4 ms·
If we can demonstrate that with enough practice, anyone can get good at anything (with a large delta of good), then I think that's meaningful. I'd agree with t
by orangecat 16y ago
If we can demonstrate that with enough practice, anyone can get good at anything (with a large delta of good), then I think that's meaningful.
I'd agree with that, which is a very different claim than "there's no such thing as innate talent".
I've talked to other CS majors who think that most people just don't have the right "mind" for programming
I'd also agree with that, and I don't think it's contradictory. Have you really not observed that some people pick up programming far easier than others? I believe that almost anyone can get to the point where they can write basic software, but not that everyone is capable of becoming the next Dennis Ritchie.
- scott_s 16y agoI think that initial aptitude at a task is not a good predictor for how well you can do after doing it for a decade. It is a good predictor for likelihood at actually pursuing it for a decade, because it often determines whether or not you like the activity. Put another way, people become good at things that they like because they keep doing them. We get positive reinforcement. But I don't think there are a class of people who have the "mind" for programming. Also note that by bring up Dennis Ritchie, you've now introduced the "what does it take to be a genius" discussion, which is different from achieving expert status.