3 ms·
Are you thinking of The Camel has Two Humps[1]? I don't think it was ever published in a journal and the author later retracted it.[2] It seems like the conclu
by ggreer 7y ago
Are you thinking of The Camel has Two Humps[1]? I don't think it was ever published in a journal and the author later retracted it.[2]
It seems like the conclusions of the study were overstated, but the general idea is correct: Those who apply rules consistently tend to do better at programming than those who don't. This is true even if their initial rules are incorrect, as they simply have to learn the new rules. They don't have to learn the skill of consistently applying rules.
1. http://www.eis.mdx.ac.uk/research/PhDArea/saeed/paper1.pdf http://www.eis.mdx.ac.uk/research/PhDArea/saeed/paper1.pdf
2. http://www.eis.mdx.ac.uk/staffpages/r_bornat/papers/camel_hump_retraction.pdf http://www.eis.mdx.ac.uk/staffpages/r_bornat/papers/camel_hu...
- bryanrasmussen 7y agoI guess it is, it certainly seems like, although I had the memory that their main claim was that the ability to handle arbitrary mental models (not completely logical ones) was the differentiator between those who succeeded and not. And embarrassingly this thing I've gone around believing for the last 14 years isn't so.