John von Neumann. Dude is a genius. Einstein. Also. you? me? sorry. Doesn't matter if you can code. People can paint cars way better than you. They can make a perfect french fry. They can inspect a clogged sewer line way better than you. They know just the best ways to start an IV. Who is more intelligent?
Just because you can do $PROFESSION doesn't make you above average in intelligence. Period. Full stop. To think any other way (and for somebody to post a link to some BS article supporting their assertion) is completely absolutely 100% arrogant BS. Get off your high horse people.
> Evidence has been mounting for decades that for most non-sport domains and for most people,“natural talent” is not an absolute requirement for reaching high levels of expertise.
> Other than the sports that depend on specific physical prerequisites, few domains have hard genetic limits for expertise.There is a way in which natural ability might contribute to high expertise in non-athletic domains, but it’s not domain-specific “natural” gifts... it’s a natural ability for focused practice.
…
> Even at the very top levels in most non-sport domains, there’s little evidence that “natural talent” is a hard requirement. But where it might exist, it’s most likely to show up at the beginning of the curve and the very very very top.
(Ask yourself how well the writer could explain monty hall, or regression to the mean, or what's wrong with p-values, to get an idea whether they can possibly have a handle on the material.)
This is probably true for programming too.
But just because something isn't necessary it doesn't imply there is a correlation.
It's the causation that's interesting, though: do gymnasts become coordinated through practice, or do the most coordinated people go into gymnastics? I think the OP is arguing the former, and I think I agree. In that case, programming is not unique re: intelligence.
That was never claimed but a different claim:
FACT: The groups of people that work in certain professions definitely have _average_ differences in IQ if we can accept that IQ exists.
That is NOT to say that any individual mathematician can say that he or she is more intelligent that the rest of the population.
Understand the difference.
Well, this is true: intelligence does _not_ determine someone's worth.
Ultimately how intelligent you are is irrelevant providing that you _can_ provide value.
>Still rats in the race, just rats with a slightly higher score on a particular dimension.
Yes, but surrounded by other rats with a slightly higher score on a particular dimension.
But anyone can still learn how to do it: abstract reasoning us not reserved for the "intelligent", it's open to anyone who is of average intelligence at least.
Interestingly this implies that the average programmer does have higher than average intelligence (as measured by IQ scores).
The reasoning goes like this:
- At least average intelligence is required for abstract reasoning (and programming) - This means the the distribution of intelligence for programmers has a minimum around that of the average value - This means that the mean and median must both be above average.
Your second paragraph is wholly unrelated since the OC isnt saying that every programmer is smarter than everyone else. And your first is trite humanist garbage.
“Just happened to luck out and be good at a talent that pays well”
And, coincidentally, that “talent” (abstract thinking, clarity and extended focus of thought) “””happen””” to be highly correlated with higher IQ.
Still rats in the race, just rats with a slightly higher score on a particular dimension.