Natural born programmers • Hacker News Board

Re: Natural born programmers

#91

Post by steveklabnik » Fri, Oct 11, 2013, 4:19 PM UTC

talmand wrote: post #88

steveklabnik wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Paul, you are incredibly smart guy, so seeing you respond to scientific studies with "anyone with children is aware of it" is pretty disappointing. As tokenadult points out, these studies are serious business. Anecdata doesn't really cut it.

I can see how it would be disappointing if you didn't have two children growing up in the same environment and the differences between them is the same as between night and day. Not that I'm saying these type of studies are not useful.

Anecdotes are still not data, no matter how snarky you are. Hint: your claim AND the study can both be true.

Re: Natural born programmers

#92

Post by shanac » Fri, Oct 11, 2013, 4:22 PM UTC

pg wrote: post #36

"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 some…

It is easier to say determination matters more if you don't talk about inborn ability from the start. Talk about it as people are peaking out.

Re: Natural born programmers

#93

Post by _delirium » Fri, Oct 11, 2013, 4:25 PM UTC

jjcroftiv wrote: post #86

I would like a showing of +1's from anybody who thinks they would be as good as Terence Tao if they just studied more mathematics.

If you're interested in what Terence Tao himself has to say on the subject: http://terrytao.wordpress.com/career-advice/does-one-have-to...

Re: Natural born programmers

#94

Post by shanac » Fri, Oct 11, 2013, 4:27 PM UTC

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 thought the article said "People react to bias that can cover up actual innate ability." I buy that idea.

Re: Natural born programmers

#95

Post by tokenadult » Fri, Oct 11, 2013, 4:35 PM UTC

spindritf wrote: post #71

pg wrote: post #36

"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 some…

What if determination is also significantly inborn? > Broad genetic influence on the five dimensions of Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness was estimated at 41%, 53%, 61%, 41%, and 44%, respectively. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8776880

It's important to remember that responsible researchers on behavior genetics (such as the researchers that I am about to quote here, from a review article) point out that just because an individual difference is "inborn" (heritable) does NOT mean that it cannot change under environmental influence. "Moreover, even highly heritable traits can be strongly manipulated by the environment, so heritability has little if anything to do with controllability. For example, height is on the order of 90% heritable, yet North and South Koreans, who come from the same genetic background, presently differ in average height by a full 6 inches (Pak, 2004; Schwekendiek, 2008)."

Johnson, Wendy; Turkheimer, Eric; Gottesman, Irving I.; Bouchard Jr., Thomas (2009). Beyond Heritability: Twin Studies in Behavioral Research. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18, 4, 217-220

http://people.virginia.edu/~ent3c/papers2/Articles%20for%20O...

Indeed, there are psychologists who are fully aware of the research base on heritability of the "Big 5" personality dimensions you mention who nonetheless research interventions to change people's personality along one or more of those dimensions. It is already well known to personality researchers that personality changes over the course of life (from early childhood to old age) much more than most people think it does.

Re: Natural born programmers

#96

Post by bmalee » Fri, Oct 11, 2013, 4:41 PM UTC

skraushaar wrote: post #44

I am one of these folks that claims natural math/development skills which were inherited from my natural parents. Here is my empirical evidence: I was neither raised by or knew my biological family growing up (though I know them now). My mother is a developer, my supposed bio-dad is a developer, my late grandmother on my mother's side was a mathematician & psychologist, my grandfather on my mother's side was on the e…

> Take my story for what you want

An anecdote, you mean? I expect better from HN, though I'm not sure why.

Re: Natural born programmers

#97

Post by cpuguy83 » Fri, Oct 11, 2013, 4:49 PM UTC

steveklabnik wrote: post #70

skraushaar wrote: post #44

I am one of these folks that claims natural math/development skills which were inherited from my natural parents. Here is my empirical evidence: I was neither raised by or knew my biological family growing up (though I know them now). My mother is a developer, my supposed bio-dad is a developer, my late grandmother on my mother's side was a mathematician & psychologist, my grandfather on my mother's side was on the e…

One individual is not 'empirical evidence.'

It is HIS empirical evidence. It's his evidence based on his observation.

Re: Natural born programmers

#98

Post by gruseom » Fri, Oct 11, 2013, 4:50 PM UTC

steveklabnik wrote: post #70

skraushaar wrote: post #44

I am one of these folks that claims natural math/development skills which were inherited from my natural parents. Here is my empirical evidence: I was neither raised by or knew my biological family growing up (though I know them now). My mother is a developer, my supposed bio-dad is a developer, my late grandmother on my mother's side was a mathematician & psychologist, my grandfather on my mother's side was on the e…

One individual is not 'empirical evidence.'

Individuals and stories are part of good conversation. Skraushaar's comment was relevant and enjoyable.

Reflexive ideological dismissals, on the other hand, are just tedious.

Re: Natural born programmers

#99

Post by joecorcoran » Fri, Oct 11, 2013, 4:51 PM UTC

hugh4life wrote: post #8

"Stereotype Threat and Women’s Math Performance" The childish belief in stereotype threat is killing our culture. http://drjamesthompson.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/are-girls-too-... http://drjamesthompson.blogspot.com/2013/09/maths-is-man-thi...

What culture is that exactly? Is it worth preserving in its current state?

Re: Natural born programmers

#100

Post by realrocker » Fri, Oct 11, 2013, 4:53 PM UTC

Perception is everything while learning a skill. Recently, I taught the Go programming language to a bunch of non programmers(mostly from arts and design background). The things I skipped talking about were the history of programming, the place of Go in the world of programming and consciously ignored questions similar to, "How difficult is this?", "How much time this will take?" The idea was to teach a programming language with a sense of a planar plateau of difficulty for everyone in the room. I tried to develop the perception of programming as a non-elite skill. The results were surprising. Most of the students picked up the language fairly well and went to write their own apps without any guidance. One guy remarked, "This is like carpentry". I don't understand his reasoning behind the remark but I can infer that as soon as the aura around programming was removed, students responded with much greater understanding. This approach was polar to my earlier methods of trying to ignite a fire of passion in the students by elucidating the complexities and charms of programming. The previous approach was successful too but I had a feeling that I was preaching only to the converted. Now whether natural aptitude is a factor in learning a programming skill is highly suspect. Even if a learner has exceptional natural aptitude(i.e. the X factor gene) he might be living in ghastly social circumstances with unknown effects. Except documented medical conditions there might be no link of learning on natural aptitude. The point is that there is far too less data supporting it.