What's the difference between technical and non-technical skill?

[Colonel Smoothie]

Hey, I have a question.

I see that a lot of people here seem to complain that actuaries don't have enough "soft" or "non-technical" skills...but I don't really see the distinction between "technical" and "non-technical" skills.

When I (and most people, I assume) think about the term "technical skills" I think about computers, spreadsheets, math problems, programming, etc. And when I think about "non-technical skills", I think about impression management, body language, posturing, diction, reputation management, persuasion, and so on and so forth.

However, I can't determine what would distinguish technical from non-technical. What makes learning math, for instance, intrinsically different from learning how to empathize with people?

The difference can't lie in iteration...for instance by doing more and more math problems, you learn from your mistakes, and you learn how different approaches lead to different results. On the other hand, I think learning social skills works in much the same way. You gauge your performance by considering other people's reactions to your actions - by judging these reactions you can adjust your language, posturing, etc., in different ways to effect different results, and from there determine the most effective way to carry out a conversation with that person.

So at least for me, all "skills" are lumped together in one category...but somehow I have enough intuition to recognize the perceived dichotomy between technical and non-technical which so many others have expressed in this forum.

Can anyone explain this?

[Colonel Smoothie]

The reason why I'm asking this is because so many of us seem to have difficulty with non-technical skills. However, it seems that both technical and non-technical skills are acquired and improved upon in much the same way...yet some people seem to be deficient in one type or the other.

[AdmiralWen]

In some ways this can be viewed as the difference between IQ and EQ, albiet it's not a direct comparison. I certainly agree that skills, not matter what type, can be acquired and built through practice. But that doesn't mean that they're the same. I guess people have just categorized them differently; technical skills do indeed come from a different part of the brain, right?

The process of learning and building the skills may be similar, but the skills by themselves are not necessarily the same. Many employers want to see proficiency in both, and by that they mean people who have taken the time/effort to actively practice both sets of skills. As to why certain people lack one or the other, it may be due to personal values. Some people may just not see the point of technical skills, while others may be naturally shy, and thus never took advantage of opportunities to practice interpersonal skills.

[clam]

I see technical skill as those are related to a specific job. For actuary, one has to know math, programming, insurance knowledge.

For "soft" skill, these are the skills that are not related to a specific job. You can carry these soft skills to any field. If you know how to interact with people, the same skill can be used in any job.

In addition, "soft" skill is not something you can learn directly. It is more from experience and observation. When I first started working, I was not good at writing email. I would write something like "your work is incorrect. Fix it". Today, I know a better way to write stuff. "My result is this number. When you have a chance, would you please check my number against your number and see if there is any difference?"

[jwhitaker]

Kernel,

Ever see that documentary about the guy who tries to beat an old video game record from the 80's? Not King of Kong, the other one. In the movie he tells us he had like a guru/teacher guy who told him that once you learn how to master one thing, you learn not just that thing, but how to master things in general, so it is easier to master the second thing than the first, etc.

For the guy in the movie the first thing was video games and the second thing was roller disco.

[Colonel Smoothie]

Originally Posted by jwhitaker

Kernel,

Ever see that documentary about the guy who tries to beat an old video game record from the 80's? Not King of Kong, the other one. In the movie he tells us he had like a guru/teacher guy who told him that once you learn how to master one thing, you learn not just that thing, but how to master things in general, so it is easier to master the second thing than the first, etc.

For the guy in the movie the first thing was video games and the second thing was roller disco.

No, but I'll watch it if it has the answer.

[Minyu]

Originally Posted by Colonel Smoothie

Hey, I have a question.

The difference can't lie in iteration...for instance by doing more and more math problems, you learn from your mistakes, and you learn how different approaches lead to different results. On the other hand, I think learning social skills works in much the same way. You gauge your performance by considering other people's reactions to your actions - by judging these reactions you can adjust your language, posturing, etc., in different ways to effect different results, and from there determine the most effective way to carry out a conversation with that person.

Math stays consistent through iterations. 1+1=2 always, unless we fundamentally change our number system or our definition of addition. People do not. Action X may lead to reaction Y at time T1 and reaction Z at time T2, despite circumstances around both T1 and T2 being similar. Inconsistency in human behavior is the norm, despite our desire to believe--or convince ourselves--otherwise. So the same approach taken to learning technical skills may or may not work for dealing with people.

[Annie Howe]

Raw ability is important, and there may be a huge overlap. However:

1) Feeling confident is very important.

I grew up feeling very confident about my math and analytical thinking skills, but not my people skills. I was quite social as a kid though.

Part of it was my family, they encouraged the math stuff but discouraged me about social stuff. I had it hard in middle school, like a lot of people. The thing is, if I had a hard time with an exam or something, my family would have told me that they believe in me and that I would do great. When I had a hard time fitting in middle school, they just latched on that to discourage me from being social. They probably didn't do it on purpose, I think they just dislike social interaction and they assumed I would, too.

It took me ages to figure out that I am really an extrovert and that I should try and improve my social skills. I have done well so far, and I am practising and improving still. The difference is that I am confident now.

Did you notice all those people who have math phobias? They may have the potential to have good technical skills but that is not enough.

2) Some people don't like technical subjects. Also some people don't like other people. When you don't like something, it is hard to be good at it. I am not sure what is not to like, but there you go.

[Annie Howe]

Originally Posted by Minyu

Math stays consistent through iterations. 1+1=2 always, unless we fundamentally change our number system or our definition of addition. People do not. Action X may lead to reaction Y at time T1 and reaction Z at time T2, despite circumstances around both T1 and T2 being similar. Inconsistency in human behavior is the norm, despite our desire to believe--or convince ourselves--otherwise. So the same approach taken to learning technical skills may or may not work for dealing with people.

But, if you improve your social skills, given enough people to interact with, statistically speaking you always get better results.

[Dr T Non-Fan]

Non-technical skills were developed (or not) at an early age, possibly helped to blossom (or not) by genetic traits.

I'm drawn more to the company of people who don't care how bad my non-tech skills are. The rest can go to hell.