If "a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds", where does that leave us ?
Use a wise consistency.
Quickly separating programmers from non-programmers
11–15 of 15 posts
Re: Quickly separating programmers from non-programmers
#12If "a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds", where does that leave us ?
Foolishness is part of a foolish consistency. A well-reasoned consistency is nobody's hobgoblin. This is not, of course, to say that well-reasoned consistency precludes foolish consistency in other areas.
Re: Quickly separating programmers from non-programmers
#13Ground for future studies 1) increased sample size, multiple institutions, multiple age ranges, multiple programming languages, multiple native languages, correlation with Spearman's g 2) controlling for confounders (see "Table 1" of all medical trials) 3) randomization of instruction 4) better history of pre-exposure (surely someone in a university computer class is taking it out of an interest that developed before…
I'm wondering if the double hump results exemplify your point #4: those who had previous engagement are in the top hump, while those who had not (but obviously have a little aptitude at least) are in the lower hump.
Re: Quickly separating programmers from non-programmers
#14If "a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds", where does that leave us ?
Where does that leave us? Where does that leave Emerson? I guess one could be an apologist and focus on "foolish," but that turns the quote into, "Consistency is bad, except when it isn't."
Why do people even care about random quotes from a crazy transcendentalist? Just because something is old and sounds profound doesn't mean it's correct.
Re: Quickly separating programmers from non-programmers
#15If "a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds", where does that leave us ?
[deleted]