4 ms·

It's not nonsense. I can't stand people who post crap like "OMG I can program so I have to have a higher than average IQ". And then they link to articles tha

It's not nonsense. I can't stand people who post crap like "OMG I can program so I have to have a higher than average IQ". And then they link to articles that support their little circle jerk. No. Sorry. You don't. You are average. I'm average. We are all average. Just 'cause you can code doesn't mean you are suddenly god's gift to intelligence. You aren't. Really. Sorry. You are just as stupid as everybody else. 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.

Noumenon72 7y ago
You're stunning me here. It's like you're objecting to someone saying gymnasts are coordinated or air traffic controllers can handle a lot of stress. Intelligence is a core qualification for programming, like height for basketball. You can't say "I play basketball, so I'm taller than others", but you can say "We're all basketball players, so we're likely taller than most". We're _selected_ for intelligence.
- noblethrasher 7y ago
  Citing Kathy Sierra’s book, Badass (pp 91–92) > 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.
  - iguy 7y ago
    That may be an inspiring book, but if you're interested in what's actually known about talent, success, and the limits on our ability to measure and predict such things, then you should look elsewhere. (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.)
  - Noumenon72 7y ago
    One Muggsy Bogues proves natural height is not an absolute requirement for playing in the NBA, but does not prove that basketball players are not taller than average.
  - nl 7y ago
    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. This is probably true for programming too. But just because something isn't necessary it doesn't imply there is a correlation.
- aguyfromnb 7y ago
  >It's like you're objecting to someone saying gymnasts are coordinated or air traffic controllers can handle a lot of stress. 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.
kyberias 7y ago
> Just because you can do $PROFESSION doesn't make you above average in 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.

Noumenon72 7y ago

You're stunning me here. It's like you're objecting to someone saying gymnasts are coordinated or air traffic controllers can handle a lot of stress. Intelligence is a core qualification for programming, like height for basketball. You can't say "I play basketball, so I'm taller than others", but you can say "We're all basketball players, so we're likely taller than most". We're _selected_ for intelligence.

noblethrasher 7y ago
Citing Kathy Sierra’s book, Badass (pp 91–92) > 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.
- iguy 7y ago
  That may be an inspiring book, but if you're interested in what's actually known about talent, success, and the limits on our ability to measure and predict such things, then you should look elsewhere. (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.)
- Noumenon72 7y ago
  One Muggsy Bogues proves natural height is not an absolute requirement for playing in the NBA, but does not prove that basketball players are not taller than average.
- nl 7y ago
  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. This is probably true for programming too. But just because something isn't necessary it doesn't imply there is a correlation.
aguyfromnb 7y ago
>It's like you're objecting to someone saying gymnasts are coordinated or air traffic controllers can handle a lot of stress. 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.

kyberias 7y ago

> Just because you can do $PROFESSION doesn't make you above average in 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.