5 ms·

18 is awfully old to start learning something for the first time. Imagine saying the same thing about math, reading, or history. It's harder to pick things up w

18 is awfully old to start learning something for the first time. Imagine saying the same thing about math, reading, or history. It's harder to pick things up when you're older, and it leaves fewer people capable of it. See also: learning human languages.

krainboltgreene 5y ago
- imwillofficial 5y ago
Kaze404 5y ago
This is the saddest thing I've read on this website. I hope for your own sake you allow yourself to learn new things in the future.
- strken 5y ago
  It's not about what you're allowed to do, it's about what professionals in a field need to do to get to the top. I've been programming since I was 8. I've been drawing since I was 29. I will probably never reach the same percentile of drawing ability that I have with programming ability. That's okay for me because I enjoy it anyway, but from the perspective of training people to do their best work, starting younger can lead to higher ability.
  - joe5150 5y ago
    people don’t generally tend to feel this way about training to work in medicine or hvac or law. or even language, really. obviously children learn how to use language, but training for a professional job as a teacher or a translator (or whatever) doesn’t start at age 8.
    - strken 5y ago
      Kids learn how to read, write, and speak at least one language. Kids who learn two or more presumably turn into better translators. Potential lawyers have access to debate clubs and are trained in public speaking. I know one HVAC technician, and he's been working on cars and bikes with his dad since early childhood. Even doctors get taught biology. I pretty firmly believe nearly anyone can learn to contribute in any area given enough time, but there's a lot of time between 0 and 18, and it's prime learning time when brain plasticity is high and responsibilities are low. Is it really that controversial to say childhood shapes a kid's future?
      - Apocryphon 5y ago
        No, the controversial statement in question was the claim that "18 is awfully old to start learning something for the first time" wrt programming.
        visarga 5y ago
        It's late only if you want to become a top programmer. Top programmers are like top pianists, they start early and are very motivated.
        dgb23 5y ago
        I started at around 10, but there are plenty of programmers I look up to that didn’t. It’s an indication of intrinsic motivation and genuine interest, but there are plenty of people who find that much later. Even today, 25 years later I feel like I learn things more effectively than when I was a kid. Certain types of skills benefit from experience and networked thought. Time per day/week is a much more limiting factor though.
        baq 5y ago
        it absolutely isn't in the context. you start to learn maths in kindergarten. you don't start to program computers there, usually. there are very good reasons not to do that (screen time!), but it will make learning to program easier later in life.
  - Kaze404 5y ago
    There's a huge gap between what you said, which I think is totally reasonable, and saying "18 is awfully old to learn something new". Of course learning something when you're younger likely makes you better at it compared to starting when you're older, but an 18 year old is statistically not even through 1/3 of their life. Not to even consider the amount of people who get into their trade at such a young age. I'll be honestly surprised if they make up any significant amount of the population, and I'm saying this as someone in that boat.
- pinephoneguy 5y ago
  Of course we try new things. The things you learn as a child get internalized very differently than the things you learn as an adult though.
challenger-derp 5y ago
Thorham 5y ago
Most professions are learned and mastered after people finish high school, so that's clearly not true.
- dgb23 5y ago
  To add, some professions even require a certain age or previous, (unrelated) trade, like paramedics. They don’t teach teenagers to do certain jobs.
pech0rin 5y ago
This is absolutely false. I became fluent in Japanese in my 30s. Learned guitar in my late 20s. This is so wrong. You can continue learning until you are dead.
- jokethrowaway 5y ago
  Of course, but you are not likely to speak like a Japanese person - maybe you will, after practicing for a lot of time and assuming your native language had matching sounds to Japanese (I don't know about Japanese but there are some guttural sounds in Greek you won't be able to learn as an adult unless you've been exposed to them as a child). Meanwhile a newborn would learn to speak like a native Japanese speaker in 3-5 years.
- visarga 5y ago
  > I became fluent in Japanese in my 30s. Me too, but I will never reach close to native level of proficiency. It's fun but just that.
- glandium 5y ago
  (edit: I started learning Japanese at 18. I'd say) I became fluent in Japanese in my late 20s. I'm close to 44. My wife is Japanese. I live in Japan. Japanese middle-schoolers (edit: ok, maybe high-schoolers) are more fluent than I am. GP is not saying you can't learn. GP is saying you're unlikely to be more skilled than those who started earlier. Also, past a certain age, there's a more limited amount of time you can dedicate to learning new stuff.
  - dgb23 5y ago
    I think the time factor is likely the most dominant when it comes to learning new things. The beauty of being a young learner is having much more time to do so due to having less responsibilities.
mrtksn 5y ago
18 or any age is alright. In college we had a class coded IS100, which stands for "Information Systems 100". It was so basic that unlike the other 1st year courses that were coded 101, this one was coded with 100. In this class people will be learning how to operate a mouse, close a computer, navigate to a website etc. Extremely basic stuff that was completely new to kids that grew up in a poor family that couldn't afford buy them a computer. This is in a country where college education is free or close to free, you just need to score high to get into a college and as a result many smart students who later become engineers learned using a computer there.
- postexitus 5y ago
  Hocam?
seanmcdirmid 5y ago
One can learn a human language later in life, you just need to have a reason to do it. Kids are better at language acquisition because they have strong desire to communicate with people in their environment. There is no magical LAD that makes it easier for children, they are just extremely motivated. Adults can be motivated also, but the situations for such motivations necessarily decrease as they are able to do what they want without learning new things. They aren’t less capable of learning, just less motivated to learn. That is easy enough to fix (extreme interest is a good motivator, for example).
- jokethrowaway 5y ago
  That's just incorrect. Children have increased neuroplasticity and will always outperform an adult in terms of language learning - not to mention you lose the ability to learn to make certain sounds after a certain age.
  - jamil7 5y ago
    Critical period hypothesis is somewhat debated in linguistics. Children and Adults just learn differently. Children have far less inhibitions and more time. The second part of your comment sounds like pseudoscience. I learned German in my late 20s and speak to native speakers every day, where I live bilingual is the norm and a whole lot of people acquire second, third or forth languages as adults.
_fizz_buzz_ 5y ago
I started learning to program in college. I am an EE, so maybe CS is a bit different. But I remember how intimidating it was to be in a my first programming class with the kids that already knew "everything". So, I bought a C++ book and worked through it cover to cover. Honestly, I had caught up with most the kids that already knew how to program after a couple of semesters or so and helped a bunch of them with our programming lab. I am sure there are some exceptional prodigies that are way better than I am, but it is quite impressive what one can learn even at an older age if one puts time and effort in.
projektfu 5y ago
I think about the first “generation” of computer programmers, many of whom (e.g. Knuth, Richie) wrote software we still use today. At best you could say that it lends itself to a different set of skills. For example, scholars of a second language may know a lot more about its grammar and linguistics than even native professional writers. The native writer might never be able to translate their own work well after learning to speak a second language. There’s probably benefits to growing up “native” in programming, but there’s plenty of examples of people starting later and doing well. I do know of too many people who have changed careers into programming to write off the likelihood of learning it after 18.

