4 ms·

Completely agree on this. I don't believe in innate talent. I believe we are all born with the same willpower to acquire knowledge. Some people will be ok with

by sp4ke 12y ago

Completely agree on this. I don't believe in innate talent. I believe we are all born with the same willpower to acquire knowledge. Some people will be ok with not mastering any specific skill as long as it does the job. Others who are "passionate" about certain fields or skills will try to learn as much as possible. So "passion" is a better word to define people's skills. I'm in the latter category, many people ask me sometimes how do I know so much about so different skills: from networking, security and system programming to web development UIs and design. The truth is I just spend so much time reading and practicing stuff that would seem boring to most developers around me. I spend nights trying to learn this new framework which seemed interesting enough to dig into it, and once I learn to use it, I want to know "HOW". How does it work, which problem does it solve ... and I think only passionate people can do this.

haihaibye 12y ago
>> I believe we are all born with the same willpower to acquire knowledge Evidence seems to show conscientiousness is 50% heritable. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits#Heritability http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits#H...
illumen 12y ago
Over 12 years, if you study & practice an extra 2 hours per day you will have studied the equivalent of 365 days for 24 hours per day, or 1095 days at 8 hours per day. That's about a whole bachelors degree worth of study. That's not even including normal work study and practice. Now, if you get 10 fresh out of school people who also did not study growing up VS someone who has been doing this for 12 years, and who was also a hacker in their youth I know who I'd bet on!
- adekok 12y ago
  > Completely agree on this. I don't believe in innate talent. A little critical thinking shows there must be innate talent. Most human abilities / behaviors / properties vary around a central mean. Some people are short, some are tall. Some are smart, some... less so. Some are naturally good at something, others are naturally bad at it. As an anecdotal data point, my daughter could stand on my outstretched hand pretty much from the time she could stand. The first time I tried it (over a king sized bed), she did it without any problems or concerns. No other kid I've met could do the same. That's an innate talent. The "10,000 hours" idea is also a myth. http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20121114-gladwells-10000-hour-rule-myth http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20121114-gladwells-10000-hou... Practice helps, but you soon reach a limit set by your genetics. And some people are likely to have genetics better suited to the problem at hand.
  - TillE 12y ago
    I'm not a Gladwell fan, but that article presents a weak argument against a claim not even made. > The rule tells us, a mere 10,000 hours of dedicated practice in your particular field is sufficient to bring out the best in you. No! That's not at all what Gladwell was saying. They even quote him: > “The idea that excellence at performing a complex task requires a critical minimum level of practice surfaces again and again in studies of expertise,” writes Gladwell in Outliers. Necessary, not sufficient.
  - normloman 12y ago
    That's fine but the article you linked to doesn't support genetic limits. Was there a different article you meant to link to?
spacecowboy_lon 12y ago
Not sure I agree I am dyslexic and I simply do not have all the inate skills that non disabled peopel have eg I have to work hard to spell of "of" and not "ov" But on the gripping hand I had a reading age of 18 or so at 10 - Average for population is 13 :-)
- namplaa 12y ago
  Don't people with dyslexia have other inane skills, such as better spatial perception?
  - spacecowboy_lon 12y ago
    Suposed to be one of the diagnostic indicators but its not 100% garented. I think it helps with visualising some tasks eg set thoery and SQL
TheOtherHobbes 12y ago
> I don't believe in innate talent. I totally believe in innate talent. There are standard breakpoints in math teaching where people simply don't get it. No matter how much time you spend explaining it to them, their brains aren't wired up to handle certain levels of abstraction. At best they remember it briefly, but it never sticks. (The breakpoints are roughly at basic 'manipulate equations to find x' algebra, basic calculus, and calculus in many dimensions.) Being good at software and math requires an innate ability for symbolic abstraction and reasoning. It also needs a good memory, so you can keep a lot of details in your brain at the same time. If you don't have those, you're not going to be able to do the job - certainly not well, and possibly at all. Hard work will make the most of natural aptitude, but there has to be some natural aptitude to start with. If this isn't obvious, I'd suggest learning some completely new skill, like painting or music. If you don't have natural ability you'll spend a lot of time flailing around wondering how the hell anyone can do it at all. That's how most of the population feels about coding. The HN population is a self-selecting group that feels otherwise - but that doesn't make it typical.
- hga 12y ago
  Issac Asimov famously hit a "breakpoint" at integral calculus. I myself remember "sweating blood" to get definite integration; unfortunately never got a chance to do multiple dimensions. Or take organic chemistry. I have a particular type of memory inherited from my paternal grandmother, anything I can fit into an organization of related things I retain well. And I have really really good 3D visualization. First term organic chemistry was easy, and I didn't have to use physical models more complicated than my fingers and knuckles. It's well known that at minimum this is a lot harder for a lot of people. Heck, it's an appropriate weed out class for premeds, appropriate in that it tests both of those capabilities which will later be needed to learn medicine.
- snowwrestler 12y ago
  Quite a number of scientists are studying how brain development is affected by very early experiences, and so far it seems like it might be more than most people thought. Basic experiences of childhood like breastfeeding, number of words heard per day, amount of music heard, even the number of books in a house, have significant correlations with later metrics of mental success like IQ, grades, career outcomes, etc. By the time a person is old enough to be taking math classes, their "innate" abilities are a combination of nature and nurture. Hitting a "breakpoint" might be the result of deficiencies in their nurture, rather than truly innate (i.e. genetically determined). The question is, if you took every person and raised them in the optimal way, how far could they go in math, programming, or any other pursuit? I think it's obvious that there would still be differentiation according to talent, but I also think it's likely that the average would be a lot higher than it is.

