6 ms·

Natural born programmers

97 points by ntlk 13y ago

return0 13y ago
It's one thing to show that some ability can be attained in a controlled, toy-model environment, it's another thing to say that excellence in a field can be achieved solely by environmental factors. In the nature vs nurture debate, it's not fruitful to argue for either extreme.
- davedx 13y ago
  How is arguing that excellence in a field is inborn fruitful in any way? All it does is disempower.
danso 13y ago
Hmmm....I've been a programmer for awhile now and have never really felt the mythos that "you are born a programmer." In fact, I would argue that among professions, programming is probably one of the most merit-based ones around, in which we routinely celebrate those who can hack something clever after a relatively short time of learning programming. What other profession can you think of that would allow (and usually, embrace) a "Learn to Code" type movement, which implies that coding is a skill that any one at any stage can pick up and make use of. The fact that the OP doesn't actually quote examples of "natural born programmer" myths makes it hard to evaluate whether this is really "killing our culture" In the OP's defense, perhaps the OP is referring to the idea of women being less genetically suited to programming? If so, I agree that that is a problem and a harmful mythos. But overall, I think the programming profession does not celebrate the idea of "born programming"
- steveklabnik 13y ago
  He's talking about two things: 'the 10x programmer,' and 'women are just not into programming because genes.'
- llimllib 13y ago
  > I think the programming profession does not celebrate the idea of "born programming" Seriously? Just read the comments above. I'll quote you some of the best if you'd like.
cliveowen 13y ago
Mathematicians have no problem whatsoever learning to program, it's just another way to bring reason into action. The other way around is not true though, programmers can't learn to write proofs, that's just an innate ability.
eloff 13y ago
Nature or nurture. Programming is a highly skilled trade, requiring creative thinking. It's like a combination of engineering and writing prose. While genetics no doubt plays some role, much larger are the attitudes and aptitudes a child learns in their formative years (mostly before school age.) Everybody can learn to program, but not everyone has the attitudes that will make them well suited to it. You're not born with those attitudes for the most part, but if you don't have them, you're probably not going to acquire them. I taught myself programming. I'm now very good at it (at least I like to think so) but it took 12 years of constantly pushing my limits and constantly learning. People who like to go out and drink with their friends every day after work, instead of learn new things at their computer will never be competitive with me. You need to be self-motivating, inquisitive, constantly improving yourself, and put in the massive amounts of time required, not just from 9-5.
- return0 13y ago
  > much larger are the attitudes and aptitudes a child learns in their formative years On the other hand it's a common anecdote that the best (most?) programmers are self taught, like you, they don't learn it as part of their 'nurture'. Couldn't this point to a predisposition to enjoy it?
- mathattack 13y ago
  The best programmers I know broke away from the herd very quickly. (By 4th grade?) It seems very hard to break out if it was curiosity, parental encouragement, or genetic ability. I am certain that #1 is the biggest driver, and #2 was involved. I suspect #3 is too, but not as much as we give it credit for. The breakout programmers did it day and night because they loved it, and quickly expanded on whatever initial advantage they had.
- bentcorner 13y ago
  One of the problems I had as a child was the lack of exposure to the right tools and books. I was interested in games and knew DOS inside and out (at least from a user's perspective), and could script batch very easily, I had a big gap in getting to the point of writing an actual executable. There was a huge "I didn't know what I didn't know" problem. I envy the children of today with the internet at their fingertips and much more accessible tools, although they still face a similar problem, perhaps in the opposite direction (paradox of choice, perhaps).
LanceH 13y ago
What if some people are naturally disposed to believing they can accomplish things?
hugh4life 13y ago
"Stereotype Threat and Women’s Math Performance" The childish belief in stereotype threat is killing our culture. http://drjamesthompson.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/are-girls-too-normal-sex-differences-in.html http://drjamesthompson.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/are-girls-too-... http://drjamesthompson.blogspot.com/2013/09/maths-is-man-thing.html http://drjamesthompson.blogspot.com/2013/09/maths-is-man-thi...
- theorique 13y ago
  Does stereotype threat only work if you believe in it? What if you have issues with the methodology?
- joecorcoran 13y ago
  What culture is that exactly? Is it worth preserving in its current state?
ctdonath 13y ago
While certainly a combination of nature and nurture, there's little question natural born programmers exist. I am one. At 4th grade Dad brought home a terminal and had me type in a 3 line BASIC program (printed a sine wave). I was instantly hooked, programmed daily, and some 35 years later I'm still lovin' it. That nature had to be nurtured lest it be starved or destroyed, and given room and care to flourish it did.
- vezzy-fnord 13y ago
  Sounds very similar to how an entire generation got started with programming. Whatever cause you attribute to your interest, I find it more reasonable to believe that you found the concept of having a computer render your input on a screen to be fascinating and that it led you to teach yourself and practice further how to do this, or a multitude of reasons, but not that you had some inherent predisposition to being a programmer.
  - ctdonath 13y ago
    I don't see how it's not indicative of some inherent predisposition thereto. I realize the prior post was brief and may not have gotten the point across fully; point is, most choices I made revolved around programming, it's what I did (and do) for fun, it's how I view the world. That an entire generation got started the same way may very well be indicative of "inherent predisposition": that period made it easy for the predisposed youth to reach the leading edge of technology very fast and keep pace for a very long time. This in contrast with the current generation, whom I often worry find it nigh unto impossible to "begin at the beginning", there being such a vast swath of complexity between individual transistor and, say, Skyrim: the nature may be there, but nurturing it is much more difficult.
- pradocchia 13y ago
