zlacker

>>moored+(OP)
> There's an ongoing debate over whether or not people skills are undervalued, and perhaps for many people they are, but it's hard to deny that there are many, many more ways for someone who doesn't like social interaction much to get rich. If ads and sales are on the same continuum, then the world's best salespeople are engineers, data scientists, and product managers.

This seems completely wrong to me. If you look at who is the top 0.1% it's either inherited wealth, a few professionals (lawyers, certain medical specialties, etc.) who own their own practices, or people who've managed large groups of people (i.e. business executives). The third group is overwhelmingly full of people with good social skills, and skilled professionals are almost always personable too.

>>jeffre+km
> If ads and sales are on the same continuum, then the world's best salespeople are engineers, data scientists, and product managers.

I stumbled over that sentence. I genuinely don’t understand what this means in context. Can someone explain the metaphor and/or the point that’s being made here?

>>codefl+291
I think he is saying that since digital advertising generates so much revenue the best sales and marketing professionals (by revenue generated) are the engineers, data scientists, and PMs who develop the ad-tech that enables those things. I don't agree with him, but I think that's his argument.

>>jeffre+tc1
I think this is almost a "not even wrong"* situation.

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong