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

The Programming Talent Myth (2015)

lwn.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–146 of 146 posts

Re: The Programming Talent Myth (2015)

#141

Post by ionised »

vinceguidry wrote: post #72
denimnerd wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

if completeting the training makes someone worth 10k more then give them that raise.

I don't know why I let myself get sidetracked into this worthless ideological discussion. Final answer, then I'm getting back to work. Because when you take risks, you should expect a reward. If your reward isn't worth the risk, but you still take it anyway, then you're the dumb one. When you're the one offering liquid compensation, you get to decide on the risk profile of the bought solution.

> Because when you take risks, you should expect a reward

Isn't the whole point of taking a risk is that there may not actually be any reward? If you expect reward every time then it's not really a risk.

Re: The Programming Talent Myth (2015)

#142

Post by EpicEng »

mywittyname wrote: post #65
EpicEng wrote: post #11

> > The truth is that programming isn't a passion or a talent, it is just a bunch of skills that can be learned. This may be true if your definition of programming is the literal act of writing code / recalling syntax, and learning new tools. Of course, that's not really what programming is. That's the easy part. Programming is about problem solving, code is simply the tool. Critical thinking/problem solving ability,…

> We wouldn't judge a carpenter on e.g. his/her ability to use a saw We absolutely should because it's a fundamental aspect of doing their job. The difference between me and a professional carpenter is literally the ability to use tools effectively to build an item. I know whether to use a dovetail or dowel joint as well as any professional, but I guarantee the pro will achieve a better finish in much less time. It's…

>We absolutely should because it's a fundamental aspect of doing their job

A rather trivially learned part of their job. It has little bearing on their ability to build a beautiful cabinet.

>The difference between me and a professional carpenter is literally the ability to use tools effectively to build an item

It's much more than that. How about Michelangelo? Do you think the only difference between you and him is that he's had more practice with a chisel? Doubtful.

>It's like theoretical CS vs. real-world programming. It's good to know sorting strategies and whatnot, but knowing how to use the tools is what gets stuff done.

This is the lone of thinking that leads hiring managers to build teams of mediocre devs with a lot of buzzwords in their CV. I don't care so much that you know e.g. C#, I care that you are a great problem solver. If you have that part down I'm fine with investing a little time into you so that you can learn C#, ASP.NET, whatever. The latter bit is easy.

Re: The Programming Talent Myth (2015)

#143

Post by EpicEng »

sampleinajar wrote: post #40
EpicEng wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eh, I'm not convinced of that. I don't think you can take any person and teach them to think through problems logically. It seems simple enough, and you can certainly make them _better_ at it, but I really do believe we all have upper limits on our potential.

I agree that there are upper limits on a given individual's potential, but I think you are being too absolutist in language. I'm not sure that you can take ANY person and teach them any given thing. That's just silly. I think the powerful point is that there are and needs to be average programmers, and we can teach a subset of people to be that. There is evidence, even if anecdotally, that many are being dissuaded fr…

> I think the powerful point is that there are and needs to be average programmers

Of course we do, but no one is saying only the best should be hired and the rest should go dig a ditch. Most programming tasks do not require top level talent to accomplish, but when I'm hiring I'm going after the best candidate I can get, and that has little to do with e.g. what web framework they are most familiar with.

Re: The Programming Talent Myth (2015)

#144

Post by btilly »

YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #138
btilly wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your calling them "skills" prejudices the answer. My best understanding is that they aren't skills, they are hardwired abilities. My best guess based on research that I've seen on IQ is that about half of the hardwiring is genetic and half is a result of childhood upbringing, but by adulthood they are not readily changed. That said, we build concrete skills around how to make the best use of those abilities. We build…

>> My best understanding is that they aren't skills, they are hardwired abilities. And isn't it the most amazing coincidence that those who are thus exceptionally gifted are uniquely placed to benefit from the demand for those very abilities in an extravagantly lucrative profession? I mean, imagine what would happen if everyone could program! Where would those six-figure salaries go then?

