The stepping stones of CompSci - how is that in other fields?
-
I am working with the following assumptions here: Programming is "elite" - some people get it, some people - even if smarter - don't, and we don't know why that is so. We even can identify and usually agree on these things: - "computing basics" (i.e. dumb computers following your instructions) - indirection (pointers and references) - recursion and it's relationship to iteration - concurrency - ... (yes, there's more on the horizon...) i.e. in the sense that someone either "gets" pointers, or doesn't get them. The "aha"-effect may be delayed a bit, but if you don't get it, vigorous study won't remove this deficiency (except maybe how to deal with). My question is not whether or not you agree with these assumptions. But if you do for the moment, my quesiton is: Is this distinctness unique for programming? i.e. do physics, math, chemistry, biology, ... have similar selected feats that are distinctive of the good / mediocre / bad ones? Even independent of "brainy"? I can't think of any really in the other fields. E.g. relativity theory in physics seems to be of a different quality - I've found noone who does not struggle with it, and even those who "get" it have no problem understanding that it's hard. Anyone?
I'm tone deaf. Does that count?
Todd Smith
-
I am working with the following assumptions here: Programming is "elite" - some people get it, some people - even if smarter - don't, and we don't know why that is so. We even can identify and usually agree on these things: - "computing basics" (i.e. dumb computers following your instructions) - indirection (pointers and references) - recursion and it's relationship to iteration - concurrency - ... (yes, there's more on the horizon...) i.e. in the sense that someone either "gets" pointers, or doesn't get them. The "aha"-effect may be delayed a bit, but if you don't get it, vigorous study won't remove this deficiency (except maybe how to deal with). My question is not whether or not you agree with these assumptions. But if you do for the moment, my quesiton is: Is this distinctness unique for programming? i.e. do physics, math, chemistry, biology, ... have similar selected feats that are distinctive of the good / mediocre / bad ones? Even independent of "brainy"? I can't think of any really in the other fields. E.g. relativity theory in physics seems to be of a different quality - I've found noone who does not struggle with it, and even those who "get" it have no problem understanding that it's hard. Anyone?
at work they built the world's longest freespanning cable on the windiest pass in southern new mexico.... vibration? no one thought of that? static electricity? whoa... how did we miss that? lightning? that never strikes twice in the same spot... right? I can give you a list of events that would make the C# and C++ forums look more intelligent than Engineering.... and that doesn't count lost things, crashed things, and self destructed things.... many careers have items that people never seem to get or remember... mostly because someone sometime dismissed them as unnecessary.
_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb) John Andrew Holmes "It is well to remember that the entire universe, with one trifling exception, is composed of others."
-
I am working with the following assumptions here: Programming is "elite" - some people get it, some people - even if smarter - don't, and we don't know why that is so. We even can identify and usually agree on these things: - "computing basics" (i.e. dumb computers following your instructions) - indirection (pointers and references) - recursion and it's relationship to iteration - concurrency - ... (yes, there's more on the horizon...) i.e. in the sense that someone either "gets" pointers, or doesn't get them. The "aha"-effect may be delayed a bit, but if you don't get it, vigorous study won't remove this deficiency (except maybe how to deal with). My question is not whether or not you agree with these assumptions. But if you do for the moment, my quesiton is: Is this distinctness unique for programming? i.e. do physics, math, chemistry, biology, ... have similar selected feats that are distinctive of the good / mediocre / bad ones? Even independent of "brainy"? I can't think of any really in the other fields. E.g. relativity theory in physics seems to be of a different quality - I've found noone who does not struggle with it, and even those who "get" it have no problem understanding that it's hard. Anyone?
I believe _everything_ is easy ... if it's explained in the right way. The problem is that 'the right way' varies from person to person, even with people of equivalent intelligence. We each have our own 'world view|framework' that develops over our lifetime. Every time we get a piece of information we see how it fits in our world view. If the information overlaps existing information it reinforces our belief that the existing information is correct. If the information is new then we check that any 'edges' that match existing information do so in a consistent manner. If there are inconsistencies then we question the value of the new information and|or the existing information. If no edges connect to existing information then we have a hard time understanding|learning it - it has no context. The 'aha' moment comes when we develop a metaphor that is able to build a bridge between existing information and the new information. As we learn more the metaphor and bridge are replaced by more complete bits of information. Long answer short; i don't agree with your assumptions, nor do i believe the 'distinctness' you define is unique to learning any given group of knowledge.
