This is an awful article. I would rate someone as having poor “solving” skills if they demonstrated this level of thinking.<p>Most fundamentally, of course the data shows that “would hire” correlates to “appears to have the skill this interview is specifically intended to assess”. These are not independent variables, nor are they objective measures. Don’t waste your time analysing them as if they are.<p>From a candidates point of view, the question is “what can I spend time on to improve my chances of getting the job I want”.<p>I’ve never met anyone who’s preparation is analogous to the scenario presented, “I decided to convert a communications point into a coding point.” Developing complimentary skills is rarely a zero sum game.<p>The data appears to show that unless you are top ranked on two different technical criteria, poor communication skills will prevent you from getting the job. Data-wise, we’re starting to see the impact of having a variable that isn’t almost perfectly correlated with the outcome. That’s less likely to mean “talk is cheap” than “there’s an easy opportunity to improve your performance; you’d be a fool to dismiss it”.<p>I would also suggest that earning a high score for problem solving is going to benefit significantly from good communications skills. Asking good questions and explaining your process, whether or not you could code the solution, goes a long way.<p>So sure, if you are extremely skilled on the technical side, and the company hires based solely on the technical interview, and that company is offering you the best of all the potential roles you could take, better communication skills aren’t necessarily valuable to you.<p>For everyone else: career tip, of course you should be applying for jobs where your skills are relevant to the role, but also remember that general communication skills are valuable.