Originally Posted by Prestidigitweeze
I don't actually agree, but I'm a fan of the way you inverted the OP's idea.
Indeed, I was illustrating the absurdity of trying to deduce a simple two point causality relationship in a system as complex as the human mind.
In this case, I consider it far more likely that there are many different underlying skills that go into being a good coder or a good writer.
Some of those underlying skills are likely to be common to both professions, and that is why you often see people that are both good coders and good writers.
On the other hand the sets of underlying skills are likely to be sufficiently large to have significant disjoint sets, that is skills that help one be a good coder but not a good writer and vice versa. That is why you often see people that are good at one and not at the other.
And that is not even mentioning the various people that are good at one, but may not be good at the other simply because they've never really spent any time working on it.