactly like we are interpreting or their message has come across very poorly and needs a better explanation.
If you're adamant that they were just misinterpreted, write an article explaining where we've gone wrong and what the real intention of the "10x engineer" thread actually was.
I think this discussion is going in the wrong direction.
My apologies.
No need to apologise - you were kind and respectful. Have a nice day! 🙂