Since skills are widly spread in tech, I don't think an all-in-all average makes any sense. How would you compare let's say a dev at a start-up with widespread but shallower skills (vulg. Full-Stack, don't @ me), with a dev at a larger company who is an expert in one field. Both may deliver similar value and earn the same.
Even with certain technologies. Do you count knowledge of syntax, or the produced result?
Do you look at the artist's neat brushwork, or their cultural impact?
In the end it's a gut-feel. At least we know when we really suck at something and if we usually help people out with things, we might be a bit above average.
My wild guess is that I'm well above average at CSS and average, maybe slightly above on JS and HTML. Definitely far below average in Elixir. And the worst person on earth when it comes to any testing.
Since skills are widly spread in tech, I don't think an all-in-all average makes any sense. How would you compare let's say a dev at a start-up with widespread but shallower skills (vulg. Full-Stack, don't @ me), with a dev at a larger company who is an expert in one field. Both may deliver similar value and earn the same.
Even with certain technologies. Do you count knowledge of syntax, or the produced result?
Do you look at the artist's neat brushwork, or their cultural impact?
In the end it's a gut-feel. At least we know when we really suck at something and if we usually help people out with things, we might be a bit above average.
My wild guess is that I'm well above average at CSS and average, maybe slightly above on JS and HTML. Definitely far below average in Elixir. And the worst person on earth when it comes to any testing.
Nice analysis! It's really hard indeed to measure competence (and competence in what exactly, anyways?).
I think the most interesting side of it is the cognitive bias we all experience, regardless of the way of measuring competence.