Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Natural born programmers

programmingisterrible.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 113 posts

Re: Natural born programmers

#31

Post by theorique »

eloff wrote: post #5

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…

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.

What if you go out and drink with top programmers after work? ;)

Re: Natural born programmers

#32

Post by davidbrear »

Just like anything in life, there's a level of effort to science/math/engineering. If you begin when you're 3 or when you're 30, you still are going to have to give that level of effort. I think people confuse those who started early as winning some genetic lottery but in fact, they simply got started earlier.

Re: Natural born programmers

#33

Post by ctdonath »

pradocchia wrote: post #24
ctdonath wrote: post #9

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.

I was instantly hooked, programmed daily, and some 35 years later I'm still lovin' it. This doesn't demonstrate innate ability. It demonstrates your interest in programming. Do we have natural born interests?

Ok, so how should I phrase it? I grok most programming concepts immediately. When about to take my AP test in programming, my brother realized I was completely lacking in knowledge about pointers, spent a couple hours going over linked lists etc, and the next day aced the test - which was mostly about pointers.

I don't know what verbiage would constitute "demonstrate innate ability" to you. I thought what I wrote did.

Re: Natural born programmers

#34

Post by davedx »

stiff wrote: post #19

There are two distinct things, both being true, as far as current research shows: - 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…

> - Intelligence, and as a consequence the upper limit of mathematical ability, is to a large extent genetically determined

Which research?

Re: Natural born programmers

#35

Post by steveklabnik »

debacle wrote: post #26

I've never even heard someone be referred to as a "natural born programmer." While something like Mathematics can come to someone in a way that makes that person seem like "a natural," programming has so much culture, history, and happenstance ingrained in its reality that it is impossible to become highly skilled as a programmer without a great deal of passion.

The 10x meme is largely about some sort of mythical, inherent attribute that makes people super amazing and awesome at writing software.

Some people also say that the reason there aren't more women in computer science is because they lack some sort of programming attribute.

Re: Natural born programmers

#36

Post by pg »

"belief in gift and natural born ability is toxic to all, and by eliminating it, we won’t alienate so many from technology"

There is certainly some inborn variation between people. Anyone with children is aware of it. Two children of the same parents can have very different personalities. So what exactly is it supposed to mean to "eliminate a belief" in variation in inborn ability? That we're supposed to believe something that's not true? That seems a bad road to go down. Not just because it's unwise to base your ideas on lies, but also because you won't convince anyone smart with an ideology based on a premise so obviously false.

Better just to say that determination can matter as much or more than inborn ability. That works just as well and has the added advantage of being true.

Re: Natural born programmers

#37

Post by truthteller »

there are serious problems with replication and publication bias in the literature on stereotype threat. it does not seem like the author is genuinely curious about gender differences in mathematical ability but rather he is simply on the hunt for material that confirms his biases.

Re: Natural born programmers

#38

Post by LanceH »

davedx wrote: post #34
stiff wrote: post #19

There are two distinct things, both being true, as far as current research shows: - 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…

> - Intelligence, and as a consequence the upper limit of mathematical ability, is to a large extent genetically determined Which research?

He's not making that claim, merely pointing out that the claim isn't mutually exclusive to the other claim.

Re: Natural born programmers

#39

Post by aero142 »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #11

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.

I think the author is more arguing that believing that talent is innate leads to worse performance.

Re: Natural born programmers

#40

Post by 32bitkid »

I think that in any skill/talent/profession, it is tempting to identify the individuals that thrive at it -- seemingly without effort. Almost all "arts" have some variation of this myth -- programming, sports, painting, writing. Its easy to identify those people -- Pablo Picasso, Bo Jackson, John Carmak, Jane Austen -- and say that they were natural-born whatever...

I reject the idea of innate "talent" or "skill". However, I firmly believe that certain individuals are more adept -- either through genetics or environmental factors -- at "learning" a skill, which is a by-product of the assumptions and abstractions that we construct to process information in the world.

I think that this myth is much more prevalent in the visual arts. Any one can be taught to draw; a good chunk of the first half of art college is unlearning the bad assumptions you have made about visually processing the world. Those that learn "quicker" are a product of an environment where they never made those assumptions in the first place. But that is simply the first step -- the foundation -- beyond that it takes hard work and practice... A dedication to the craft. If you lack the commitment to the craft then it will suffer... And I think that's true for anything: math, programming, writing, drawing, sports, cooking... and so on.

I think that telling someone they "can't" do something or they are naturally "bad" at it is definitely an environmental pressure that could affect ones ability to learn a craft. In fact, it doesn't sound like a good environment to learn anything.

Post reply on HN