  I was instantly hooked, programmed daily, and some 35 years later I'm still lovin' it. This doesn't demonstrate innate ability. It demonstrates your interest in programming. Do we have natural born interests?
yummyfajitas 13y ago
This article is nothing but a blatant argumentum ad consequentiam, which is a logical fallacy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_consequences https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_consequences The argument given here is basically "mathematical ability is not innate, because if it were, women would react badly to this fact." The article provides lots of evidence that women react badly to this belief, but no evidence whatsoever that the belief is wrong.
- silentbicycle 13y ago
  Before writing the post off with a logical fallacy, perhaps you should consider the biases inherent in doing so, and whether they are distorting your reasoning: http://plover.net/~bonds/bdksucks.html http://plover.net/~bonds/bdksucks.html
  - yummyfajitas 13y ago
    If my reasoning is incorrect, you should have no trouble finding the error and replying with it. Or feel free to cite applause points and declare victory. HN is still smart enough to see through such nonsense, though it does get worse every day.
    - silentbicycle 13y ago
      Sure. The error in your reasoning is that you greatly mischaracterize his point, which is that the concept of the natural-born "10x programmer" is quite destructive.
      - yummyfajitas 13y ago
        How did I mischaracterize it? From my post: "The article provides lots of evidence that women react badly to this belief..." Do you disagree that the original author characterizes the belief as false, in addition to destructive?
        13y ago
rimantas 13y ago
Blog post is terrible. First quote talks about of the stupidity of the idea "hereditary wise man". That idea is indeed stupid, but what it has to do with the idea of "natural born"? And while my ability to play basketball can indeed be developed to some degree, can it be developed to be good enough to play it professionally? I doubt that. Now, some my say that there is difference between physical and mental abilities, but really, are we so sure that we are all born with exactly equal mental setup and potential? Or is this a problem which is better avoided, because it does not play well with polit-correctness? For the last point: does this "belief in natural born ability" apply only to programming and math? What hurts technology is not those "childish believes" but belief that it is at the centre of the universe.
- davedx 13y ago
  > First quote talks about of the stupidity of the idea "hereditary wise man". That idea is indeed stupid, but what it has to do with the idea of "natural born"? Because "natural born" means "genetically determined", and your genes are something you get from your parents, right?
  - 3minus1 13y ago
    There's a huge difference between saying "Some people are born smart because of their genes" and "Some people must necessarily be smart because of their parents"
- stonemetal 13y ago
  can it be developed to be good enough to play it professionally? I doubt that. Maybe not NBA but probably NBADL(the NBA's farm league). Personally I believe it is sort of a sliding scale(not sure if that is the right term), natural talent makes hard work more effective but doesn't negate the need for it. Hard work can compensate for some lack of natural ability but not all of it. Kind of like the tortoise and the hair, the one with the highest average speed will win the race but that isn't necessarily the point in time fastest. What hurts technology is not those "childish believes" but belief that it is at the centre of the universe. Fully agree with that.
- 13y ago
Dirlewanger 13y ago
It's a societal thing. Too many people have in their mind that STEM fields are nerdy and for guys only and they bring this retarded attitude into parenting. Only way it's going to change is gradually unfortunately.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
stiff 13y ago
There are two distinct things, both being true, as far as current research shows: - People who believe that mathematics is an ability that can be trained perform much better than the ones that believe it is an innate skills some people have some people don't - Intelligence, and as a consequence the upper limit of mathematical ability, is to a large extent genetically determined There is no conflict between those two statements.
- davedx 13y ago
  > - Intelligence, and as a consequence the upper limit of mathematical ability, is to a large extent genetically determined Which research?
  - LanceH 13y ago
    He's not making that claim, merely pointing out that the claim isn't mutually exclusive to the other claim.
    - pessimizer 13y ago
      >both being true, as far as current research shows
    - rm999 13y ago
      He is making that claim: >both being true, as far as current research shows
    - gte910h 13y ago
      He is making a claim: "There are two distinct things, both being true, as far as current research shows"
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - stiff 13y ago
    This has been debated to death, see something like: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_versus_nurture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_versus_nurture, Pinkers "Blank slate" book, or what other people already mentioned. Look at extreme cases of people with genetic diseases on one side of the spectrum, and people like John Von Neumann on the other end, and you really shouldn't have any doubts about this, however bad this makes you feel (I had this reaction first considering this too, and judging by the amount of people who responded to this comment very promptly, I judge this happens to a lot of people). By the way I am just summarizing what seems to be the majority vote of scientists, I don't have any strong personal opinion on it.
chrisreichel 13y ago
Is not just a matter of having maths skills. There's some other traits involved. These traits sometimes are developed and sometimes are born with you. You born being introspective or not. This will have a great influence in what kind of professional you will be. I'm not saying that you can't change yourself, but in my opinion a big part of you is defined by your natural talents. I consider myself as an introspective guy. This is something that I'm not able to change, and surely it has a great importance in what kind of work I'm able to be useful.
tokenadult 13y ago
His first link is to a research article in a collection of research articles, and I'm glad I followed the link, https://www.stanford.edu/dept/psychology/cgi-bin/drupalm/system/files/cdweckmathgift.pdf https://www.stanford.edu/dept/psychology/cgi-bin/drupalm/sys... because a publication by Carol Dweck in a collection edited by Stephen J. Ceci and Wendy M. Williams just has to be worth a read. (The various monographs edited by Ceci and Williams are some of the best books available today about psychology research.) We still need to find out more about the issues of "innate" talent distribution and especially about the issues of talent development over the course of growth from infancy to adulthood. It may very well be that there is a lot of latent talent for mathematics, for programming, and for plenty of other challenging domains that stays latent (hidden) because no one lifts a finger to find it and develop it.