krainboltgreene 5y ago

imwillofficial 5y ago

Kaze404 5y ago

This is the saddest thing I've read on this website. I hope for your own sake you allow yourself to learn new things in the future.

strken 5y ago
It's not about what you're allowed to do, it's about what professionals in a field need to do to get to the top. I've been programming since I was 8. I've been drawing since I was 29. I will probably never reach the same percentile of drawing ability that I have with programming ability. That's okay for me because I enjoy it anyway, but from the perspective of training people to do their best work, starting younger can lead to higher ability.
- joe5150 5y ago
  people don’t generally tend to feel this way about training to work in medicine or hvac or law. or even language, really. obviously children learn how to use language, but training for a professional job as a teacher or a translator (or whatever) doesn’t start at age 8.
  - strken 5y ago
    Kids learn how to read, write, and speak at least one language. Kids who learn two or more presumably turn into better translators. Potential lawyers have access to debate clubs and are trained in public speaking. I know one HVAC technician, and he's been working on cars and bikes with his dad since early childhood. Even doctors get taught biology. I pretty firmly believe nearly anyone can learn to contribute in any area given enough time, but there's a lot of time between 0 and 18, and it's prime learning time when brain plasticity is high and responsibilities are low. Is it really that controversial to say childhood shapes a kid's future?
    - Apocryphon 5y ago
      No, the controversial statement in question was the claim that "18 is awfully old to start learning something for the first time" wrt programming.
      - visarga 5y ago
        It's late only if you want to become a top programmer. Top programmers are like top pianists, they start early and are very motivated.
        dgb23 5y ago
        I started at around 10, but there are plenty of programmers I look up to that didn’t. It’s an indication of intrinsic motivation and genuine interest, but there are plenty of people who find that much later. Even today, 25 years later I feel like I learn things more effectively than when I was a kid. Certain types of skills benefit from experience and networked thought. Time per day/week is a much more limiting factor though.
      - baq 5y ago
        it absolutely isn't in the context. you start to learn maths in kindergarten. you don't start to program computers there, usually. there are very good reasons not to do that (screen time!), but it will make learning to program easier later in life.
- Kaze404 5y ago
  There's a huge gap between what you said, which I think is totally reasonable, and saying "18 is awfully old to learn something new". Of course learning something when you're younger likely makes you better at it compared to starting when you're older, but an 18 year old is statistically not even through 1/3 of their life. Not to even consider the amount of people who get into their trade at such a young age. I'll be honestly surprised if they make up any significant amount of the population, and I'm saying this as someone in that boat.
pinephoneguy 5y ago
Of course we try new things. The things you learn as a child get internalized very differently than the things you learn as an adult though.

