"The comment to which I was replying stated: "At the 'rockstar' level, all learning is self directed." "
In context, that quote sounds more nuanced.
"Obviously neither statement is (completely) true. At the "rockstar" level, all learning is self directed. And rockstar employers expect and rely on that. But for everyone else I think it's reasonable that there be some level of support for education from employers, and some level of self motivation from good employees. Neither is going to make up for a total shortcoming in the other."
I suspect if you add "(In programming)" before the sentences "At the rockstar level .. " etc it would make more sense,especially if those sentences are describing present reality than some imagined future.
And as for "the fact that it's easier to learn programming on your own than it is to learn other fields doesn't prove that", sure it doesn't prove anything.
But then if we are to descend to that level of hairsplitting, your quote about other industries training programs doesn't really prove the point that something similar would work in software/programming, and is equally 'neither here nor there'.
It may be true that you can create rockstars by company training, so you have a valid point in that we should probably explore the idea, look for supporting/opposing evidence and so on.
It still remains to be shown to be true,and ajross has a valid argument that "as of today company training programs haven't produced programming rockstars (vs competent devs)", so your comparisons to surgeons or whatever don't really counter ajross's statement.
ajross seems to be describing the present reality (and extropolating off that) and you seem to be saying that a different reality is possible (but unproven).
Not much of a conflict that I can see. (but hey ymmv, I freely admit I could be interpreting all this incorrectly)
And just fyi, I responded to (what I thought was ) excessive rhetorical flourishes like 'brain damaged thinking' in your reply. That phrase conveys no information beyond your annoyance and detracts from your main (and valid imho)argument. You can make a solid point without 'name calling' (note quotes), especially here on HN.
EDIT: rayiner changed his post from when I typed this reply(which is all right, I do that all the time), so this answer may not make as much sense as it should . Now his point is that "self-directed learning is not a necessary condition (to become a programming rockstar)".
It is probably true and certainly an idea worth exploring.
One possible answer to that, especially in a forum called Hacker News, is "Show us".
(to those fond of logic, to prove that a universally quantified argument, "All X s are blah" is wrong, you need to prove that "Not all X s are blah" and that in turn becomes "There exists a Z that not blah" and you have to show that there does indeed exist such a Z - aka an existence proof, what can I say, I'm a nerd).
And with that, I bow out of this thread. Have a nice day.