...cmk The idea that I can be presented with a problem, set out to logically solve it with the tools at hand, and wind up with a program that could not be legally used because someone else followed the same logical steps some years ago and filed for a patent on it is horrifying. - John Carmack
-
I am working with the following assumptions here: Programming is "elite" - some people get it, some people - even if smarter - don't, and we don't know why that is so. We even can identify and usually agree on these things: - "computing basics" (i.e. dumb computers following your instructions) - indirection (pointers and references) - recursion and it's relationship to iteration - concurrency - ... (yes, there's more on the horizon...) i.e. in the sense that someone either "gets" pointers, or doesn't get them. The "aha"-effect may be delayed a bit, but if you don't get it, vigorous study won't remove this deficiency (except maybe how to deal with). My question is not whether or not you agree with these assumptions. But if you do for the moment, my quesiton is: Is this distinctness unique for programming? i.e. do physics, math, chemistry, biology, ... have similar selected feats that are distinctive of the good / mediocre / bad ones? Even independent of "brainy"? I can't think of any really in the other fields. E.g. relativity theory in physics seems to be of a different quality - I've found noone who does not struggle with it, and even those who "get" it have no problem understanding that it's hard. Anyone?
peterchen wrote:
Programming is "elite"
I've been working as a programmer for quite some years, and there is nothing Elitarian about it. I learned that patting an ego is good for lowering the cost of a programmer :)
peterchen wrote:
and we don't know why that is so.
We do know, but mostly we choose to ignore it.
peterchen wrote:
My question is not whether or not you agree with these assumptions.
Most people wouldn't, perhaps you should ask yourself "why" :)
peterchen wrote:
Is this distinctness unique for programming?
Nah, any kid in school that has to face a math-teacher will say that you either get it, or you don't. (And, if it were true, the teacher would be redundant) Each trade has some hard-to-master bits, by which you can recognize a master.
I are troll :)
modified on Saturday, January 3, 2009 5:41 AM
-
PIEBALDconsult wrote:
People are wired differently... some more than others.
Nope, I entirely disagree with this statement. I bet you if you very carefully thought back to that class where you did well with logs and badly with everything else, if you looked at your whole life then holistically and traced it back, you'd find some reason why you were more interested in logs than the other aspects, perhaps an initial success and encouragement in that area that spurred you on and less initial success in other areas. Something turned you off of the rest of it and interested you about logs. The brain is wired exactly according to how it's used as modern research shows. It's not hard wired at all, it's plastic and it bends to your will and remaps itself to accommodate. It stands to reason that interest plays the most important role of all, where you put your attention.
"It's so simple to be wise. Just think of something stupid to say and then don't say it." -Sam Levenson
John C wrote:
perhaps an initial success and encouragement in that area that spurred you on
I tend to agree with this view. In an Applied Mathematics class at school I gave a correct answer to a question from the teacher, who said I was wrong, took several 'really' wrong answers from other class members before demonstrating exactly my answer on the chalkboard, only it was called a blackboard back then. After that I lost interest in the subject and never paid attention in class.
Honi soit qui mal y pongs - Evil to he who thinks it stinks
-
I believe _everything_ is easy ... if it's explained in the right way. The problem is that 'the right way' varies from person to person, even with people of equivalent intelligence. We each have our own 'world view|framework' that develops over our lifetime. Every time we get a piece of information we see how it fits in our world view. If the information overlaps existing information it reinforces our belief that the existing information is correct. If the information is new then we check that any 'edges' that match existing information do so in a consistent manner. If there are inconsistencies then we question the value of the new information and|or the existing information. If no edges connect to existing information then we have a hard time understanding|learning it - it has no context. The 'aha' moment comes when we develop a metaphor that is able to build a bridge between existing information and the new information. As we learn more the metaphor and bridge are replaced by more complete bits of information. Long answer short; i don't agree with your assumptions, nor do i believe the 'distinctness' you define is unique to learning any given group of knowledge.
