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?
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
-
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've encountered many similarities in other fields. Any number of domestic electricians I've talked to hold their high-voltage cousins in high esteem unwilling to contemplate they could do the work. Domestic concreters look up to the guys doing large scale buildings. I could imagine surgeons doing simple day surgeries reading about the people doing hand and face transplants or brain surgery. Every field has it, it is just the differences are all perceived and rarely absolutes. A programming mate of mine struggles to understand pointers, but he can write the most unbelievable software simulating complex physical processes. - Phil
-
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:
if it's explained in the right way.
I agree, my father's godmother doesn't understand computers at all (just about manages a TV) but understood the difference between single / multi-core machines when I explained it in terms of cooking a family dinner...
-
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?
Hi Peter, I'm not sure what you are really talking about or asking here, so there is not even one "moment" when I can even see what your assumptions are, let alone come back with a non-trivial response. Are you saying you believe programmers are an "elite" ? Or that programmers believe they are an elite ? Are you saying that some cognitive abilities relating to "programming" are "innate" ? Are you saying you equate "computer science" with "programming" ? Are you saying that there are specific cognitive skills like understanding "pointers" or "recursion" that for many people are "binary" : they "get them" or "they don't get them" ? Are you saying that "programming" or "computer science" in your opinion involves unique qualities of abstract thinking or logical inference that are qualitatively different than those found in mathematical reasoning, musical education, literary analysis, historical research ? best, Bill
"Many : not conversant with mathematical studies, imagine that because it [the Analytical Engine] is to give results in numerical notation, its processes must consequently be arithmetical, numerical, rather than algebraical and analytical. This is an error. The engine can arrange and combine numerical quantities as if they were letters or any other general symbols; and it fact it might bring out its results in algebraical notation, were provisions made accordingly." Ada, Countess Lovelace, 1844
