4 ms·

> Most "programmers" aren't programmers. So if you're paid to write programs you probably aren't a professional programmer? What's wrong with an operational d

> Most "programmers" aren't programmers. So if you're paid to write programs you probably aren't a professional programmer? What's wrong with an operational definition?

derefr 13y ago
Another way to say it: if we had any way to quantitatively measure the performance of programmers over time, most "programmers" wouldn't be programmers any more. There's a field with a similar problem to our own: public-school teaching. Teacher performance isn't quantified, and so teachers can pretty much get away with only being as good at imparting knowledge as any random member of the population--even though they took years of education-in-Education. Most "teachers" aren't teachers, any more than I'm a teacher; they're simply people paid to repeatedly attempt (and fail) to be teachers.† We pay a lot of people to repeatedly attempt (and fail) to be programmers. --- † Teachers' unions are right now fighting the introduction of actual metrics on how a student's achievement level's year-over-year velocity is affected by a teacher relative to the average of their peer-teachers in the same school. They are fighting this because the data clearly shows a bimodal distribution, where a lot of people are just extremely unfit to be teachers--their students actually reaching negative learning velocities by their presence in the class--and until now, the unions protected these people, since there was nothing to prove they sucked so very much. It's hard to go back on your decision to defend someone when you later find out that they're indefensible.
- sanderjd 13y ago
  Your opinions on teachers are really easy to nod your head along with, until you actually talk to some teachers about the effects that they are able to observe, directly, of the in-vogue obsession with "actual metrics" (standardized tests) on the actual, ya know, education of their students. I'm sure many teachers disfavor more testing because they know they fear their unfitness, but I think most of them disfavor more testing because they feel we are already testing too damn much, thus trading off a tangible negative short-term effect for a speculative positive long-term effect. Every hour a student spends taking a test is an hour not spent learning. (Apologies for the totally off-topic response to your only mostly off-topic comment.)
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - smith7018 13y ago
    That's honestly a very good point; so much of our public school systems are already broken due to testing. Students are mostly taught the requirements of proficiency tests solely for funding and more occupational-related reasons. I've heard many teachers complain that they aren't truly imparting knowledge but merely repeating from a book due to "the state."
- craigching 13y ago
  I thought you were doing well until you started in on teachers, you should have left that out because it's actually a more complex problem than you make it out to be. I like where you were going on programming though.
  - nbouscal 13y ago
    Here I thought the analogy worked well for that exact reason. They're both very complex problems. That's why both fields are still in the state that they're in.
    - derefr 13y ago
      Yes, exactly--if assessing teacher performance was simple, then we'd be doing it, wouldn't we? :)
- atondwal 13y ago
  > Teachers' unions are right now fighting the introduction of actual metrics We would unionize and be fighting metrics too, if they tried to measure how good a programmer you were with the number of goto's you use.
- kinleyd 13y ago
  Could you share a link to the student achievement metrics pertaining to the average of peer teachers in the same school?
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
minor_nitwit 13y ago
I believe we have an open and shut case of the No True Programmer fallacy.
- derefr 13y ago
  The No True Scotsman fallacy is a fallacy because "Scotsman" is an artificial category. There is no phenomenological consequence of being a "Scotsman"; therefore, its properties can be assigned arbitrarily, based on first assigning someone to the set (by marriage, say), and then remarking on the thing all the members of the new, expanded set have in common. (A clear parallel would be a "No True HN Member" fallacy.) However, if you believe that there is any empirically-detectable property that makes a someone a better programmer when they have more of it, then "programmer" is a natural category, not an artificial one. It's something where, if we washed away the word for it, we'd end up re-creating the word, as a handle to describe that obvious cluster of things which are unlike other things but like one-another. Being a programmer has phenomenological consequences--you can determine who is or isn't a programmer using games or tests which don't have anything to do with programming trivia, and without mentioning that "potential for ability to program" is what you're testing for. In any natural category, you'll have false negatives and false positives: things that are identified as X but don't have the property that puts them in the X natural-category, and things that aren't identified as X, but which do have the property. There are many False Programmers. There are also False Not-Programmers: people who don't think, or know, that they're programmers, but who are nevertheless. This is true of every natural category. There are people who think they can sing but can't, and people who think they can't sing but can. There are professional singers who can't sing, even though they "are" singing. When we say "can sing", we imply the edifice of a market, and competition; we really mean "can sing to a level where we'd pay them more for their singing than a randomly-selected member of the population." In other words, they "can sing objectively-well." There are people who "can program objectively-well." They are, in the terms of the natural category, both the True Programmers, and the False Not-Programmers. There is no fallacy at work.
  - foobarbazqux 13y ago
    Sorry, what is your test for being a programmer? I'm quite curious to hear what more is required beyond writing software, or even how somebody can be a programmer without having written a line of software in their lives.

