Re:Ask HN: Why do many people assume there's no such thing a...
by kasey_junk on Thursday May 07, 2015 @07:32AM
(#9504291)
This is a pretty dramatic straw man.
I've never heard anyone state that there's no such thing as programming talent. There are many more nuanced ways of looking at programming talent (or really talent in many things):
1) "Programming Talent" is far too general a term to attach to any mechanistic views of brain ability. That is, being "good at programming" has such a broad reach that nearly everyone who is "good" at programming is really good at some very small niche at programming and frequently the skills that make them good at that aspect can be actually detrimental in other niches. This same argument holds about other talents as well. For instance, height is a phenomenal advantage in basketball. But being tall doesn't correlate with eye-hand coordination, agility, or foot speed. Each one of those is also a phenomenal advantage and having all of them at once is exceedingly rare.
2) Another argument is that unlike in basketball where height is a phenomenal physical advantage, the differences between a "talented" programmer and an untalented one are dramatically muted in comparison to other factors such as proper education, proper workplace environment, proper management, etc. So focusing on the talent is not as interesting in programming as it is in basketball.
3) Yet another argument is that we can't identify what programming talent is, so it is a difference without distinction. Is a programmer more productive than their peers because they are talented or because they have better work habits generally? It is very hard to suss out so what difference does it make?
4) Finally, an argument that resonates with me, is that programmer productivity is not bi-modal. That is, for most of the population of programmers they experience dramatic swings in productivity. This swings are more correlated with external factors than any innate ability and you can move along the productivity scale back and forth throughout your life time and talent is largely swamped by these external factors.
I've never heard anyone state that there's no such thing as programming talent. There are many more nuanced ways of looking at programming talent (or really talent in many things):
1) "Programming Talent" is far too general a term to attach to any mechanistic views of brain ability. That is, being "good at programming" has such a broad reach that nearly everyone who is "good" at programming is really good at some very small niche at programming and frequently the skills that make them good at that aspect can be actually detrimental in other niches. This same argument holds about other talents as well. For instance, height is a phenomenal advantage in basketball. But being tall doesn't correlate with eye-hand coordination, agility, or foot speed. Each one of those is also a phenomenal advantage and having all of them at once is exceedingly rare.
2) Another argument is that unlike in basketball where height is a phenomenal physical advantage, the differences between a "talented" programmer and an untalented one are dramatically muted in comparison to other factors such as proper education, proper workplace environment, proper management, etc. So focusing on the talent is not as interesting in programming as it is in basketball.
3) Yet another argument is that we can't identify what programming talent is, so it is a difference without distinction. Is a programmer more productive than their peers because they are talented or because they have better work habits generally? It is very hard to suss out so what difference does it make?
4) Finally, an argument that resonates with me, is that programmer productivity is not bi-modal. That is, for most of the population of programmers they experience dramatic swings in productivity. This swings are more correlated with external factors than any innate ability and you can move along the productivity scale back and forth throughout your life time and talent is largely swamped by these external factors.