debacle 13y ago
I've never even heard someone be referred to as a "natural born programmer." While something like Mathematics can come to someone in a way that makes that person seem like "a natural," programming has so much culture, history, and happenstance ingrained in its reality that it is impossible to become highly skilled as a programmer without a great deal of passion.
- steveklabnik 13y ago
  The 10x meme is largely about some sort of mythical, inherent attribute that makes people super amazing and awesome at writing software. Some people also say that the reason there aren't more women in computer science is because they lack some sort of programming attribute.
  - debacle 13y ago
    10x is all about passion, comprehension, and drive. I would say that almost 100% of it is learned/obtained.
joelhooks 13y ago
I've been reading Papert's Mindstorms[1], which is a discussion on math education and the genesis of LOGO. If this topic interests you, I highly recommend the book. [1] http://www.amazon.com/Mindstorms-Children-Computers-Powerful-Ideas/dp/0465046746 http://www.amazon.com/Mindstorms-Children-Computers-Powerful...
davidbrear 13y ago
Just like anything in life, there's a level of effort to science/math/engineering. If you begin when you're 3 or when you're 30, you still are going to have to give that level of effort. I think people confuse those who started early as winning some genetic lottery but in fact, they simply got started earlier.
pg 13y ago
"belief in gift and natural born ability is toxic to all, and by eliminating it, we won’t alienate so many from technology" There is certainly some inborn variation between people. Anyone with children is aware of it. Two children of the same parents can have very different personalities. So what exactly is it supposed to mean to "eliminate a belief" in variation in inborn ability? That we're supposed to believe something that's not true? That seems a bad road to go down. Not just because it's unwise to base your ideas on lies, but also because you won't convince anyone smart with an ideology based on a premise so obviously false. Better just to say that determination can matter as much or more than inborn ability. That works just as well and has the added advantage of being true.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- steveklabnik 13y ago
  Paul, you are incredibly smart guy, so seeing you respond to scientific studies with "anyone with children is aware of it" is pretty disappointing. As tokenadult points out, these studies are serious business. Anecdata doesn't really cut it.
  - cpuguy83 13y ago
    Steve, How do you explain savants/prodigies? We are all born differently. Our brains work different ways. Our muscles want to do different things. As such we have a propensity towards one thing or another. It is true if you have kids you can see this. Every single baby is completely different, even newborns, in how they respond to things.
    - steveklabnik 13y ago
      When discussing populations, and making statements about them, the presence of an outlier does not invalidate the statement about the characterization of the population. We are, of course, all different. Diversity is a great strength. That doesn't mean that there's a biological basis for every kind of difference.
truthteller 13y ago
there are serious problems with replication and publication bias in the literature on stereotype threat. it does not seem like the author is genuinely curious about gender differences in mathematical ability but rather he is simply on the hunt for material that confirms his biases.
32bitkid 13y ago
I think that in any skill/talent/profession, it is tempting to identify the individuals that thrive at it -- seemingly without effort. Almost all "arts" have some variation of this myth -- programming, sports, painting, writing. Its easy to identify those people -- Pablo Picasso, Bo Jackson, John Carmak, Jane Austen -- and say that they were natural-born whatever... I reject the idea of innate "talent" or "skill". However, I firmly believe that certain individuals are more adept -- either through genetics or environmental factors -- at "learning" a skill, which is a by-product of the assumptions and abstractions that we construct to process information in the world. I think that this myth is much more prevalent in the visual arts. Any one can be taught to draw; a good chunk of the first half of art college is unlearning the bad assumptions you have made about visually processing the world. Those that learn "quicker" are a product of an environment where they never made those assumptions in the first place. But that is simply the first step -- the foundation -- beyond that it takes hard work and practice... A dedication to the craft. If you lack the commitment to the craft then it will suffer... And I think that's true for anything: math, programming, writing, drawing, sports, cooking... and so on. I think that telling someone they "can't" do something or they are naturally "bad" at it is definitely an environmental pressure that could affect ones ability to learn a craft. In fact, it doesn't sound like a good environment to learn anything.
skraushaar 13y ago
I am one of these folks that claims natural math/development skills which were inherited from my natural parents. Here is my empirical evidence: I was neither raised by or knew my biological family growing up (though I know them now). My mother is a developer, my supposed bio-dad is a developer, my late grandmother on my mother's side was a mathematician & psychologist, my grandfather on my mother's side was on the early teams at IBM, and my uncle whom is close to a doppelganger of me is a developer/linux admin. I knew none of these people growing up. My father and mother who raised me are respectively a restaurant manager and a hair stylist. Neither have any significant interest in the sciences or mathematics realms. Somehow I ended up in the family business without a shred of influence from them. Take my story for what you want, but in this case the women were very much involved with the biological version.
- steveklabnik 13y ago
  One individual is not 'empirical evidence.'
  - cpuguy83 13y ago
    It is HIS empirical evidence. It's his evidence based on his observation.
    - bmalee 13y ago
      It's a meaningless observation. One anecdote is not statistically relevant.
      - _delirium 13y ago
        Self-reports typically don't even count as one data point, because they're notoriously unreliable. Reports about one's childhood and motivations, doubly so. There's a reason psychology as a science is no longer based primarily on introspection, as it was in the 19th century. Exceptions if people's self-conceptions are what is actually being studied; in that case collecting self-reports can be legitimate data-collection.
