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?
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?
-
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 -
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?
Philip Laureano wrote:
mentally retarded
That term is so outmoded. The correct term is learning disabled.
-
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 think smart people have realm's of intelligence. Otherwise all great computer programmers would be married to super models and be billionaires.
Need software developed? Offering C# development all over the United States, ERL GLOBAL, Inc is the only call you will have to make.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know. -- Ernest Hemingway
Most of this sig is for Google, not ego. -
Philip Laureano wrote:
mentally retarded
That term is so outmoded. The correct term is learning disabled.
http://www.psychiatry.com/mr/assessment.html[^]
Need software developed? Offering C# development all over the United States, ERL GLOBAL, Inc is the only call you will have to make.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know. -- Ernest Hemingway
Most of this sig is for Google, not ego. -
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?
-
I'm tone deaf. Does that count?
Todd Smith
Todd Smith wrote:
I'm tone deaf
Hi Tone. How ya doin'
Honi soit qui mal y pongs - Evil to he who thinks it stinks
-
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'
-
:-) I was thinking of a doormat with 'sucker' on it - I like yours better
-
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?
The gap between those that "get it" and those that not is, in most cases, determined by personal interests and education. And no, this situation is not unique for programming.
modified on Saturday, January 3, 2009 10:51 PM
