The programming talent myth • Hacker News Board

Re: The programming talent myth

#321

Post by zaphar » Tue, May 05, 2015, 2:06 AM UTC

tjradcliffe wrote: post #218

zaphar wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with relying on personal anecdotal evidence is that it is inherently biased. The only way to truly answer the question is find a way to reliable measure coding skill. Otherwise you find yourself making the same mistake you think Jacob is making. Using faulty data to back up an assumption. Part of the thrust of Jacob's talk was that there is probably a whole class of developers out there who would be just…

Every human ability has a natural distribution of what for a better word we can call "talent". This is as true of running or tennis as it is of coding. To claim otherwise is to tell people who aren't naturally very good at tennis that they are moral failures for not working hard enough at it, which is insulting and demeaning as well as false. Furthermore, there is evidence that the ability to code is non-linearly dep…

Those statistics on marks in a classroom are the first hard stats I've heard of indicating a bimodal distribution in coding skill. I have no idea where they come from though. Do you have any links to sources?

Re: The programming talent myth

#322

Post by vijayr » Tue, May 05, 2015, 2:55 AM UTC

zaphar wrote: post #165

nilkn wrote: post #58

My own experience just does not agree with this at all. First, I think we have to distinguish between two ideas here: * The first is the question of whether anyone can learn to program. I think that for the most part everybody can, just like for the most part everybody can learn high school calculus. * The second is the question of whether programming ability is bimodal. This is not related to the first question, and…

The problem with relying on personal anecdotal evidence is that it is inherently biased. The only way to truly answer the question is find a way to reliable measure coding skill. Otherwise you find yourself making the same mistake you think Jacob is making. Using faulty data to back up an assumption. Part of the thrust of Jacob's talk was that there is probably a whole class of developers out there who would be just…

Do you think it applies to other fields too? For example, people who never try to do anything physically because they think they are just not "made for it" can achieve something decent, like running a marathon if they tried long enough? or learning a language, and so on?

Re: The programming talent myth

#323

Post by dbenhur » Tue, May 05, 2015, 5:35 AM UTC

shubb wrote: post #71

vonmoltke wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Look at fizzbuzz as an obvious, if not entirely complete, example. I am not entirely convinced this is not partially a resume screening and talent pipeline problem. Has anyone ever given Fizzbuzz problems to everyone who applied to a position? If you haven't, have you ever considered that your screening process may be broken in the sense that you are passing too many liars who then bomb the Fizzbuzz portion, but wh…

I find this idea that there are lots of fake programmers kind of nuts. Presumably, when you do a resume sift, you look for people with either a qualification or work experience. Either they somehow faked it through those, or your test is bad. Fizzbuzz actually tests if you know what % does. Is that critical knowledge for a webdev?

The world of actual programmers is NOT filled with fake programmers. The world of people actively applying for advertised programming positions IS dominated by fake programmers. That's why FizzBuzz is an effective screen.

As to your last question, a "webdev" who doesn't understand integer modulus is a fake programmer. Is it critical? I suppose it's not if your grid is never wider than one column and you never want to alternatively style rows in a list or table.

Re: The programming talent myth

#324

Post by retrogradeorbit » Tue, May 05, 2015, 6:23 AM UTC

hn_ wrote: post #177

TheSOB888 wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I also was unable to ever learn my multiplication tables. >I don't have a learning disability Maybe you don't have a learning disability, but you definitely seem like you have some sort of mental block that is preventing you from being able to learn certain things. Maybe things you consider boring, and you can't focus enough on them to get past them?

Yeah, no, you are 100% wrong.

I find it amusing that you are being downvoted on something that only you know, and you are a complete expert on... yourself.

Ah HN. What's happening to you?

Re: The programming talent myth

#325

Post by retrogradeorbit » Tue, May 05, 2015, 6:58 AM UTC

I think Jacob is engaging in sloppy thinking. Like everything relating to biology (in particular, human beings) there are two components. One is nature. One is nurture. Every single activity in life will require both components to come together. Everyone will have different aspects and amounts of these components.

It reminds me of Jane Elliot's teachings. It's not that 'there is no difference'. There is definitely a difference. The truth is that difference is good. It's good that we have both good and bad programmers. It's good that some people are rockstars, and others have to struggle. Diversity is good.

The problem is not "the 10x myth". I don't think its a myth. I think there are 10x althletes, 10x doctors, 10x engineers. Pick any field and the spread between the best and worst performers will be enormous.

The real problem is some people think that because they are a better programmer (or a better pianist, or athlete, or engineer, or doctor) they are better people. That their life somehow has greater meaning. This is the myth that needs to be debunked. Being a 10x programmer does not make you a better person. In ANY way, what-so-ever. It just makes you a better programmer.