chroma 13y ago
Let's say I grant the author his points about harming gender balances and programming culture. That still doesn't address the most important question: Is it true? Is programming an innate ability? It's unclear whether programming can be taught, but the most depressing study in this area is called The Camel Has Two Humps [1]: We have found a test for programming aptitude, of which we give details. We can predict success or failure even before students have had any contact with any programming language with very high accuracy, and by testing with the same instrument after a few weeks of exposure, with extreme accuracy. We present experimental evidence to support our claim. We point out that programming teaching is useless for those who are bound to fail and pointless for those who are certain to succeed. It will take more than this single study to fully convince me, but it definitely put a dent in my initial belief. 1. http://www.eis.mdx.ac.uk/research/PhDArea/saeed/paper1.pdf http://www.eis.mdx.ac.uk/research/PhDArea/saeed/paper1.pdf
- yummyfajitas 13y ago
  "Two years ago we appeared to have discovered an exciting and enigmatic new predictor of success in a first programming course. We now report that after six experiments, involving more than 500 students at six institutions in three countries, the predictive effect of our test has failed to live up to that early promise." http://www.eis.mdx.ac.uk/research/PhDArea/saeed/paper3.pdf http://www.eis.mdx.ac.uk/research/PhDArea/saeed/paper3.pdf
  - chroma 13y ago
    I didn't know there was a new study. Thanks for linking to it. It looks like there's a meta-study too: http://www.eis.mdx.ac.uk/research/PhDArea/saeed/SD_PPIG_2009.pdf http://www.eis.mdx.ac.uk/research/PhDArea/saeed/SD_PPIG_2009...
- LanceH 13y ago
  My quick and dirty test is if a person uses their right mouse button.
- v21 13y ago
  At the risk of sneering at science for it's own sake: why is that the most important question? What extent is programming an innate skill doesn't seem to have many obvious utilities, but finding effective methods to address gender disparities in STEM fields does. Not to mention that these studies also indicate that a belief in effort rather than innate skill improves performance for both genders.
mortice 13y ago
hello i am a natural born programmer i am a creature of pure logic birthed from the essence of paul graham's reckons, may i join your society
leoedin 13y ago
I have a twin sister. Throughout school, she struggled with maths in a way that I never did. Until university, maths for me was always a case of doing minimal effort and getting As. My twin sister ended up going to maths tutors out of school, spending far, far longer on the topic than I ever did. Even then, when the opportunity presented itself, she dropped maths. There was more enjoyable and easier subject areas to study. Equally, I spent a long time struggling at school with french. The amount of work I had to put in to achieve an "acceptable" result was considerably more than my peers. When the opportunity presented itself, I stopped studying french. I firmly believe that, given enough tutoring, almost anyone could learn the maths that I studied all the way up to at least the first year of my degree. Equally, the evidence is that anyone is capable of learning a language. If I'd put in enough work, memorised enough vocabulary and been willing to practice I almost certainly could have achieved something approaching fluency. However, in both those cases my sister and I came to the table with some innate abilities. She pursued what she found easy and enjoyed, and I pursued what I found easy and enjoyed. Today she's fluent in 3 languages and I'm fluent in 1, while I have an engineering degree. Incidentally, I have an older sister who did study maths to a higher level. Hopefully that's slightly indicative that the environment that we grew up in wasn't discouraging towards girls studying maths or sciences.
auggierose 13y ago
We all observe that people differ in height. Not greatly, the range is about 50cm wide. Of course height affects certain abilities and can have major impact on self esteem, but these days this is just a societal factor: There are no important activities left where a short person could not perform just as well as a tall person. I don't understand how people struggle to transfer this simple truth to mental abilities.
mrleinad 13y ago
Neo: I thought it wasn't real Morpheus: Your mind makes it real Neo: If you're killed in the matrix, you die here? Morpheus: The body cannot live without the mind
derekp7 13y ago
One thing that is natural, is people's enjoyment of something when exposed to it. If you don't enjoy programming, or math, or creating art, then you will be hampered in developing a skill for it.
jjcroftiv 13y ago
I would like a showing of +1's from anybody who thinks they would be as good as Terence Tao if they just studied more mathematics.
- _delirium 13y ago
  If you're interested in what Terence Tao himself has to say on the subject: http://terrytao.wordpress.com/career-advice/does-one-have-to-be-a-genius-to-do-maths/ http://terrytao.wordpress.com/career-advice/does-one-have-to...
realrocker 13y ago
Perception is everything while learning a skill. Recently, I taught the Go programming language to a bunch of non programmers(mostly from arts and design background). The things I skipped talking about were the history of programming, the place of Go in the world of programming and consciously ignored questions similar to, "How difficult is this?", "How much time this will take?" The idea was to teach a programming language with a sense of a planar plateau of difficulty for everyone in the room. I tried to develop the perception of programming as a non-elite skill. The results were surprising. Most of the students picked up the language fairly well and went to write their own apps without any guidance. One guy remarked, "This is like carpentry". I don't understand his reasoning behind the remark but I can infer that as soon as the aura around programming was removed, students responded with much greater understanding. This approach was polar to my earlier methods of trying to ignite a fire of passion in the students by elucidating the complexities and charms of programming. The previous approach was successful too but I had a feeling that I was preaching only to the converted. Now whether natural aptitude is a factor in learning a programming skill is highly suspect. Even if a learner has exceptional natural aptitude(i.e. the X factor gene) he might be living in ghastly social circumstances with unknown effects. Except documented medical conditions there might be no link of learning on natural aptitude. The point is that there is far too less data supporting it.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

