11–20 of 113 posts
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_consequences
The argument given here is basically "mathematical ability is not innate, because if it were, women would react badly to this fact." The article provides lots of evidence that women react badly to this belief, but no evidence whatsoever that the belief is wrong.
And while my ability to play basketball can indeed be developed to some degree, can it be developed to be good enough to play it professionally? I doubt that. Now, some my say that there is difference between physical and mental abilities, but really, are we so sure that we are all born with exactly equal mental setup and potential? Or is this a problem which is better avoided, because it does not play well with polit-correctness?
For the last point: does this "belief in natural born ability" apply only to programming and math? What hurts technology is not those "childish believes" but belief that it is at the centre of the universe.
Nature or nurture. Programming is a highly skilled trade, requiring creative thinking. It's like a combination of engineering and writing prose. While genetics no doubt plays some role, much larger are the attitudes and aptitudes a child learns in their formative years (mostly before school age.) Everybody can learn to program, but not everyone has the attitudes that will make them well suited to it. You're not born…
Nature or nurture. Programming is a highly skilled trade, requiring creative thinking. It's like a combination of engineering and writing prose. While genetics no doubt plays some role, much larger are the attitudes and aptitudes a child learns in their formative years (mostly before school age.) Everybody can learn to program, but not everyone has the attitudes that will make them well suited to it. You're not born…
Sorry, but... citation needed. I think the point the article tries to make is that there is no substitution for good old hard work: not your preschooling (or preschool parenting), not your genes, not the colour your bedroom walls were painted: dedication to improving your skills always wins.
> People who like to go out and drink with their friends every day after work, instead of learn new things at their computer will never be competitive with me.
I spent a large part of my 20's drinking & socializing, and it made me a much more rounded, resilient person. I now occasionally work on my side projects at home, but it's no substitute for the 100,000 hours of in the trenches experience in various sectors of the IT industry. What I've learned at work vastly dwarfs what I've learned at home.
While certainly a combination of nature and nurture, there's little question natural born programmers exist. I am one. At 4th grade Dad brought home a terminal and had me type in a 3 line BASIC program (printed a sine wave). I was instantly hooked, programmed daily, and some 35 years later I'm still lovin' it. That nature had to be nurtured lest it be starved or destroyed, and given room and care to flourish it did.
Whatever cause you attribute to your interest, I find it more reasonable to believe that you found the concept of having a computer render your input on a screen to be fascinating and that it led you to teach yourself and practice further how to do this, or a multitude of reasons, but not that you had some inherent predisposition to being a programmer.
- People who believe that mathematics is an ability that can be trained perform much better than the ones that believe it is an innate skills some people have some people don't
- Intelligence, and as a consequence the upper limit of mathematical ability, is to a large extent genetically determined
There is no conflict between those two statements.
This article is nothing but a blatant argumentum ad consequentiam, which is a logical fallacy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_consequences The argument given here is basically "mathematical ability is not innate, because if it were, women would react badly to this fact." The article provides lots of evidence that women react badly to this belief, but no evidence whatsoever that the belief is wrong.