I'm throwing out a generalization, but developers tend to have destructive personality traits when it comes to collaboration. I've never seen mentorship discouraged for those who work well with other people. It can level up a team and compound productivity. If you are seen as easily triggered or judgemental, your manager is wise to limit your interactions, since you can still be a productive individual contributor.

I've seen it... Honestly though, I see it more in specific developer communities than others.

The "headphones on all day, don't speak to me, no meetings, no I won't explain my code review/feature request/JIRA ticket/etc" folks are specifically who I'm referring to.

I've found it pretty rare at non-Rails Ruby jobs -- they're generally very collaborative teams. I'd probably start a flame war if I mentioned where I have seen it fairly consistently though.

I never got how that mentality survives, in the majority of companies where I worked that would be a pretty bad evaluation score in soft skills area.

They get stuff done.

Maybe you're a collaborative person so you get put on teams where that's more highly weighted. I'm more of a "don't talk to me / I hate meetings" developer; I get excellent evaluations, but I almost always work independently and the groups I work with quickly pick up on my temperament.

I will say that I'm certain I'd be shown the door if I didn't have a track record of going off into the Batcave for a few months and coming back with cool products.

"We need 10x developers"

Pretty weird. I feel I can make the biggest impact by mentoring junior devs. The faster they get up to speed the better for everybody.

Most tech companies outside the big ones plan for the short term. In the short term, mentoring is easily seen as a waste of time. Companies that plan for the next ten years instead of the next seed round or two years are not going to want to do mentoring (among other things).

The problem with high turnover is that it makes the long-term benefit someone else's. Why train Google's employees just because they're yours right now?

Ultimately, engineers will have to start negotiating for career building as another form of compensation.

Is there a reason why it's such a binary choice though? I understand why a master tradesman would take a big pay hit. But what makes it so difficult to have a tiered system where pros train midlings who train lowbies that train newbies?