←back to thread

1457 points nromiun | 3 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
noen ◴[] No.45075068[source]
This article reminds me of my early days at Microsoft. I spent 8 years in the Developer Division (DevDiv).

Microsoft had three personas for software engineers that were eventually retired for a much more complex persona framework called people in context (the irony in relation to this article isn’t lost on me).

But those original personas still stick with me and have been incredibly valuable in my career to understand and work effectively with other engineers.

Mort - the pragmatic engineer who cares most about the business outcome. If a “pile of if statements” gets the job done quickly and meets the requirements - Mort became a pejorative term at Microsoft unfortunately. VB developers were often Morts, Access developers were often Morts.

Elvis - the rockstar engineer who cares most about doing something new and exciting. Being the first to use the latest framework or technology. Getting visibility and accolades for innovation. The code might be a little unstable - but move fast and break things right? Elvis also cares a lot about the perceived brilliance of their code - 4 layers of abstraction? That must take a genius to understand and Elvis understands it because they wrote it, now everyone will know they are a genius. For many engineers at Microsoft (especially early in career) the assumption was (and still is largely) that Elvis gets promoted because Elvis gets visibility and is always innovating.

Einstein - the engineer who cares about the algorithm. Einstein wants to write the most performant, the most elegant, the most technically correct code possible. Einstein cares more if they are writing “pythonic” code than if the output actually solves the business problem. Einstein will refactor 200 lines of code to add a single new conditional to keep the codebase consistent. Einsteins love love love functional languages.

None of these personas represent a real engineer - every engineer is a mix, and a human with complex motivations and perspectives - but I can usually pin one of these 3 as the primary within a few days of PRs and a single design review.

replies(20): >>45075408 #>>45075546 #>>45075605 #>>45075650 #>>45075660 #>>45075767 #>>45075790 #>>45075860 #>>45075867 #>>45075993 #>>45076014 #>>45076041 #>>45076341 #>>45076370 #>>45076392 #>>45077077 #>>45077131 #>>45077552 #>>45079976 #>>45081167 #
Disposal8433 ◴[] No.45075660[source]
> three personas for software engineers

The kind of psycho-bullshit that we should stay away from, and wouldn't happen if we respected each other. Coming from Microsoft is not surprising though.

replies(4): >>45075798 #>>45076319 #>>45076603 #>>45077207 #
mdaniel ◴[] No.45075798[source]
For my frame of reference, do you think the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator are psycho-bullshit, too? Because I had characterized personas as a very similar "of course it's a generalization" and OP even said themselves "every engineer is a mix" but if you're coming from stance that bucketing people is disrespectful, then your perspective on MBTI would help me digest your stance
replies(5): >>45075808 #>>45075870 #>>45076111 #>>45076127 #>>45076638 #
whatevertrevor ◴[] No.45076127[source]
MBTI is absolutely bullshit, it's like one level above horoscopes and astrology, but very similar type of BS. There's also the Gallup crap that many corps were doing to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of each employee so they could fit them into neat buckets such as "Leader" vs "Follower", as if these aren't skills people develop over time but actual personality traits.
replies(1): >>45076868 #
1. cm2012 ◴[] No.45076868{3}[source]
Its kind of a common thing to say Myers-Briggs typing is useless because its pseudo-science. I dont think this is supported by the data in the way people think.

For one, many studies of identical twins raised in separate households show they have the same personality type at a much higher rate than chance.

Two, there are incredibly strong correlations in the data. In different surveys of 100k+ people, the highest earning type has twice the salary of the lowest type. This is basically impossible by chance.

The letters (like ENTJ) correlate highly to the variables of Big 5, the personality system used by scientists. Its just that it's bucketed into 16 categories vs being 5 sliding scales.

Scientific studies are looking for variables that can be tracked over time reliably, so Big 5 is a better measure for that.

But for personal or organizational use, the category approach is a feature, not a bug. It is much more help as a mental toolkit than just getting a personality score on each of the 5 categories.

replies(1): >>45078836 #
2. BlarfMcFlarf ◴[] No.45078836[source]
You can pick any set of axis you feel like and get similar results. “Do you like X? Wow you are an X person!”. So yeah, technically better than horoscopes, more like a “warm” reading where you tell a person what they told you earlier. But it’s entirely unclear why these axis are the right ones over a million other possible ones, if these are particularly stable categories in time and context, or if the harm of encouraging people to box themselves or others into specific stereotypes has any possible benefit to outweigh the obvious harms of simplifying stereotypes.
replies(1): >>45079396 #
3. cm2012 ◴[] No.45079396[source]
It's good questions. Here's why this axis is the right one in my opinion:

1) As I mentioned, it has a lot of statistically significant correlations, including to all the variables of the Big 5. Example: Surveys show that % of the overall population that is each type (like INFJ) is very consistent across time and populations.

2) Beyond that, youre right, there are a lot of personality systems with pros and cons. But Myers-Briggs has by far the must supporting materials, tools, ease of use, and so on. I think its the quickest to make useful to the average person.

3) I've found it really helpful as a lens for self analysis in my own life.