> Most "programmers" aren't programmers. So if you're paid to write programs you probably aren't a professional programmer? What's wrong with an operational definition?

derefr 13y ago

Another way to say it: if we had any way to quantitatively measure the performance of programmers over time, most "programmers" wouldn't be programmers any more. There's a field with a similar problem to our own: public-school teaching. Teacher performance isn't quantified, and so teachers can pretty much get away with only being as good at imparting knowledge as any random member of the population--even though they took years of education-in-Education. Most "teachers" aren't teachers, any more than I'm a teacher; they're simply people paid to repeatedly attempt (and fail) to be teachers.† We pay a lot of people to repeatedly attempt (and fail) to be programmers. --- † Teachers' unions are right now fighting the introduction of actual metrics on how a student's achievement level's year-over-year velocity is affected by a teacher relative to the average of their peer-teachers in the same school. They are fighting this because the data clearly shows a bimodal distribution, where a lot of people are just extremely unfit to be teachers--their students actually reaching negative learning velocities by their presence in the class--and until now, the unions protected these people, since there was nothing to prove they sucked so very much. It's hard to go back on your decision to defend someone when you later find out that they're indefensible.

sanderjd 13y ago
Your opinions on teachers are really easy to nod your head along with, until you actually talk to some teachers about the effects that they are able to observe, directly, of the in-vogue obsession with "actual metrics" (standardized tests) on the actual, ya know, education of their students. I'm sure many teachers disfavor more testing because they know they fear their unfitness, but I think most of them disfavor more testing because they feel we are already testing too damn much, thus trading off a tangible negative short-term effect for a speculative positive long-term effect. Every hour a student spends taking a test is an hour not spent learning. (Apologies for the totally off-topic response to your only mostly off-topic comment.)
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- smith7018 13y ago
  That's honestly a very good point; so much of our public school systems are already broken due to testing. Students are mostly taught the requirements of proficiency tests solely for funding and more occupational-related reasons. I've heard many teachers complain that they aren't truly imparting knowledge but merely repeating from a book due to "the state."
craigching 13y ago
I thought you were doing well until you started in on teachers, you should have left that out because it's actually a more complex problem than you make it out to be. I like where you were going on programming though.
- nbouscal 13y ago
  Here I thought the analogy worked well for that exact reason. They're both very complex problems. That's why both fields are still in the state that they're in.
  - derefr 13y ago
    Yes, exactly--if assessing teacher performance was simple, then we'd be doing it, wouldn't we? :)
atondwal 13y ago
> Teachers' unions are right now fighting the introduction of actual metrics We would unionize and be fighting metrics too, if they tried to measure how good a programmer you were with the number of goto's you use.
kinleyd 13y ago
Could you share a link to the student achievement metrics pertaining to the average of peer teachers in the same school?

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

minor_nitwit 13y ago

I believe we have an open and shut case of the No True Programmer fallacy.

derefr 13y ago
The No True Scotsman fallacy is a fallacy because "Scotsman" is an artificial category. There is no phenomenological consequence of being a "Scotsman"; therefore, its properties can be assigned arbitrarily, based on first assigning someone to the set (by marriage, say), and then remarking on the thing all the members of the new, expanded set have in common. (A clear parallel would be a "No True HN Member" fallacy.) However, if you believe that there is any empirically-detectable property that makes a someone a better programmer when they have more of it, then "programmer" is a natural category, not an artificial one. It's something where, if we washed away the word for it, we'd end up re-creating the word, as a handle to describe that obvious cluster of things which are unlike other things but like one-another. Being a programmer has phenomenological consequences--you can determine who is or isn't a programmer using games or tests which don't have anything to do with programming trivia, and without mentioning that "potential for ability to program" is what you're testing for. In any natural category, you'll have false negatives and false positives: things that are identified as X but don't have the property that puts them in the X natural-category, and things that aren't identified as X, but which do have the property. There are many False Programmers. There are also False Not-Programmers: people who don't think, or know, that they're programmers, but who are nevertheless. This is true of every natural category. There are people who think they can sing but can't, and people who think they can't sing but can. There are professional singers who can't sing, even though they "are" singing. When we say "can sing", we imply the edifice of a market, and competition; we really mean "can sing to a level where we'd pay them more for their singing than a randomly-selected member of the population." In other words, they "can sing objectively-well." There are people who "can program objectively-well." They are, in the terms of the natural category, both the True Programmers, and the False Not-Programmers. There is no fallacy at work.
- foobarbazqux 13y ago
  Sorry, what is your test for being a programmer? I'm quite curious to hear what more is required beyond writing software, or even how somebody can be a programmer without having written a line of software in their lives.