Except that SpaceX is massively profitable and offering the lowest launch prices compared to anyone by a large margin - so ... why wouldn't people continue to invest?

Especially if you hate that sort of thing. Your scare quotes around "networking show that. You do you homie. You see, I'm not saying that if you don't want to network, want to live in Eagle Pass Texas, or maybe a compound in Idaho, that's okay by me. Social skills and networking are not considered a deal breaker for many of us. I enjoy it.

I take it that you refuse to work anywhere unless it is 100 percent remote? There are a hella lot of jobs and careers that can't do remote only. Like mine. We tried, and it was a disaster because decisions must be mandated and implemented quickly. So I only do wrought half and half.

I retired at 55 making 6 figures - through smart planning, I make the same in retirement. I ended up getting a new job, a second career ten years ago. Why not? Pays well - exceptional perks, respect, and it isn't full time, so I can still take a lot of vacations, almost like free - My toys and hobbies are not cheap.

And this might sound like Heresy - I care about the people I work with. I enjoy seeing and interacting with them. I do not find work unpleasant. A lot of people utterly hate working, as if they want to spend a third of their life doing something else.

That is kinda sad, but a lot of people in here are like that.

Look at that privilege. If you are in leadership, you need social skills, and not your drinking and trying to make people like you.

Are their places where a person can be an utter prick, and treat co-workers and management like trash, making his statement that social skills are unneeded? No doubt - there are edge cases.

At my work, top notch technical skills are mandatory. So is the ability to get along with other and often stressed people. The people who washed out before me only had one or the other, and that doesn't work.

You do you, homie.

Your constructed worldview is a case, not a universal application.

But for someone who promotes them selves as knowing social skills are not needed, you are wrong. You would be the guy I tell to be quiet while the lady speaks, and If you can't do that, You'll be escorted out of the building by police.

And that's the thing. People with social skills and position often have a certain amount of power. What their skills teach them is to only use it at risk. Your idea that we are all sitting around sipping merlot, and trying to make other people like us is horribly specious. I'm not there to make friends, but to do a job. And the irony of all that is my social skills do make friends.

Your narrative would cause you to be terminated. Is it a dichotomy that I am friendly, sociable, and outgoing, but my peeps need to do as I say? Or that I wield power, but would hate to use it because I consider them my crew, and like most all of them? Granted, most anyone I would need to deal with is not part of my crew, but since I take responsibility - I have their backs.

That does sound like an individual case. I have no choice but to be onsite. My duties are time immediate. We even tried WFH full time once. That was a disaster, and a lesson learned. Think of it like launching a rocket, but every time something went really wrong, you had to call the flight director at home. tell him the problem, and he has to troubleshoot it from there. Meanwhile, the rocket performs an unplanned rapid disassembly.

Because it is not a digital situation. I have top notch technical skills in my area, and top notch social skills. And if your thesis is that only social skills are needed, you aren't paying attention, and yes, I'd notice your poor attitude in an interview.

How to use social skills in a job interview? Fluffernutter, I've been using my skills to analyze every post you make. The conclusions are illuminating.

1. You define social skills as people at parties, schmoozing each other in an attempt to get others to like them. That is about the smallest part of social skills, and hardly what I'm talking about

2. You have a distorted view of human interactions, expressed as your repetitions of social skills as irrelevant.

3. You do not realize that you are being read. If I determined you had top .1 percent skills, I might hire you with the proviso that you only work remote.

4. It is a tad difficult to do a total read on a person from slashdot posts, but if you are posting your actual persona, you aren't worth the trouble you will probably cause. There are. enough adroit people out there who know how to get along with others that I'd let you go to spread your joy elsewhere.

Schizoids. Here's my take on that. I don't consider it a personality disorder. As long as you do not see your outlook as an issue, if it causes you no angst, then it is you being you. The conditions that may have impacted you cannot be changed. I've had similar experiences as a youth, that might have turned me Schizoid, but only turned me into a pattern weaver.

