I've seen 'soft' vs 'hard' skills treated as a constant-sum quantity, e.g. somebody who conclusively demonstrates hard skills must not have soft skills so they must be a bad person to work with, won't be able to teach/learn, probably works badly in a team, etc. This is in the context of hiring meetings to discuss candidates. Interestingly, the opposite isn't as strong: a candidate with soft skills is presumed capable of picking up hard skills quickly, although it doesn't actually happened in most of these hires