...cmk The idea that I can be presented with a problem, set out to logically solve it with the tools at hand, and wind up with a program that could not be legally used because someone else followed the same logical steps some years ago and filed for a patent on it is horrifying. - John Carmack
cmk wrote:
The problem is that 'the right way' varies from person to person, even with people of equivalent intelligence
This is one of the factors which makes buying Computer Books, and I suppose this must apply to other fields, difficult. There are 'lightbulb' books and 'chewing boot leather' books, my boot leather book might be your lightbulb book. The same applies to tutors, articles and other resources. The thing is, to keep chewing till the light comes on.
Honi soit qui mal y pongs - Evil to he who thinks it stinks
-
I am working with the following assumptions here: Programming is "elite" - some people get it, some people - even if smarter - don't, and we don't know why that is so. We even can identify and usually agree on these things: - "computing basics" (i.e. dumb computers following your instructions) - indirection (pointers and references) - recursion and it's relationship to iteration - concurrency - ... (yes, there's more on the horizon...) i.e. in the sense that someone either "gets" pointers, or doesn't get them. The "aha"-effect may be delayed a bit, but if you don't get it, vigorous study won't remove this deficiency (except maybe how to deal with). My question is not whether or not you agree with these assumptions. But if you do for the moment, my quesiton is: Is this distinctness unique for programming? i.e. do physics, math, chemistry, biology, ... have similar selected feats that are distinctive of the good / mediocre / bad ones? Even independent of "brainy"? I can't think of any really in the other fields. E.g. relativity theory in physics seems to be of a different quality - I've found noone who does not struggle with it, and even those who "get" it have no problem understanding that it's hard. Anyone?
-
cmk wrote:
The problem is that 'the right way' varies from person to person, even with people of equivalent intelligence
This is one of the factors which makes buying Computer Books, and I suppose this must apply to other fields, difficult. There are 'lightbulb' books and 'chewing boot leather' books, my boot leather book might be your lightbulb book. The same applies to tutors, articles and other resources. The thing is, to keep chewing till the light comes on.
Honi soit qui mal y pongs - Evil to he who thinks it stinks
-
The image I now have of you in a tutorial is err.... :laugh: :doh:
Visit http://www.notreadytogiveup.com/[^] and do something special today.
Very purrceptive.
Honi soit qui mal y pongs - Evil to he who thinks it stinks
-
I am working with the following assumptions here: Programming is "elite" - some people get it, some people - even if smarter - don't, and we don't know why that is so. We even can identify and usually agree on these things: - "computing basics" (i.e. dumb computers following your instructions) - indirection (pointers and references) - recursion and it's relationship to iteration - concurrency - ... (yes, there's more on the horizon...) i.e. in the sense that someone either "gets" pointers, or doesn't get them. The "aha"-effect may be delayed a bit, but if you don't get it, vigorous study won't remove this deficiency (except maybe how to deal with). My question is not whether or not you agree with these assumptions. But if you do for the moment, my quesiton is: Is this distinctness unique for programming? i.e. do physics, math, chemistry, biology, ... have similar selected feats that are distinctive of the good / mediocre / bad ones? Even independent of "brainy"? I can't think of any really in the other fields. E.g. relativity theory in physics seems to be of a different quality - I've found noone who does not struggle with it, and even those who "get" it have no problem understanding that it's hard. Anyone?
peterchen wrote:
Is this distinctness unique for programming?
No. IMHO one big difference is that nowdays everyone qualify himself as 'Senior Developer'. :-D
If the Lord God Almighty had consulted me before embarking upon the Creation, I would have recommended something simpler. -- Alfonso the Wise, 13th Century King of Castile.
This is going on my arrogant assumptions. You may have a superb reason why I'm completely wrong. -- Iain Clarke
[My articles] -
Specialist not elite. There are some major egos in CompSci!
Visit http://www.notreadytogiveup.com/[^] and do something special today.
Yeah we are such egomaniacs compared to modest people from other professions like advocacy or Wall Street gangs :rolleyes:
-
Yeah we are such egomaniacs compared to modest people from other professions like advocacy or Wall Street gangs :rolleyes:
:-D
If the Lord God Almighty had consulted me before embarking upon the Creation, I would have recommended something simpler. -- Alfonso the Wise, 13th Century King of Castile.