I've worked with a couple schizoids. We got along pretty well. Maybe understanding on my part, maybe because I was interested in getting the job done.

I think it is an inappropriate term however. More like hyper independence adaptation.

So you would hire a brilliant person who was a disruptive person, and call it a win.

Yes, having done the work is a help, early on, I noted that some leaders had employees who would run through a wall for them. When working OT, the leader was there with them. In my case, since I had experience in what we were doing, I'd shed the suit put on the blue jeans handiwork with them. That is actually social skills, and communicated a lot to them.

Yup.

I'll note that in some cases, I had to encourage the shy ones to speak up. This usually involved women, who might be intimidated by the loudmouths. It might be something like "Carol, you look like you had something to comment on, let's hear it" or "Bob, let Carol finish her idea". Which by the way, the ability to read people's faces is a valuable social skill. I'm better than most, but decent skills can be learned.

It's not gender specific, just a dynamic I've noticed over the years. Often the shy one can be coaxed positively.

Your idea of social skills is very shallow. You appear to think it is schmoozing, drinking at a party with people from the marketing department and little else.

Social skills can include that, but your idea is some sort of pop culture thing.

Social skills are the ability to get along with others, to be able to read them and interact in a manner that is not belligerent or rude. It encompasses a whole range of things, even to the point of hygiene and appropriate dress.

Sometimes "puzzle solving" goes beyond technical communications. Sometimes you have to coax the fix out of a person, sometimes you have to encourage the person, sometimes you have to work those people problems when some folks have a personality conflict, and sometimes you have to tap down a person with ego issues. Your concept of social skills is something you see on Television, not real life.

Point is, I do go to parties, I do chat with other people, and one thing I have learned is that other people are a lot more agreeable when you show them you value them as humans.

Yes, Teamwork first. There are many different personalities. Some team members can be loud, perhaps impetuous. As long as they can tamp it down, and work with others, all good. Some might be a little shy, and need a little coaxing. Then there are people like me. I will sit quietly, absorbing everything, working multiple scenarios, then make a pronouncement. Sometimes that takes a bit of getting used to, especially by the loud ones, who are often ego driven.

Most have been warned that I am a pattern weaver. None have been warned I work hard to make certain the shy ones get their say while sometimes applying brakes on the loud ones. I suppose that might be a form of positive manipulation?

In irony perhaps, many women who are a little shy about expressing their opinions/thoughts/ideas around the loud people appear to love working with me as I cut off the loud ones. Their contribution is just as important.

And that is social skills in full action. Everyone gets a say, Everyone is on the team. Everyone has the same goal, unless their goal is feeding their egos. I sometimes have to say, we need to leave the egos outside the room.

A person can have excellent communication skills, yet no social skills. That is what is known as a bully.

I find these threads very interesting on a psychological level. The concept that social skills are irrelevant that technical chops are the only thing that matters - and let's face it, Fluffernutter and my stalkers are saying as much - that is woefully ignorant, or perhaps just losers spreading their hate and inability to get along with people while thinking it is somehow a flex.

You are absolutely correct about the people problems. I have been in a position of leadership for a large portion of my life. Technical problems can usually be worked out. Personality conflicts are much harder, sometimes requiring separating the conflicted, and unfortunately, sometimes requiring letting a person go. They might be technically astute, but if they cause problems, you have to weigh worth against conflict propensity

That is why I am not against WFH at all for such people. If a person is an asshat, but adroit, having them at home and not inflicting themselves on others is a viable solution. It does not mean they "won", as they are losing a lot of other things in pursuit of their asshattery.

What an ignorant comment. There is work that requires social skills, and your worldview is so limited that you think that skills have nothing to do with it.

There are people who might be able to do the best possible work, yet have no social skills. Those people need to work from home because they are unpleasant to work around, indeed cause problems. I think you might be one of those - it is not a flex, no matter what you might think.

No matter the stalkers modding down my posts to -1 - ironically, proving my point