And isn't it the most amazing coincidence that those who are thus exceptionally gifted are uniquely placed to benefit from the demand for those very abilities in an extravagantly lucrative profession?

I mean, imagine what would happen if everyone could program! Where would those six-figure salaries go then?

That was the exact point that I was making.

There is no coincidence. It is economics 101. In a free market, the salary is set by the laws of supply and demand. If people who can program are in short supply and create lots of value, the supply/demand curves will meet at a high price point. That is good for programmers. If everyone could program, then the price point would be lower and programmers couldn't collect those salaries. Programming has low explicit barriers to entry AND high salaries. This could not continue without implicit barriers to entry of some sort.

How low are the explicit barriers? I personally know several programmers who were homeless teenagers, later received GED degrees, and are self-taught in programming. These are mostly highly paid professionals. (One that I know decided as an adult to go back and pursue university now that she could. She's only 30 - by the time she's my age I'm confident that she'll also be a highly paid professional.)

Let's continue with economics 101. When you move a person from a non-programming job to a programming job that pays more, it is obviously good for that person. It is also good for society as a whole - that person is doing something more productive. It isn't so good for other programmers, though, because it reduces their salary.

Speaking personally, I grew up in poverty. My life is much better than I feel I deserve, or than I need. I also like seeing the lives of others around me improve.

Therefore I have encouraged many to take up programming, and spent untold volunteer hours answering questions from people who want to become better programmers. I have zero interest in limiting who gets to program.

For a political example I completely oppose H1B programs in their current form. I think that we should allow free immigration for competent people AND once they arrive we shouldn't restrict them from finding the best job that they can. The current quota system which provides incentives for companies to swear up and down that they are paying a competitive wage, while in fact they are paying under the market price, and then trap the people that they import in jobs that don't make full use of their talents.

Re: The Programming Talent Myth (2015)

#145

Post by lambdaphagy »

learc83 wrote: post #80
lambdaphagy wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Upbringing" can be a slightly misleading way of stating that summary, as most people think of upbringing as comprising environmental factors that parents can influence. But factors that parents can influence should be largely shared between siblings, and studies typically find that the effect of shared environment is quite small in adulthood. IQ researchers typically find that 60-80% of the variance in IQ is explain…

If I remember correctly, the last time I looked into this, there was some doubt about the validity of many of the twin and sibling based IQ studies, because the parents who consented tended to be wealthier. The upshot was that genetics is probably more of an upper limit on IQ, and that for children raised in poor conditions, environment plays a much bigger role than genetics.

Restriction of range is a potential concern, but not all studies are subject to that criticism. Bruce Sacerdote's study of Korean adoptees randomly assigned to American families found, for example, that the adoptive families represented perhaps the middle 90% of the SES spectrum. Obviously you will rarely see children adopted into the lowest percentile, but you can compare children taken from the lowest percentile to children who are raised natively in that percentile, and you typically find small or nil differences for most outcome measures in adulthood.

Plenty, of smart, dedicated people have been trying for decades to devise interventions to permanently boost IQ among children raised in poor (for the first world) conditions, and unfortunately not much has turned up. Instead, there is a familiar pattern of small pilot studies that show initial promise, but whose gains tend to wash out when the program scales up to a less than one-to-one child/child psychologist ratio, or even when the children are followed up on in adulthood.

The gains from permanently boosting IQ among low-IQ children would be so great that it might still be worth banging our heads against that wall on the off chance that we find something that might work. But we should keep in mind the base success rate of past interventions.

Re: The Programming Talent Myth (2015)

#146

Post by mabufo »

laythea wrote: post #125
mabufo wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We wouldn't judge a carpenter on e.g. his/her ability to use a saw What? Yes we absolutely would.

I think the point is that we don't judge on the tools, but the results. If he/she did a good job, why would you care? you wouldn't. Which is the parent's point. I think.

If you can't use the basic tools, there are not going to BE any results.

The metaphor is ridiculous.

Post reply on HN