No one is "non-technical" (2022)

Mincing words. The term is necessary when you have to discuss whether someone has the requisite knowledge to do-the-thing. If someone has a heart attack in a theatre you ask if there are any doctors in the audience. If the whole flight crew dies from food poisoning you ask if any of the passengers are pilots. They're not trying to hurt your feelings, they're just asking if you can build the feature, debug the system, or handle the deploy.

I'm personally increasingly less interested in language-focused critiques when it comes to systemic issues. The article makes interesting points, but I think the effort it's trying to make is kind of on a euphemism treadmill. The article even says it - the issue is not with the terminology itself, but with the valuation of certain skillsets over certain other ones under our current economic system. It's also a bit pedantic - in this context it doesn't really make sense to use the dictionary to cite the "hierarchy" of what a word means. The word is being used in a specific context, and so it makes more sense to talk about it there.

I'd think I'd be more sympathetic if there were an alternative advocated for that wasn't just "don't refer to this concept". The concept itself isn't problematic - non "computery" people think about computers differently, and it is useful to discuss non-computer-expert users.

Even just thinking about other terminology - we use BIPOC for "non-white" because umbrella terms are useful. It's not that we shouldn't have a term, it's that maybe there's a better one.

> [Being “non-technical” is a] bucket that includes knowledge of financial systems, laws, business models, operations, ethics, research tactics, user behavior, cultural patterns, learning development, communication practices, organizational psychology, and so much more

When someone has unique and actionable skills and training at any of the above, employers typically assign them a fitting and specific job title, often in a dedicated role indicating that expertise and which pays accordingly — perhaps accountant, lawyer, researcher, operations specialist, and so on.

Most of the time, if you’re role is being a “non-technical” manager you are presumed by your employer as lacking and generally not being required to possess any such specific expertise, and thus, lower pay for lower expectations.

Unfortunately for the author, the typical assessment being harsh doesn’t make the typical assessment incorrect.

The title of the article is wrong, and the author describes the distinction perfectly (so weird they chose that title)

You can pick whatever words you want to describe the distinction, but it will remain. We need way to discuss products and whether or not the end user can work at the command line or need a user interface. If you're offended that you can't work at the command line (or think that makes you less valuable--I don't) then learn to work at the command line.

I was once asked in an interview if I was comfortable in 'text-only land'. How offensive!

Thank goodness!

In my experience non-technical roles need to invent names and processes to claim to be more technical.

If no one is non-technical, that can finally stop.

You should talk to my parents.

"I think this is about more than being precise, though, and more than a courtesy to those folks unfairly maligned as “nons.” Code is great and important and obviously critical to bringing many a product to life. But too many of our digital products suffer from a lack of input from other fields and perspectives—especially when it comes to a nuanced understanding of how products interact with systems of oppression and power. "

I appreciate the sentiment, but some of the non-technical managers who are more interested in making a buck than their fellow humans also need to get that nuanced understanding before asking for scummy products.

Good article, but fundamentally flawed. "Technical" versus "non-technical" is simply a soft assessment of intelligence, and we treat people accordingly. If I say the PM is non-technical, I'm saying she can't grok mid-level technical concepts, and explaining is pointless.

I'm being a little harsh here, but we all do this.