5 ms·

Nice job with the logical fallacies. First, just because you're well off doesn't require you to become a programmer or a hacker, the author is not claiming tha

Nice job with the logical fallacies. First, just because you're well off doesn't require you to become a programmer or a hacker, the author is not claiming that. However if you were so inclined, you immediately have a leg up on others due to the circumstances you find yourself in, and the resources you have available to you. Denying that just seems stupid. Second, the notion that becoming a good hacker requires social sacrifice is pathetic; misleading; stereotypical. Pick your poison. If you've made social sacrifices, don't blame computers. On top of that, you still have the opportunity to make that sacrifice. If you have 12 siblings and live in the ghetto, or out in coal country, there's not much choice about who you have to interact with or the obligations you've gotta fulfill. That's the whole point. If you grew up in a well off family who had access to a computer at home, or attended a school system that was able to get PCs, you were part of a fortunate group, as distinguished from people who did not have those opportunities available to them.

tptacek 16y ago
I'm not denying that class plays a role --- in fact, I think I made that pretty explicit. I'm arguing that "hacking since you were 8 isn't so much a badge of geek cred as it is an artifact of your social class" is a really bad way of making that argument, since hacking since you were 8 actually is a badge of geek cred. If you look, you'll probably find that people who've trained for pro-tennis since early grade school also tend to be well-off. Guess what? They really are fanatical tennis players; they aren't just "people that had the opportunity to be shuttled to expensive tennis lessons in their childhood". You seem to be trying to engage me in an argument where we're both on the same side. That sounds boring. Let's instead engage with the article article that was posted.
- dgabriel 16y ago
  The tennis players -- they're both, and so are you. The article asks you to accept that you were privileged, and there's nothing evil about that.
  - tptacek 16y ago
    I completely agree that I'm privileged (believe me, I've been through this particular debate more times than I can count, since my geek wife grew up in Orchard TX and paid her college tuition as a hotel maid). Yes. I agree there is a class issue here. I agree so much that I think bad arguments about the class-based glass ceilings are harmful. Why even go to this place, about how committed 8 year olds really are? It's just silly.
- knowtheory 16y ago
  Why? Why is it a badge of geek cred? Cause you're so old sk00l? The fact that you have more demonstrable experience may be a badge of honor. That you have had more time to hone your craft perhaps that's worth something. But the fact that you've been programming for 10 years longer than someone else by itself doesn't mean anything, and it is otherwise irritating to hear people tout that as some sort of credential. So perhaps your right that the author is not addressing the key point, which is that bragging that you've been using a computer longer than someone else is dumb. The author however is also pointing out that it's also pretentious. And agreed, starting a fight for the sake of starting a fight is not the best use of either of our hours :)
  - tptacek 16y ago
    Yes. Because being old sk00l does count for something. In fact, I'll go further than that: the graph of payoff vs. practice over age is nonlinear, and the time you spend from 8 to (say) 14 is probably more valuable than the time you spend from (say) 18 to 22. My friends growing up who coded were writing their own protected mode operating systems, building 3d engines, and modem file transfer protocols. Why? Because that is something that is easier to do when you're too fresh and ignorant to know what a pain building those things turns out to be. Is the lack of access some 8 year olds have to this uniquely valuable development time a problem? Yes, friend, it is. That's a good argument. Which is exactly why arguments that boil down to the notion that it isn't valuable or a credential are bad arguments.
  - tkahn6 16y ago
    In what world do you live in that honing a skill for 10 years longer than someone else counts for nothing? In fact, as computing moves forward, I believe the amount of insight gleaned in the early years of programming decreases. I think I would be farther along in my knowledge of programming and CS if I had started with assembly instead of BASIC. So I think being 'old sk00l' counts for quite a lot.

tptacek 16y ago

I'm not denying that class plays a role --- in fact, I think I made that pretty explicit. I'm arguing that "hacking since you were 8 isn't so much a badge of geek cred as it is an artifact of your social class" is a really bad way of making that argument, since hacking since you were 8 actually is a badge of geek cred. If you look, you'll probably find that people who've trained for pro-tennis since early grade school also tend to be well-off. Guess what? They really are fanatical tennis players; they aren't just "people that had the opportunity to be shuttled to expensive tennis lessons in their childhood". You seem to be trying to engage me in an argument where we're both on the same side. That sounds boring. Let's instead engage with the article article that was posted.

dgabriel 16y ago
The tennis players -- they're both, and so are you. The article asks you to accept that you were privileged, and there's nothing evil about that.
- tptacek 16y ago
  I completely agree that I'm privileged (believe me, I've been through this particular debate more times than I can count, since my geek wife grew up in Orchard TX and paid her college tuition as a hotel maid). Yes. I agree there is a class issue here. I agree so much that I think bad arguments about the class-based glass ceilings are harmful. Why even go to this place, about how committed 8 year olds really are? It's just silly.
knowtheory 16y ago
Why? Why is it a badge of geek cred? Cause you're so old sk00l? The fact that you have more demonstrable experience may be a badge of honor. That you have had more time to hone your craft perhaps that's worth something. But the fact that you've been programming for 10 years longer than someone else by itself doesn't mean anything, and it is otherwise irritating to hear people tout that as some sort of credential. So perhaps your right that the author is not addressing the key point, which is that bragging that you've been using a computer longer than someone else is dumb. The author however is also pointing out that it's also pretentious. And agreed, starting a fight for the sake of starting a fight is not the best use of either of our hours :)
- tptacek 16y ago
  Yes. Because being old sk00l does count for something. In fact, I'll go further than that: the graph of payoff vs. practice over age is nonlinear, and the time you spend from 8 to (say) 14 is probably more valuable than the time you spend from (say) 18 to 22. My friends growing up who coded were writing their own protected mode operating systems, building 3d engines, and modem file transfer protocols. Why? Because that is something that is easier to do when you're too fresh and ignorant to know what a pain building those things turns out to be. Is the lack of access some 8 year olds have to this uniquely valuable development time a problem? Yes, friend, it is. That's a good argument. Which is exactly why arguments that boil down to the notion that it isn't valuable or a credential are bad arguments.
- tkahn6 16y ago
  In what world do you live in that honing a skill for 10 years longer than someone else counts for nothing? In fact, as computing moves forward, I believe the amount of insight gleaned in the early years of programming decreases. I think I would be farther along in my knowledge of programming and CS if I had started with assembly instead of BASIC. So I think being 'old sk00l' counts for quite a lot.