I couldn't make it. I gave up after 2 paragraphs. The random meandering from one thought to another without saying what the point of all this is got to me. I'm sure it's not a problem in the post. It's definitely a "me problem". Would someone be kind enough to post TL;DR of some sorts?
I had the same issue. I think that their point boils down to what we consider "technical" as a label on people. Basically that "technical" is more of an identity rather than someone having a specific skillset. Something the author feels excluded from, even though they do work that's relevant and impactful.
I think so anyway. As I said, I had the same issue as you having difficulty getting through it. The article takes a long time to actually get to a point, circling around things rather than concretely building towards something.
If I had to guess it is more of a flow of thoughts and not really a classical argument.
It also makes it hard to draw any conclusions about it. Because I think I sort of get where they are coming from, but at the same time I am not sure if I entirely agree. In my line of work technical just means "being skilled with IT related technical skills" without a judgement about other skill sets. It is just there to distinguish between people who can dive into systems hands-on and those who have other skills and bring value in other ways.
It seems to be about the way "technical" and "non-technical" are thrown around with implicit assumptions in conversations in places like this as hard categories. You're either technical, or what are you doing here? Are you lost? The door is over there.
A key paragraph:
>> "This is because Technical is a structural designation that operates outside of any actual problem-solving you and I are doing together. Being Technical is about being legitimate. Or to put it more simply: it’s because you are Technical that I can’t be. We have created the identities this way. A person with a PhD in human things and who deals in human problems and human solutions cannot ever be Technical no matter how dense her statistics are, how many conferences she speaks at, and how comprehensively she has given examples of generating outcomes that are often beyond engineering to generate (change over time; impacts on humans; making legible even an imperfect approximation of just one single emotion). These things can be useful, interesting, valuable, heartrending, inspiring and memorable to tech, but they cannot be legitimate."
I'm still reading but it does seem to be about gatekeeping while avoiding any language that would set off a Technical person.
The author just want a medal saying they're Technical. Whatever this means, it is important to them. Like a child and a sheriff medal. "Technical" is the current cool club to be in and they want in. I guess technical is "techbros and their salary", not your average electrician and even less a Toyota Hilux with a 50 cal. in the back.
I've noticed that a lot in discussions like this. Some people seem to have the impression that if you get the credentials or achieve a certain level of work, someone comes along and bestows a title of respect on you (here, "Technical") or welcomes you officially into that club. They seem to think that's how it works for everyone else (or some other group), and complain because that hasn't happened to them.
But I don't think that's really how it works for anyone. I've been doing "technical" work for three decades and no one's declared me Technical or anything else. Some may consider me that and others may not; it's never occurred to me to ask. How I feel about whether I deserve to claim that title is up to me, and shouldn't really depend on others.
> The author just want a medal saying they're Technical. Whatever this means, it is important to them.
I don't think that's quite it.
> I guess technical is "techbros and their salary"
That is it, from what I can tell. "Technical" is "you get US coastal techbro power and money". Which, most "technical" (lower-case) people working in computing also don't get, even in the US.
This author wants sciency work in fields with more women in them than computing has, to be valued in terms of pay and prestige as capital-T "Technical", and defines "Technical" such that people deciding who gets that pay are somehow within it (rather than very much not within it, as would be the case for most of the category I think the median HN user would call lower-case t "technical", which is part of why so much of the essay is hard to follow until you've figured that out)
This is why the piece is so hard to follow: this isn't made clear until way down near the bottom.
I actually read your comment while still around the halfway mark of the piece, and assumed it was reductive and way off the mark, but I think you've located the actual heart of it, now that I've finished reading it.
> Would someone be kind enough to post TL;DR of some sorts
I found o3 to have done a decent job of it:
- Technical as structural identity: Being "Technical" is a power‑laden designation that shapes reality and enforces belonging, not a neutral skill measure.
- Dehumanization paradox: The system prizes flat emotions yet sustains itself by choosing emotions over efficacy, repeatedly devaluing human needs.
- Excluded expertise: Human‑centered work — psychology, caregiving, storytelling — is repeatedly labeled illegitimate despite its practical and moral value.