This is going on my arrogant assumptions. You may have a superb reason why I'm completely wrong. -- Iain Clarke
[My articles] -
not sure I agree with your assumptions :- 1) I think there are 'different types' of intelligence - it may be that across some fields, that being able to break things down into steps, be 'creative' (a whole different can of worms) and handle abstract ideas for example is a plus (for example) 2) I think 'above a certain' intelligence level, you can teach people things like pointers - I have done - I also understand the basics of relativity - that comes not from school/Uni, where I didnt 'get it', but by voraciously reading other things that rephrased the terms ... On the flip side, there's things I dont get - women/why Im still single at 0x2B, when I get told Im a nice guy .. [edit] at least Roger has proved there's hope :-) [/edit] 'g'
Garth J Lancaster wrote:
I get told Im a nice guy
That's your problem. :doh:
Simply Elegant Designs JimmyRopes Designs
Think inside the box! ProActive Secure Systems
I'm on-line therefore I am. JimmyRopes -
I am working with the following assumptions here: Programming is "elite" - some people get it, some people - even if smarter - don't, and we don't know why that is so. We even can identify and usually agree on these things: - "computing basics" (i.e. dumb computers following your instructions) - indirection (pointers and references) - recursion and it's relationship to iteration - concurrency - ... (yes, there's more on the horizon...) i.e. in the sense that someone either "gets" pointers, or doesn't get them. The "aha"-effect may be delayed a bit, but if you don't get it, vigorous study won't remove this deficiency (except maybe how to deal with). My question is not whether or not you agree with these assumptions. But if you do for the moment, my quesiton is: Is this distinctness unique for programming? i.e. do physics, math, chemistry, biology, ... have similar selected feats that are distinctive of the good / mediocre / bad ones? Even independent of "brainy"? I can't think of any really in the other fields. E.g. relativity theory in physics seems to be of a different quality - I've found noone who does not struggle with it, and even those who "get" it have no problem understanding that it's hard. Anyone?
Is this a programming question?
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001 -
not sure I agree with your assumptions :- 1) I think there are 'different types' of intelligence - it may be that across some fields, that being able to break things down into steps, be 'creative' (a whole different can of worms) and handle abstract ideas for example is a plus (for example) 2) I think 'above a certain' intelligence level, you can teach people things like pointers - I have done - I also understand the basics of relativity - that comes not from school/Uni, where I didnt 'get it', but by voraciously reading other things that rephrased the terms ... On the flip side, there's things I dont get - women/why Im still single at 0x2B, when I get told Im a nice guy .. [edit] at least Roger has proved there's hope :-) [/edit] 'g'
-
Is this a programming question?
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001Yes, about List Control with VB. Why?
-
PIEBALDconsult wrote:
People are wired differently... some more than others.
Nope, I entirely disagree with this statement. I bet you if you very carefully thought back to that class where you did well with logs and badly with everything else, if you looked at your whole life then holistically and traced it back, you'd find some reason why you were more interested in logs than the other aspects, perhaps an initial success and encouragement in that area that spurred you on and less initial success in other areas. Something turned you off of the rest of it and interested you about logs. The brain is wired exactly according to how it's used as modern research shows. It's not hard wired at all, it's plastic and it bends to your will and remaps itself to accommodate. It stands to reason that interest plays the most important role of all, where you put your attention.
"It's so simple to be wise. Just think of something stupid to say and then don't say it." -Sam Levenson
John C wrote:
It's not hard wired at all, it's plastic and it bends to your will and remaps itself to accommodate
Exactly; otherwise we wouldn't be wired differently.
John C wrote:
perhaps an initial success and encouragement in that area
Exactly; that's the sort sort of thing that builds new circuits.
-
Ahh..you're a nature man then in the eternal nature vs nurture debate. I'm a nurture man myself, I think the people that "get it" are the people that have an interest in it. I could be a wizard at math but I have no interest in it at all because I was turned off of it strongly at a young age by a very mean spirited teacher who took a disliking to me and singled me out at a critical time in my life. Before that I was always interested in it even as a young nipper and was far ahead of average for it in elementary school. On the other hand I've always been interested in computers from a young age because of a family friend who was interested in computers and electronics and was encouraging about it. So my answer would be no, the distinction is absolutely not unique to programming or any other field of human endeavour and I disagree with your assertion that there are people who are smarter than other people and therefore better able to "get" these things, I think they are just more interested in that area. I worked in the forest in a really crummy area of it several steps below the lowliest logger, we were contract employees and worked under appalling conditions, it was entirely miserable though good money could be made if you worked extremely hard at it. The people that failed to make the grade were people who were clearly not interested in doing it and were self defeating about it, instead of just quitting to do something else they were interested in they kept persisting and getting nowhere and being miserable about it. You could as easily say that some of use "got it" and some of us didn't but the fact was that anyone could get it if they cared enough.
