Are there any IT Skills that require high intelligence

[northernladuk]

GJABS wrote

I'm looking into acquiring some new skills in IT. For the past 20 years I've been a SQL developer/DBA, but it occurs to me that I might not be using my intellect, what's left of it, to best effect.
Most of our skills as IT contractors have required effort to learn and get experience with, but I don't think they are particularly intellectually taxing, by which I think most people could choose to get skilled up in them if they put in the work.
What I want to know about is are there any IT skills that are too hard for most people to learn. i.e. that no matter how much study they put into them, that the average contractor is not going to be able to get up to speed with them because it requires a higher level of intelligence to understand than they are capable of.

I went to Cambridge University, so in theory should have this high intellect. But I have run at a much lower level in my career since then (25 years ago), for which I accept full responsibility (cause is fear, lack of confidence, bad work experiences, and yes lack of motivation).

Now this is not to say that it would be a good idea for me to try to move into such an area right now, for several reasons. For example I too might yet not be intelligent enough to learn the skill.
I might not be able to get a contract in the area once I have learned the skill (because I won't have real-world work experience in it).
I certainly have under 18 year maximum working life in me before I am 70 (unless I stay on like Rupert Murdoch and others like him), and market supply vs demand might cause the rates in the skill to be low. While there are few people who can do it, there might be correspondingly fewer roles available, and those who do it might be very committed to that cause, leading to a lot harder competition compared to more "pedestrian" roles that others can do (research science is a example of this).

If this thread gets moved into General then I'll give up on getting any serious answers lol

[northernladuk]

While intelligence can be helpful in many IT roles, it's important to note that there isn't a single measure of intelligence, and success in IT is influenced by a combination of factors, including technical skills, problem-solving abilities, creativity, communication skills, and domain knowledge. That said, there are some IT skills and roles that may benefit from higher levels of cognitive ability or intelligence:

1. Data Science and Machine Learning: These fields require a deep understanding of mathematics, statistics, and programming. High intelligence can help in developing complex algorithms and models.
2. Cybersecurity: Cybersecurity professionals need to anticipate and respond to ever-evolving threats. High intelligence can be an advantage in understanding and countering sophisticated attacks.
3. Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Natural Language Processing (NLP): Developing advanced AI and NLP systems often involves complex algorithms and mathematical models. Intelligence is an asset when designing and training these systems.
4. Quantum Computing: Quantum computing is an emerging field with highly complex concepts. A strong foundation in quantum physics and advanced mathematics can be beneficial.
5. System Architecture and Design: Architects need to design scalable and efficient systems. Intelligence can help in making sound architectural decisions.
6. Research and Development: In IT research, particularly in academia or specialized industries, high intelligence can be advantageous for pushing the boundaries of what's possible.
7. Ethical Hacking and Penetration Testing: Ethical hackers need to think like cybercriminals to find vulnerabilities. Intelligence can help in identifying potential attack vectors and devising innovative testing methodologies.
8. Big Data Analysis: Handling massive datasets and extracting meaningful insights can be intellectually challenging. High intelligence can aid in making sense of complex data.
9. Quantitative Analysis in Finance: In roles involving financial modeling and risk analysis, a strong understanding of mathematics, statistics, and economics can be highly beneficial.

It's important to remember that while intelligence can be an asset, it's not the sole determinant of success in IT. Soft skills like teamwork, communication, adaptability, and problem-solving are also crucial. Moreover, domain knowledge and practical experience are often more important in day-to-day IT work than raw intelligence. Many IT professionals excel due to their dedication, hard work, and continuous learning, rather than just their innate intelligence.

[northernladuk]

But isn't this one of those questions that if you aren't intelligent enough to work it out then it's not for you type things?

[NotAllThere]

Ethical hacking requires a particularly twisty mind. I'm super smart, but my mind just isn't built like that.

[GJABS]

...

1. ...

It's important to remember that while intelligence can be an asset, it's not the sole determinant of success in IT. Soft skills like teamwork, communication, adaptability, and problem-solving are also crucial. Moreover, domain knowledge and practical experience are often more important in day-to-day IT work than raw intelligence. Many IT professionals excel due to their dedication, hard work, and continuous learning, rather than just their innate intelligence.

Thanks for posting again NLUK. Not sure why my original post failed to go up.

Your reply looks like ChatGPT output, but despite that it is nonetheless very interesting. The list of suggestions is good, and I will look into these further.


My thoughts/rumination on this - don't have to read or respond:

What really caught my eye here is the word crucial in regard to the soft skills of teamwork, communication, and adaptability. I suspect now that this is wrong, and that there are many of these kinds of roles in which a person can thrive without having these soft skills, or being poor at them. I think the word beneficial is perhaps more correct here.
As I said in another post, I found out I was autistic a few years ago, and I am currently evaluating whether this might have adversely affected my career progression. Clearly, being autistic is likely not only to adversely affect these soft skills, but also adversely affect one's ability to acquire these skills, no matter how hard one tries to acquire them.