challenger-derp 5y ago

Thorham 5y ago

Most professions are learned and mastered after people finish high school, so that's clearly not true.

dgb23 5y ago
To add, some professions even require a certain age or previous, (unrelated) trade, like paramedics. They don’t teach teenagers to do certain jobs.

pech0rin 5y ago

This is absolutely false. I became fluent in Japanese in my 30s. Learned guitar in my late 20s. This is so wrong. You can continue learning until you are dead.

jokethrowaway 5y ago
Of course, but you are not likely to speak like a Japanese person - maybe you will, after practicing for a lot of time and assuming your native language had matching sounds to Japanese (I don't know about Japanese but there are some guttural sounds in Greek you won't be able to learn as an adult unless you've been exposed to them as a child). Meanwhile a newborn would learn to speak like a native Japanese speaker in 3-5 years.
visarga 5y ago
> I became fluent in Japanese in my 30s. Me too, but I will never reach close to native level of proficiency. It's fun but just that.
glandium 5y ago
(edit: I started learning Japanese at 18. I'd say) I became fluent in Japanese in my late 20s. I'm close to 44. My wife is Japanese. I live in Japan. Japanese middle-schoolers (edit: ok, maybe high-schoolers) are more fluent than I am. GP is not saying you can't learn. GP is saying you're unlikely to be more skilled than those who started earlier. Also, past a certain age, there's a more limited amount of time you can dedicate to learning new stuff.
- dgb23 5y ago
  I think the time factor is likely the most dominant when it comes to learning new things. The beauty of being a young learner is having much more time to do so due to having less responsibilities.

mrtksn 5y ago

18 or any age is alright. In college we had a class coded IS100, which stands for "Information Systems 100". It was so basic that unlike the other 1st year courses that were coded 101, this one was coded with 100. In this class people will be learning how to operate a mouse, close a computer, navigate to a website etc. Extremely basic stuff that was completely new to kids that grew up in a poor family that couldn't afford buy them a computer. This is in a country where college education is free or close to free, you just need to score high to get into a college and as a result many smart students who later become engineers learned using a computer there.

postexitus 5y ago
Hocam?

seanmcdirmid 5y ago

One can learn a human language later in life, you just need to have a reason to do it. Kids are better at language acquisition because they have strong desire to communicate with people in their environment. There is no magical LAD that makes it easier for children, they are just extremely motivated. Adults can be motivated also, but the situations for such motivations necessarily decrease as they are able to do what they want without learning new things. They aren’t less capable of learning, just less motivated to learn. That is easy enough to fix (extreme interest is a good motivator, for example).

jokethrowaway 5y ago
That's just incorrect. Children have increased neuroplasticity and will always outperform an adult in terms of language learning - not to mention you lose the ability to learn to make certain sounds after a certain age.
- jamil7 5y ago
  Critical period hypothesis is somewhat debated in linguistics. Children and Adults just learn differently. Children have far less inhibitions and more time. The second part of your comment sounds like pseudoscience. I learned German in my late 20s and speak to native speakers every day, where I live bilingual is the norm and a whole lot of people acquire second, third or forth languages as adults.

_fizz_buzz_ 5y ago

I started learning to program in college. I am an EE, so maybe CS is a bit different. But I remember how intimidating it was to be in a my first programming class with the kids that already knew "everything". So, I bought a C++ book and worked through it cover to cover. Honestly, I had caught up with most the kids that already knew how to program after a couple of semesters or so and helped a bunch of them with our programming lab. I am sure there are some exceptional prodigies that are way better than I am, but it is quite impressive what one can learn even at an older age if one puts time and effort in.

projektfu 5y ago

I think about the first “generation” of computer programmers, many of whom (e.g. Knuth, Richie) wrote software we still use today. At best you could say that it lends itself to a different set of skills. For example, scholars of a second language may know a lot more about its grammar and linguistics than even native professional writers. The native writer might never be able to translate their own work well after learning to speak a second language. There’s probably benefits to growing up “native” in programming, but there’s plenty of examples of people starting later and doing well. I do know of too many people who have changed careers into programming to write off the likelihood of learning it after 18.