I'm not so sure that these are required. I think they are more akin to "commonly found characteristics."

Especially the "scientific mindset" part. I have a disciplined mindset, but I suspect most scientists would take issue with me, calling it a "scientific" mindset.

In my experience, being a good problem-solver is more important than just about anything. Being able to "divide and conquer" a problem, sniff out root causes, and not settle for symptomatic fixes, etc. Stubborn might be more important than smart.

We also don't all have to be Mensa members. Many programmers are probably not much smarter than their peers in other disciplines.

But "love learning new things" is, while maybe not "required," at least quite helpful. It certainly applies to almost any vocation; not just software development.

But the real gist of her essay was that it helps if programmers are good with people, as much as with machines, because they connect better to the end-users of their work.

Whether or not being "good with people" is required is debatable, but I think that it is important for everyone to keep an eye on the final deliverable, and its operation in the context of the end-user.

In my experience, many organizations go well out of their way, to ensure that engineers never hear directly from the user. That's Marketing's job, and Thou Shalt Have No Other God Before Me... etc. I've watched Marketing people throw huge tantrums at engineers that "dare" to suggest that they might envision the way their work would be perceived by the end user.