5 ms·
Correlation. Smart people usually can learn touch typing easily, and do so, so they can do various tasks faster. If you can't touch type, then either: 1. You
by Ferret7446 2y ago
Correlation. Smart people usually can learn touch typing easily, and do so, so they can do various tasks faster.
If you can't touch type, then either:
1. You aren't smart.
2. You are one of the very few people who are smart, but for some reason just can't easily learn touch typing.
3. For some reason you rarely have to type in your life.
The population of good programmers that falls into either 2 or 3 is very small (and 1 excludes the "good" condition).
- antimemetics 2y agoLike any generalisation this is unhelpful in the real world. You don’t need to be particularly smart for 95% of programming tasks AFAICT
- h4ny 2y agoI think you managed to criticise someone's use of generalisation with two generalisations. Generalisations aren't inherently bad, thinking that generalisations are absolute truths is probably what you think is bad.
- fuzzfactor 2y agoCorreletion; smart people have sometimes already progressed so much they don't have to do everything as fast as possible to get more accomplished than the frantic operators. >1. You aren't smart. Very likely for most people, depending on where you draw the line(s). But you could very well still be brilliant. >2. . . . can't easily learn touch typing. OTOH could already have learned touch typing, and recognized the advantages for stream-of-consciousness storytelling, but moved forward without it when it comes to typing in code. >3. For some reason you rarely have to type in your life. But when you do, you want to stop and make sure it is exactly as expected every time before you hit "enter".