97 points by ntlk 13y ago

It's one thing to show that some ability can be attained in a controlled, toy-model environment, it's another thing to say that excellence in a field can be achieved solely by environmental factors. In the nature vs nurture debate, it's not fruitful to argue for either extreme.

davedx 13y ago
How is arguing that excellence in a field is inborn fruitful in any way? All it does is disempower.

danso 13y ago

Hmmm....I've been a programmer for awhile now and have never really felt the mythos that "you are born a programmer." In fact, I would argue that among professions, programming is probably one of the most merit-based ones around, in which we routinely celebrate those who can hack something clever after a relatively short time of learning programming. What other profession can you think of that would allow (and usually, embrace) a "Learn to Code" type movement, which implies that coding is a skill that any one at any stage can pick up and make use of. The fact that the OP doesn't actually quote examples of "natural born programmer" myths makes it hard to evaluate whether this is really "killing our culture" In the OP's defense, perhaps the OP is referring to the idea of women being less genetically suited to programming? If so, I agree that that is a problem and a harmful mythos. But overall, I think the programming profession does not celebrate the idea of "born programming"

steveklabnik 13y ago
He's talking about two things: 'the 10x programmer,' and 'women are just not into programming because genes.'
llimllib 13y ago
> I think the programming profession does not celebrate the idea of "born programming" Seriously? Just read the comments above. I'll quote you some of the best if you'd like.

cliveowen 13y ago

Mathematicians have no problem whatsoever learning to program, it's just another way to bring reason into action. The other way around is not true though, programmers can't learn to write proofs, that's just an innate ability.

eloff 13y ago

Nature or nurture. Programming is a highly skilled trade, requiring creative thinking. It's like a combination of engineering and writing prose. While genetics no doubt plays some role, much larger are the attitudes and aptitudes a child learns in their formative years (mostly before school age.) Everybody can learn to program, but not everyone has the attitudes that will make them well suited to it. You're not born with those attitudes for the most part, but if you don't have them, you're probably not going to acquire them. I taught myself programming. I'm now very good at it (at least I like to think so) but it took 12 years of constantly pushing my limits and constantly learning. People who like to go out and drink with their friends every day after work, instead of learn new things at their computer will never be competitive with me. You need to be self-motivating, inquisitive, constantly improving yourself, and put in the massive amounts of time required, not just from 9-5.

return0 13y ago
> much larger are the attitudes and aptitudes a child learns in their formative years On the other hand it's a common anecdote that the best (most?) programmers are self taught, like you, they don't learn it as part of their 'nurture'. Couldn't this point to a predisposition to enjoy it?
mathattack 13y ago
The best programmers I know broke away from the herd very quickly. (By 4th grade?) It seems very hard to break out if it was curiosity, parental encouragement, or genetic ability. I am certain that #1 is the biggest driver, and #2 was involved. I suspect #3 is too, but not as much as we give it credit for. The breakout programmers did it day and night because they loved it, and quickly expanded on whatever initial advantage they had.
bentcorner 13y ago
One of the problems I had as a child was the lack of exposure to the right tools and books. I was interested in games and knew DOS inside and out (at least from a user's perspective), and could script batch very easily, I had a big gap in getting to the point of writing an actual executable. There was a huge "I didn't know what I didn't know" problem. I envy the children of today with the internet at their fingertips and much more accessible tools, although they still face a similar problem, perhaps in the opposite direction (paradox of choice, perhaps).

LanceH 13y ago

What if some people are naturally disposed to believing they can accomplish things?

hugh4life 13y ago

"Stereotype Threat and Women’s Math Performance" The childish belief in stereotype threat is killing our culture. http://drjamesthompson.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/are-girls-too-normal-sex-differences-in.html http://drjamesthompson.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/are-girls-too-... http://drjamesthompson.blogspot.com/2013/09/maths-is-man-thing.html http://drjamesthompson.blogspot.com/2013/09/maths-is-man-thi...

theorique 13y ago
Does stereotype threat only work if you believe in it? What if you have issues with the methodology?
joecorcoran 13y ago
What culture is that exactly? Is it worth preserving in its current state?

ctdonath 13y ago

While certainly a combination of nature and nurture, there's little question natural born programmers exist. I am one. At 4th grade Dad brought home a terminal and had me type in a 3 line BASIC program (printed a sine wave). I was instantly hooked, programmed daily, and some 35 years later I'm still lovin' it. That nature had to be nurtured lest it be starved or destroyed, and given room and care to flourish it did.

vezzy-fnord 13y ago
Sounds very similar to how an entire generation got started with programming. Whatever cause you attribute to your interest, I find it more reasonable to believe that you found the concept of having a computer render your input on a screen to be fascinating and that it led you to teach yourself and practice further how to do this, or a multitude of reasons, but not that you had some inherent predisposition to being a programmer.
- ctdonath 13y ago
  I don't see how it's not indicative of some inherent predisposition thereto. I realize the prior post was brief and may not have gotten the point across fully; point is, most choices I made revolved around programming, it's what I did (and do) for fun, it's how I view the world. That an entire generation got started the same way may very well be indicative of "inherent predisposition": that period made it easy for the predisposed youth to reach the leading edge of technology very fast and keep pace for a very long time. This in contrast with the current generation, whom I often worry find it nigh unto impossible to "begin at the beginning", there being such a vast swath of complexity between individual transistor and, say, Skyrim: the nature may be there, but nurturing it is much more difficult.
pradocchia 13y ago
I was instantly hooked, programmed daily, and some 35 years later I'm still lovin' it. This doesn't demonstrate innate ability. It demonstrates your interest in programming. Do we have natural born interests?