- Boundary policing: The "Technical" boundary is preserved by rejecting both outsiders and insiders who push its limits.
- Caring as resistance: Genuine care, narrative, and solidarity with those left outside offer a path to rehumanize tech beyond mere "Technicality."
- Collective rebuild: A hopeful call to action—tech builders possess the capacity to dismantle and reassemble systems to include humanity at their core.
In her essay "Why I Cannot Be Technical," Cat Hicks, a psychologist specializing in software environments, explores the structural and social dynamics that define the label "Technical" in the tech industry. She argues that despite her expertise in human-centered aspects of software development—such as behavior, culture, and organizational change—she is often excluded from being considered "Technical" because the term is narrowly defined to prioritize engineering and coding skills.
Hicks emphasizes that this exclusion is not due to a lack of capability but stems from systemic biases related to gender, class, race, and professional roles. She notes that the designation of "Technical" often serves as a gatekeeping mechanism, determining who is deemed legitimate within tech spaces. This legitimacy is frequently withheld from those whose work focuses on human factors, regardless of its complexity or impact.
There's a reason there's a saying "brevity is a sister of talent".
Whatever point you are trying to make surely could benefit if it actually reaches more than a few % of people who don't give up reading 10 pages of rambling when it should have been a paragraph in reality.
I rather believe she is not intending to "make a point" but instead express herself. One may prefer brief self-expression but certainly not all do. Put another way: the expression is the point.
It’s mostly a pleasant read, but even as someone who prefers the humanities and studied a lot more of that than most folks in computer jobs, I’ve made it about 40% in and couldn’t tell you what the author means by capital-T “Technical”.
Is this something that would be clear to me if I’d worked in FAANG or similar? Is it a cultural thing there? Something to do with a corner of social media I don’t engage with?
The closest I can come up with connected to my experience is the opposite: “tech” related labels used to exclude people and dismiss their ideas, in decision-making or business-social contexts, and design processes. I’ve not seen it used in this power(? I think? I really can’t figure this out)-conferring way.
[EDIT] The anecdotes are so confusing.
> An example of this is every time evidence of efficacy is not able to exert any power versus the votes of engineering disengagement. You could put your diligent little psychologist heart into it and make a good program or policy change and muster up extremely critical evidence for something no one else bothered to measure but you could not demand that all of the engineering managers do it, for instance. The engineering managers always had the power and always would.
This is a manager thing. Specifically, modern management culture. Management wants to appear "evidence based" and "scientific" but the appearing is the only part they consistently care about. The "technical" run into this same wall, when they mistakenly believe surface claims that management's serious about working with evidence and "metrics" and such, and try to sincerely help as if that's the actual goal—it isn't.
[EDIT 2]
> This is one of the paradoxes of software teams: rich people, rich teams, rich environments, described and experienced as utter wastelands by (statistically speaking) men who have (statistically speaking) socked away more than I’ve ever touched and more than generations of my family ever touched, and their entire ownership of not having enough.
OK, I think this is confirmation that the piece is about a slice of the tech industry I've not really engaged with, which may explain why I am nearly at the end of the piece and am still not sure what it's about.
[EDIT 3]
> Tech is immensely global in its activity and so fanatically geo-located in its employment that even the most senior and most unquestionably Technical people worry about moving away from 2-3 certain US cities.
OK, yes, this is about a tiny percentage of "tech". Under this article's usage, I'm not "Technical", and few or none of the programmers I personally know are. That helps, wish that'd been stated up front.
> Is this something that would be clear to me if I’d worked in FAANG or similar? Is it a cultural thing there? Something to do with a corner of social media I don’t engage with?
> The closest I can come up with connected to my experience is the opposite: “tech” related labels used to exclude people and dismiss their ideas, in decision-making or business-social contexts, and design processes. I’ve not seen it used in this power(? I think? I really can’t figure this out)-conferring way.
There's a recent-ish (5 or so years?) style change people have pushed to capitalize "Black" in news and articles [0], and I think this author is trying to do the same here. Whatever this distinction is, it's entirely possible it's in their own mind and nowhere else.
EDIT: made my comment more specifically about writing style