What makes you a better person, in my opinion, is how compassionate you are, how much you care for the less fortunate and how much you work to make this world a better place for everyone.

Re: The programming talent myth

#326

Post by collyw » Tue, May 05, 2015, 7:09 AM UTC

retrogradeorbit wrote: post #325

I think Jacob is engaging in sloppy thinking. Like everything relating to biology (in particular, human beings) there are two components. One is nature. One is nurture. Every single activity in life will require both components to come together. Everyone will have different aspects and amounts of these components. It reminds me of Jane Elliot's teachings. It's not that 'there is no difference'. There is definitely a…

Sadly I would say the same applies to money, many high earners seem to think that it makes them better people, when often it seems to be the opposite.

I also think there are 10x environments that allow you to thrive as a programmer, as I have personally found my workplace to allow me to be around 4-5 times more productive on a quiet day when I am allowed to focus, over a normal day with constant interruptions. Add in some people you could learn from and I could easily see 10x productivity gains from one environment to the next.

Re: The programming talent myth

#327

Post by NhanH » Tue, May 05, 2015, 7:12 AM UTC

retrogradeorbit wrote: post #325

I think Jacob is engaging in sloppy thinking. Like everything relating to biology (in particular, human beings) there are two components. One is nature. One is nurture. Every single activity in life will require both components to come together. Everyone will have different aspects and amounts of these components. It reminds me of Jane Elliot's teachings. It's not that 'there is no difference'. There is definitely a…

The problem about 10x myth seems to be the comparison point that each of us is making: is it the best vs worst, best vs average, or a binary threshold between the best vs everyone else? And then even defining the "worst" seems to be very hard for a field like programming.

And a bit of a tangent, I don't disagree with your last statement in the specific. But in principle, that's a very dangerous statement to make: if you're living within the moral constraint of a society, there really should NOT be any criteria that define a human to be a better or worse person.

Re: The programming talent myth

#328

Post by collyw » Tue, May 05, 2015, 7:19 AM UTC

zenogais wrote: post #225

zaphar wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with relying on personal anecdotal evidence is that it is inherently biased. The only way to truly answer the question is find a way to reliable measure coding skill. Otherwise you find yourself making the same mistake you think Jacob is making. Using faulty data to back up an assumption. Part of the thrust of Jacob's talk was that there is probably a whole class of developers out there who would be just…

It's part a larger myth that probably needs to die also. See the book "Talent is Overrated" for a thorough and scientific evisceration of the idea.

Any chance of a two line summary or something similar?

Re: The programming talent myth

#329

Post by retrogradeorbit » Tue, May 05, 2015, 7:37 AM UTC

NhanH wrote: post #327

retrogradeorbit wrote: post #325

I think Jacob is engaging in sloppy thinking. Like everything relating to biology (in particular, human beings) there are two components. One is nature. One is nurture. Every single activity in life will require both components to come together. Everyone will have different aspects and amounts of these components. It reminds me of Jane Elliot's teachings. It's not that 'there is no difference'. There is definitely a…

The problem about 10x myth seems to be the comparison point that each of us is making: is it the best vs worst, best vs average, or a binary threshold between the best vs everyone else? And then even defining the "worst" seems to be very hard for a field like programming. And a bit of a tangent, I don't disagree with your last statement in the specific. But in principle, that's a very dangerous statement to make: if…

I think we probably agree more than disagree, but I do disagree with your last sentence. This right and wrong is above the 'moral constraint of a society'. A whole society can believe something is right, and another thing is wrong, but that does not make them right and wrong. For example, a majority of a society may believe that honour killings are right. But they are not.

It's not some moral relativism that depends on the context. Right and wrong are absolutes, and can be objectively appraised. And here's the metric: Suffering. Right actions are those actions that lead to a reduction in the suffering of living things. Both in others and in ourselves. Wrong actions are those actions that lead to an increase in suffering in ourselves or others.

This is how we can appraise our actions. This is totally off topic, and I'm definitely showing my Buddhist beliefs, but I think the attitude shown by your last sentence is held by a lot of people in society. And I think it is also muddled thinking. This kind of 'moral relativity' is actually a slippery slope and has been used to justify all manner of human atrocities through history.

Re: The programming talent myth

#330

Post by TazeTSchnitzel » Tue, May 05, 2015, 9:05 AM UTC

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #280

TazeTSchnitzel wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It became clear he had no concept of the ordering of statement. He wrote them like math formulas, and didn't understand that they got executed in order. That's not an ability issue, just a knowledge issue. Coming from math, you'd assume there is no evaluation order.

squeaky has it exactly right. No matter how many times I said "they get executed in order. There is a state to the computer, and these statements modify that state sequentially", he just wrote random statements down in no particular order. I never saw such profound inability to understand programming.

If you don't explain a concept adequately you cannot blame someone for not understanding it.