yummyfajitas 13y ago

This article is nothing but a blatant argumentum ad consequentiam, which is a logical fallacy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_consequences https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_consequences The argument given here is basically "mathematical ability is not innate, because if it were, women would react badly to this fact." The article provides lots of evidence that women react badly to this belief, but no evidence whatsoever that the belief is wrong.

silentbicycle 13y ago
Before writing the post off with a logical fallacy, perhaps you should consider the biases inherent in doing so, and whether they are distorting your reasoning: http://plover.net/~bonds/bdksucks.html http://plover.net/~bonds/bdksucks.html
- yummyfajitas 13y ago
  If my reasoning is incorrect, you should have no trouble finding the error and replying with it. Or feel free to cite applause points and declare victory. HN is still smart enough to see through such nonsense, though it does get worse every day.
  - silentbicycle 13y ago
    Sure. The error in your reasoning is that you greatly mischaracterize his point, which is that the concept of the natural-born "10x programmer" is quite destructive.
    - yummyfajitas 13y ago
      How did I mischaracterize it? From my post: "The article provides lots of evidence that women react badly to this belief..." Do you disagree that the original author characterizes the belief as false, in addition to destructive?
      - 13y ago

rimantas 13y ago

Blog post is terrible. First quote talks about of the stupidity of the idea "hereditary wise man". That idea is indeed stupid, but what it has to do with the idea of "natural born"? And while my ability to play basketball can indeed be developed to some degree, can it be developed to be good enough to play it professionally? I doubt that. Now, some my say that there is difference between physical and mental abilities, but really, are we so sure that we are all born with exactly equal mental setup and potential? Or is this a problem which is better avoided, because it does not play well with polit-correctness? For the last point: does this "belief in natural born ability" apply only to programming and math? What hurts technology is not those "childish believes" but belief that it is at the centre of the universe.

davedx 13y ago
> First quote talks about of the stupidity of the idea "hereditary wise man". That idea is indeed stupid, but what it has to do with the idea of "natural born"? Because "natural born" means "genetically determined", and your genes are something you get from your parents, right?
- 3minus1 13y ago
  There's a huge difference between saying "Some people are born smart because of their genes" and "Some people must necessarily be smart because of their parents"
stonemetal 13y ago
can it be developed to be good enough to play it professionally? I doubt that. Maybe not NBA but probably NBADL(the NBA's farm league). Personally I believe it is sort of a sliding scale(not sure if that is the right term), natural talent makes hard work more effective but doesn't negate the need for it. Hard work can compensate for some lack of natural ability but not all of it. Kind of like the tortoise and the hair, the one with the highest average speed will win the race but that isn't necessarily the point in time fastest. What hurts technology is not those "childish believes" but belief that it is at the centre of the universe. Fully agree with that.
13y ago

Dirlewanger 13y ago

It's a societal thing. Too many people have in their mind that STEM fields are nerdy and for guys only and they bring this retarded attitude into parenting. Only way it's going to change is gradually unfortunately.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

stiff 13y ago

There are two distinct things, both being true, as far as current research shows: - People who believe that mathematics is an ability that can be trained perform much better than the ones that believe it is an innate skills some people have some people don't - Intelligence, and as a consequence the upper limit of mathematical ability, is to a large extent genetically determined There is no conflict between those two statements.

davedx 13y ago
> - Intelligence, and as a consequence the upper limit of mathematical ability, is to a large extent genetically determined Which research?
- LanceH 13y ago
  He's not making that claim, merely pointing out that the claim isn't mutually exclusive to the other claim.
  - pessimizer 13y ago
    >both being true, as far as current research shows
  - rm999 13y ago
    He is making that claim: >both being true, as far as current research shows
  - gte910h 13y ago
    He is making a claim: "There are two distinct things, both being true, as far as current research shows"
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- stiff 13y ago
  This has been debated to death, see something like: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_versus_nurture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_versus_nurture, Pinkers "Blank slate" book, or what other people already mentioned. Look at extreme cases of people with genetic diseases on one side of the spectrum, and people like John Von Neumann on the other end, and you really shouldn't have any doubts about this, however bad this makes you feel (I had this reaction first considering this too, and judging by the amount of people who responded to this comment very promptly, I judge this happens to a lot of people). By the way I am just summarizing what seems to be the majority vote of scientists, I don't have any strong personal opinion on it.

chrisreichel 13y ago

Is not just a matter of having maths skills. There's some other traits involved. These traits sometimes are developed and sometimes are born with you. You born being introspective or not. This will have a great influence in what kind of professional you will be. I'm not saying that you can't change yourself, but in my opinion a big part of you is defined by your natural talents. I consider myself as an introspective guy. This is something that I'm not able to change, and surely it has a great importance in what kind of work I'm able to be useful.

tokenadult 13y ago

His first link is to a research article in a collection of research articles, and I'm glad I followed the link, https://www.stanford.edu/dept/psychology/cgi-bin/drupalm/system/files/cdweckmathgift.pdf https://www.stanford.edu/dept/psychology/cgi-bin/drupalm/sys... because a publication by Carol Dweck in a collection edited by Stephen J. Ceci and Wendy M. Williams just has to be worth a read. (The various monographs edited by Ceci and Williams are some of the best books available today about psychology research.) We still need to find out more about the issues of "innate" talent distribution and especially about the issues of talent development over the course of growth from infancy to adulthood. It may very well be that there is a lot of latent talent for mathematics, for programming, and for plenty of other challenging domains that stays latent (hidden) because no one lifts a finger to find it and develop it.