by sp4ke 12y ago

haihaibye 12y ago

>> I believe we are all born with the same willpower to acquire knowledge Evidence seems to show conscientiousness is 50% heritable. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits#Heritability http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits#H...

illumen 12y ago

Over 12 years, if you study & practice an extra 2 hours per day you will have studied the equivalent of 365 days for 24 hours per day, or 1095 days at 8 hours per day. That's about a whole bachelors degree worth of study. That's not even including normal work study and practice. Now, if you get 10 fresh out of school people who also did not study growing up VS someone who has been doing this for 12 years, and who was also a hacker in their youth I know who I'd bet on!

adekok 12y ago
> Completely agree on this. I don't believe in innate talent. A little critical thinking shows there must be innate talent. Most human abilities / behaviors / properties vary around a central mean. Some people are short, some are tall. Some are smart, some... less so. Some are naturally good at something, others are naturally bad at it. As an anecdotal data point, my daughter could stand on my outstretched hand pretty much from the time she could stand. The first time I tried it (over a king sized bed), she did it without any problems or concerns. No other kid I've met could do the same. That's an innate talent. The "10,000 hours" idea is also a myth. http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20121114-gladwells-10000-hour-rule-myth http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20121114-gladwells-10000-hou... Practice helps, but you soon reach a limit set by your genetics. And some people are likely to have genetics better suited to the problem at hand.
- TillE 12y ago
  I'm not a Gladwell fan, but that article presents a weak argument against a claim not even made. > The rule tells us, a mere 10,000 hours of dedicated practice in your particular field is sufficient to bring out the best in you. No! That's not at all what Gladwell was saying. They even quote him: > “The idea that excellence at performing a complex task requires a critical minimum level of practice surfaces again and again in studies of expertise,” writes Gladwell in Outliers. Necessary, not sufficient.
- normloman 12y ago
  That's fine but the article you linked to doesn't support genetic limits. Was there a different article you meant to link to?

spacecowboy_lon 12y ago

Not sure I agree I am dyslexic and I simply do not have all the inate skills that non disabled peopel have eg I have to work hard to spell of "of" and not "ov" But on the gripping hand I had a reading age of 18 or so at 10 - Average for population is 13 :-)

namplaa 12y ago
Don't people with dyslexia have other inane skills, such as better spatial perception?
- spacecowboy_lon 12y ago
  Suposed to be one of the diagnostic indicators but its not 100% garented. I think it helps with visualising some tasks eg set thoery and SQL

TheOtherHobbes 12y ago

> I don't believe in innate talent. I totally believe in innate talent. There are standard breakpoints in math teaching where people simply don't get it. No matter how much time you spend explaining it to them, their brains aren't wired up to handle certain levels of abstraction. At best they remember it briefly, but it never sticks. (The breakpoints are roughly at basic 'manipulate equations to find x' algebra, basic calculus, and calculus in many dimensions.) Being good at software and math requires an innate ability for symbolic abstraction and reasoning. It also needs a good memory, so you can keep a lot of details in your brain at the same time. If you don't have those, you're not going to be able to do the job - certainly not well, and possibly at all. Hard work will make the most of natural aptitude, but there has to be some natural aptitude to start with. If this isn't obvious, I'd suggest learning some completely new skill, like painting or music. If you don't have natural ability you'll spend a lot of time flailing around wondering how the hell anyone can do it at all. That's how most of the population feels about coding. The HN population is a self-selecting group that feels otherwise - but that doesn't make it typical.

hga 12y ago
Issac Asimov famously hit a "breakpoint" at integral calculus. I myself remember "sweating blood" to get definite integration; unfortunately never got a chance to do multiple dimensions. Or take organic chemistry. I have a particular type of memory inherited from my paternal grandmother, anything I can fit into an organization of related things I retain well. And I have really really good 3D visualization. First term organic chemistry was easy, and I didn't have to use physical models more complicated than my fingers and knuckles. It's well known that at minimum this is a lot harder for a lot of people. Heck, it's an appropriate weed out class for premeds, appropriate in that it tests both of those capabilities which will later be needed to learn medicine.
snowwrestler 12y ago
Quite a number of scientists are studying how brain development is affected by very early experiences, and so far it seems like it might be more than most people thought. Basic experiences of childhood like breastfeeding, number of words heard per day, amount of music heard, even the number of books in a house, have significant correlations with later metrics of mental success like IQ, grades, career outcomes, etc. By the time a person is old enough to be taking math classes, their "innate" abilities are a combination of nature and nurture. Hitting a "breakpoint" might be the result of deficiencies in their nurture, rather than truly innate (i.e. genetically determined). The question is, if you took every person and raised them in the optimal way, how far could they go in math, programming, or any other pursuit? I think it's obvious that there would still be differentiation according to talent, but I also think it's likely that the average would be a lot higher than it is.