"It's so simple to be wise. Just think of something stupid to say and then don't say it." -Sam Levenson
I, too, am in the nurture group, but I don't think the question deals with nature vs nurture at all, at least I didn't read it that way. It merely involves the mind in a state when a subject was presented, regardless how it got there.
-
Ahh..you're a nature man then in the eternal nature vs nurture debate. I'm a nurture man myself, I think the people that "get it" are the people that have an interest in it. I could be a wizard at math but I have no interest in it at all because I was turned off of it strongly at a young age by a very mean spirited teacher who took a disliking to me and singled me out at a critical time in my life. Before that I was always interested in it even as a young nipper and was far ahead of average for it in elementary school. On the other hand I've always been interested in computers from a young age because of a family friend who was interested in computers and electronics and was encouraging about it. So my answer would be no, the distinction is absolutely not unique to programming or any other field of human endeavour and I disagree with your assertion that there are people who are smarter than other people and therefore better able to "get" these things, I think they are just more interested in that area. I worked in the forest in a really crummy area of it several steps below the lowliest logger, we were contract employees and worked under appalling conditions, it was entirely miserable though good money could be made if you worked extremely hard at it. The people that failed to make the grade were people who were clearly not interested in doing it and were self defeating about it, instead of just quitting to do something else they were interested in they kept persisting and getting nowhere and being miserable about it. You could as easily say that some of use "got it" and some of us didn't but the fact was that anyone could get it if they cared enough.
"It's so simple to be wise. Just think of something stupid to say and then don't say it." -Sam Levenson
Similar to me - there was a great school math project rolled out and the maths teacher wasn't really a maths teacher, just a teacher who did maths. He also couldn't cope with awkward questions like where error terms disappeard to :rolleyes:
Visit http://www.notreadytogiveup.com/[^] and do something special today.
-
I am working with the following assumptions here: Programming is "elite" - some people get it, some people - even if smarter - don't, and we don't know why that is so. We even can identify and usually agree on these things: - "computing basics" (i.e. dumb computers following your instructions) - indirection (pointers and references) - recursion and it's relationship to iteration - concurrency - ... (yes, there's more on the horizon...) i.e. in the sense that someone either "gets" pointers, or doesn't get them. The "aha"-effect may be delayed a bit, but if you don't get it, vigorous study won't remove this deficiency (except maybe how to deal with). My question is not whether or not you agree with these assumptions. But if you do for the moment, my quesiton is: Is this distinctness unique for programming? i.e. do physics, math, chemistry, biology, ... have similar selected feats that are distinctive of the good / mediocre / bad ones? Even independent of "brainy"? I can't think of any really in the other fields. E.g. relativity theory in physics seems to be of a different quality - I've found noone who does not struggle with it, and even those who "get" it have no problem understanding that it's hard. Anyone?
In the debate of nature vs nurture, I believe that it's all a matter of configuration, with knowledge and skill as the software, and neurological brainpower as the hardware. Some people really have to work hard to get the knowledge and skill working on their biological 'hardware'. Others can easily attain the same knowledge and skill because their brains just might work faster than others.
peterchen wrote:
Is this distinctness unique for programming?
So to answer your question, distinctness isn't unique for programming. Not every brain out there can comprehend the 'software' (or attain the skill or knowledge) per se, and since no two brains are alike (even among twins), it's not a stretch to say that no two brains will perform at the same rate, much less be able to comprehend the same information at the same rate. I read somewhere that it takes about ten years to master a skill, and in those ten years, the human brain goes through profound changes that make it easier for a person to perform that skill effortlessly. So when you look at a person and see that they "just don't get it", it could just be that way because they currently lack the knowledge or the brain capacity to understand that particular skill. That assumes, of course, that they're not literally diagnosed as mentally retarded (i.e. IQ >=100)
Do you know...LinFu?