debacle 13y ago

I've never even heard someone be referred to as a "natural born programmer." While something like Mathematics can come to someone in a way that makes that person seem like "a natural," programming has so much culture, history, and happenstance ingrained in its reality that it is impossible to become highly skilled as a programmer without a great deal of passion.

steveklabnik 13y ago
The 10x meme is largely about some sort of mythical, inherent attribute that makes people super amazing and awesome at writing software. Some people also say that the reason there aren't more women in computer science is because they lack some sort of programming attribute.
- debacle 13y ago
  10x is all about passion, comprehension, and drive. I would say that almost 100% of it is learned/obtained.

joelhooks 13y ago

I've been reading Papert's Mindstorms[1], which is a discussion on math education and the genesis of LOGO. If this topic interests you, I highly recommend the book. [1] http://www.amazon.com/Mindstorms-Children-Computers-Powerful-Ideas/dp/0465046746 http://www.amazon.com/Mindstorms-Children-Computers-Powerful...

davidbrear 13y ago

Just like anything in life, there's a level of effort to science/math/engineering. If you begin when you're 3 or when you're 30, you still are going to have to give that level of effort. I think people confuse those who started early as winning some genetic lottery but in fact, they simply got started earlier.

pg 13y ago

"belief in gift and natural born ability is toxic to all, and by eliminating it, we won’t alienate so many from technology" There is certainly some inborn variation between people. Anyone with children is aware of it. Two children of the same parents can have very different personalities. So what exactly is it supposed to mean to "eliminate a belief" in variation in inborn ability? That we're supposed to believe something that's not true? That seems a bad road to go down. Not just because it's unwise to base your ideas on lies, but also because you won't convince anyone smart with an ideology based on a premise so obviously false. Better just to say that determination can matter as much or more than inborn ability. That works just as well and has the added advantage of being true.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
steveklabnik 13y ago
Paul, you are incredibly smart guy, so seeing you respond to scientific studies with "anyone with children is aware of it" is pretty disappointing. As tokenadult points out, these studies are serious business. Anecdata doesn't really cut it.
- cpuguy83 13y ago
  Steve, How do you explain savants/prodigies? We are all born differently. Our brains work different ways. Our muscles want to do different things. As such we have a propensity towards one thing or another. It is true if you have kids you can see this. Every single baby is completely different, even newborns, in how they respond to things.
  - steveklabnik 13y ago
    When discussing populations, and making statements about them, the presence of an outlier does not invalidate the statement about the characterization of the population. We are, of course, all different. Diversity is a great strength. That doesn't mean that there's a biological basis for every kind of difference.

truthteller 13y ago

there are serious problems with replication and publication bias in the literature on stereotype threat. it does not seem like the author is genuinely curious about gender differences in mathematical ability but rather he is simply on the hunt for material that confirms his biases.

32bitkid 13y ago

I think that in any skill/talent/profession, it is tempting to identify the individuals that thrive at it -- seemingly without effort. Almost all "arts" have some variation of this myth -- programming, sports, painting, writing. Its easy to identify those people -- Pablo Picasso, Bo Jackson, John Carmak, Jane Austen -- and say that they were natural-born whatever... I reject the idea of innate "talent" or "skill". However, I firmly believe that certain individuals are more adept -- either through genetics or environmental factors -- at "learning" a skill, which is a by-product of the assumptions and abstractions that we construct to process information in the world. I think that this myth is much more prevalent in the visual arts. Any one can be taught to draw; a good chunk of the first half of art college is unlearning the bad assumptions you have made about visually processing the world. Those that learn "quicker" are a product of an environment where they never made those assumptions in the first place. But that is simply the first step -- the foundation -- beyond that it takes hard work and practice... A dedication to the craft. If you lack the commitment to the craft then it will suffer... And I think that's true for anything: math, programming, writing, drawing, sports, cooking... and so on. I think that telling someone they "can't" do something or they are naturally "bad" at it is definitely an environmental pressure that could affect ones ability to learn a craft. In fact, it doesn't sound like a good environment to learn anything.

skraushaar 13y ago

I am one of these folks that claims natural math/development skills which were inherited from my natural parents. Here is my empirical evidence: I was neither raised by or knew my biological family growing up (though I know them now). My mother is a developer, my supposed bio-dad is a developer, my late grandmother on my mother's side was a mathematician & psychologist, my grandfather on my mother's side was on the early teams at IBM, and my uncle whom is close to a doppelganger of me is a developer/linux admin. I knew none of these people growing up. My father and mother who raised me are respectively a restaurant manager and a hair stylist. Neither have any significant interest in the sciences or mathematics realms. Somehow I ended up in the family business without a shred of influence from them. Take my story for what you want, but in this case the women were very much involved with the biological version.

steveklabnik 13y ago
One individual is not 'empirical evidence.'
- cpuguy83 13y ago
  It is HIS empirical evidence. It's his evidence based on his observation.
  - bmalee 13y ago
    It's a meaningless observation. One anecdote is not statistically relevant.
    - _delirium 13y ago
      Self-reports typically don't even count as one data point, because they're notoriously unreliable. Reports about one's childhood and motivations, doubly so. There's a reason psychology as a science is no longer based primarily on introspection, as it was in the 19th century. Exceptions if people's self-conceptions are what is actually being studied; in that case collecting self-reports can be legitimate data-collection.