ChatGPT is an aggregation of advice given out all across the internet, over time. It also therefore probably represents what a person has subliminally come to accept as true about the world in their own mind, which keeps it below the surface and out of focus from the perspective of rational analysis and evaluation.

So, in the years gone past, before I had my autism diagnosis, if this has led me to the conclusion that 1. I was poor at those three soft skills, and 2. for reasons unknown at the time I was not finding it possible to significantly improve those soft skills (caused by the undiagnosed autism), and 3. I believed that possession of these skills was crucial to success, then is it not reasonable for me to have concluded that my career was being limited by the lack of these soft skills, and that it was not worth investing in learning more tech "hard" skills because that investment would be wasted. That the only way to progress was by keeping on trying to improve the soft skills, a futile endeavour for reasons I did not know at the time. And that in due course, finding that I couldn't progress any further, I gave up trying and instead focused on other areas of my life, accepting my apparent mediocrity?

[jamesbrown]

Skill implies some proficiency with tools and methods, but these are secondary (or given) in most high-paying roles that are nominally within "IT". If you think of roles like quants or interims (to take two arbitrary and very different examples that could be within "IT"), they have a blend of knowledge that makes them both relatively rare and quite useful and, therefore, "in demand". Intelligence, at least in rudimentary terms, such as IQ, may be a lower bound or filter on certain roles, but hardly a good predictor of financial success, if that's your preferred measure. Willingness to take risks and luck are also very important and are orthogonal to IQ.

[hobnob]

It's an interesting question, but the answer will partly depend on what your goal is.

A. Do you feel guilty because you're squandering your natural talent, and you want to do something more challenging?
B. Do you want to earn more money?

Those things don't necessarily go together. In terms of career progression, it doesn't really matter how many people are theoretically capable of learning a particular skill (given sufficient study time); it matters how many of them have actually done it, or are going to do it.

By contrast, there are some really smart people working in academia for low pay.

As other people mentioned, intelligence itself is hard to pin down. I've done IQ tests which involved vocabulary, e.g. "up is to down, as [BLANK] is to cold" (where the answer would be "hot"). However, that means that you'll be at a disadvantage if you don't recognise the words, particularly if English isn't your native language. There are some people who'd do really well with the numbers round in Countdown, but couldn't answer any of the clues for a cryptic crossword (and vice-versa).

Are you restricting this to contract roles? Some projects might take years to complete, so they'd be better suited to a permanent role.

It's also worth considering what you can do as a hobby. E.g. I've been reading about Michael Ventris, who deciphered Linear B (an ancient language):
Michael Ventris - Wikipedia
He worked as an architect, but tackled this project in his spare time.

[GJABS]

It's an interesting question, but the answer will partly depend on what your goal is.

A. Do you feel guilty because you're squandering your natural talent, and you want to do something more challenging?
B. Do you want to earn more money?

Those things don't necessarily go together. In terms of career progression, it doesn't really matter how many people are theoretically capable of learning a particular skill (given sufficient study time); it matters how many of them have actually done it, or are going to do it.

By contrast, there are some really smart people working in academia for low pay.

Definitely A.
I recently started a new contract where the pay is very low. It is the straw that has broken the camel's back, so to speak, in causing me to recognize a long-term deficit of confidence, ambition, and energy stretching back many years - which the low pay has resulted from.
I don't want to work in academia - I want to be doing something productive in the real world.

Agree that intelligence can be hard to pin down, and people have a multitude of talents. I guess I want to try doing a few things that are deemed to be difficult, and see how I get on.

Artificial intelligence is looking like a possibility, if I can get my head round the maths. Yes every man and his dog wants to work and invest in this area, but if there are bits of it where the competition cannot compete with me, then I will have an advantage. Finance yes, but is there much new going on in that area - probably not, so there is limited scope to add value.

[NotAllThere]

My son is a full stack developer. His employer makes inventory software for councils and countries, to record assets and location of, e.g. trees, rivers, manhole covers ...

It's all displayed graphically in layers. He has to create new maths to make it work. That requires a certain amount of intelligence. (His master's thesis in astrophysics, was ito do with the hydrodynamics of exploding stars, so he's got form in complex maths).

[malvolio]

Got to say that in my fairly long experience around all sides of IT, for most roles intelligence is not the measure, it's how you solve problems and break them into logical stages that is. Probably not so much now with kids growing up with easy to program kit, but not so long ago only about 10% of candidates could think like programmers, no matter how smart (or occasionally dumb!) they were in the real world. That way of thinking extends to most of the architecture and process creation stuff, although that also needs you to be able to talk to people and explain things in simple terms. It's the managerial roles that are the other side of the coin; clearly you need smarts to run a team and solve problems as they arise (usually by referring to someone intelligent for their opinion) but you don't need to be a Einstein (and very few are that I've worked with!)

So IMHO it's how you think as much as anything, provided you do actually think. I knew a spectacularly bright PhD microbiology graduate in my first job, but he was absolutely dangerous on the workbench, to the extent he set one lab on fire...