chroma 13y ago

Let's say I grant the author his points about harming gender balances and programming culture. That still doesn't address the most important question: Is it true? Is programming an innate ability? It's unclear whether programming can be taught, but the most depressing study in this area is called The Camel Has Two Humps [1]: We have found a test for programming aptitude, of which we give details. We can predict success or failure even before students have had any contact with any programming language with very high accuracy, and by testing with the same instrument after a few weeks of exposure, with extreme accuracy. We present experimental evidence to support our claim. We point out that programming teaching is useless for those who are bound to fail and pointless for those who are certain to succeed. It will take more than this single study to fully convince me, but it definitely put a dent in my initial belief. 1. http://www.eis.mdx.ac.uk/research/PhDArea/saeed/paper1.pdf http://www.eis.mdx.ac.uk/research/PhDArea/saeed/paper1.pdf

yummyfajitas 13y ago
"Two years ago we appeared to have discovered an exciting and enigmatic new predictor of success in a first programming course. We now report that after six experiments, involving more than 500 students at six institutions in three countries, the predictive effect of our test has failed to live up to that early promise." http://www.eis.mdx.ac.uk/research/PhDArea/saeed/paper3.pdf http://www.eis.mdx.ac.uk/research/PhDArea/saeed/paper3.pdf
- chroma 13y ago
  I didn't know there was a new study. Thanks for linking to it. It looks like there's a meta-study too: http://www.eis.mdx.ac.uk/research/PhDArea/saeed/SD_PPIG_2009.pdf http://www.eis.mdx.ac.uk/research/PhDArea/saeed/SD_PPIG_2009...
LanceH 13y ago
My quick and dirty test is if a person uses their right mouse button.
v21 13y ago
At the risk of sneering at science for it's own sake: why is that the most important question? What extent is programming an innate skill doesn't seem to have many obvious utilities, but finding effective methods to address gender disparities in STEM fields does. Not to mention that these studies also indicate that a belief in effort rather than innate skill improves performance for both genders.

mortice 13y ago

hello i am a natural born programmer i am a creature of pure logic birthed from the essence of paul graham's reckons, may i join your society

leoedin 13y ago

I have a twin sister. Throughout school, she struggled with maths in a way that I never did. Until university, maths for me was always a case of doing minimal effort and getting As. My twin sister ended up going to maths tutors out of school, spending far, far longer on the topic than I ever did. Even then, when the opportunity presented itself, she dropped maths. There was more enjoyable and easier subject areas to study. Equally, I spent a long time struggling at school with french. The amount of work I had to put in to achieve an "acceptable" result was considerably more than my peers. When the opportunity presented itself, I stopped studying french. I firmly believe that, given enough tutoring, almost anyone could learn the maths that I studied all the way up to at least the first year of my degree. Equally, the evidence is that anyone is capable of learning a language. If I'd put in enough work, memorised enough vocabulary and been willing to practice I almost certainly could have achieved something approaching fluency. However, in both those cases my sister and I came to the table with some innate abilities. She pursued what she found easy and enjoyed, and I pursued what I found easy and enjoyed. Today she's fluent in 3 languages and I'm fluent in 1, while I have an engineering degree. Incidentally, I have an older sister who did study maths to a higher level. Hopefully that's slightly indicative that the environment that we grew up in wasn't discouraging towards girls studying maths or sciences.

auggierose 13y ago

We all observe that people differ in height. Not greatly, the range is about 50cm wide. Of course height affects certain abilities and can have major impact on self esteem, but these days this is just a societal factor: There are no important activities left where a short person could not perform just as well as a tall person. I don't understand how people struggle to transfer this simple truth to mental abilities.

mrleinad 13y ago

Neo: I thought it wasn't real Morpheus: Your mind makes it real Neo: If you're killed in the matrix, you die here? Morpheus: The body cannot live without the mind

derekp7 13y ago

One thing that is natural, is people's enjoyment of something when exposed to it. If you don't enjoy programming, or math, or creating art, then you will be hampered in developing a skill for it.

jjcroftiv 13y ago

I would like a showing of +1's from anybody who thinks they would be as good as Terence Tao if they just studied more mathematics.

_delirium 13y ago
If you're interested in what Terence Tao himself has to say on the subject: http://terrytao.wordpress.com/career-advice/does-one-have-to-be-a-genius-to-do-maths/ http://terrytao.wordpress.com/career-advice/does-one-have-to...

realrocker 13y ago

Perception is everything while learning a skill. Recently, I taught the Go programming language to a bunch of non programmers(mostly from arts and design background). The things I skipped talking about were the history of programming, the place of Go in the world of programming and consciously ignored questions similar to, "How difficult is this?", "How much time this will take?" The idea was to teach a programming language with a sense of a planar plateau of difficulty for everyone in the room. I tried to develop the perception of programming as a non-elite skill. The results were surprising. Most of the students picked up the language fairly well and went to write their own apps without any guidance. One guy remarked, "This is like carpentry". I don't understand his reasoning behind the remark but I can infer that as soon as the aura around programming was removed, students responded with much greater understanding. This approach was polar to my earlier methods of trying to ignite a fire of passion in the students by elucidating the complexities and charms of programming. The previous approach was successful too but I had a feeling that I was preaching only to the converted. Now whether natural aptitude is a factor in learning a programming skill is highly suspect. Even if a learner has exceptional natural aptitude(i.e. the X factor gene) he might be living in ghastly social circumstances with unknown effects. Except documented medical conditions there might be no link of learning on natural aptitude. The point is that there is far too less data supporting it.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]