The best programmers are more introverted?
-
Last year I posted here: The best developers have a good social life like a non-developers?[^] And I still find that feeling of not being social is still among the best developers, as this article explains: The Rise of the New Groupthink[^].
A good article. In my experience, groups of people are far dumber and less productive than the individuals which comprise them. Some people are smart, some stupid, some are hard working, some lazy. Putting all those people in the same room might help the worst people a little, but it definitely drags down the best. There is no point in even sharing highly complex ideas with a group, some people will not understand them. Groups tend to produce work which leans more toward "lowest common denominator" than "outstanding". I have no problem admitting I am more introverted than the average person, and I think the most dedicated programmers I have encountered are the same. I make no claims on being "best", but I think the people who spend the most time focusing on how to get the most out of machines tend to have more difficulty with people. Programming people is someone else's problem, we just focus on machines. :) I have a beacon of hope to offer! I moved from Detroit to New England a few years ago. Being introverted earned me the label "anti-social" back in Detroit, but it is simply called "taciturn" here, and a respected tradition for New Englanders. :thumbsup:
-
A good article. In my experience, groups of people are far dumber and less productive than the individuals which comprise them. Some people are smart, some stupid, some are hard working, some lazy. Putting all those people in the same room might help the worst people a little, but it definitely drags down the best. There is no point in even sharing highly complex ideas with a group, some people will not understand them. Groups tend to produce work which leans more toward "lowest common denominator" than "outstanding". I have no problem admitting I am more introverted than the average person, and I think the most dedicated programmers I have encountered are the same. I make no claims on being "best", but I think the people who spend the most time focusing on how to get the most out of machines tend to have more difficulty with people. Programming people is someone else's problem, we just focus on machines. :) I have a beacon of hope to offer! I moved from Detroit to New England a few years ago. Being introverted earned me the label "anti-social" back in Detroit, but it is simply called "taciturn" here, and a respected tradition for New Englanders. :thumbsup:
Roy from Detroit wrote:
In my experience, groups of people are far dumber and less productive than the individuals which comprise them.
Idunno ... my experience is that functional teams do exist, and are far smarter and more productive than the individuals in them taken separately.
-
Last year I posted here: The best developers have a good social life like a non-developers?[^] And I still find that feeling of not being social is still among the best developers, as this article explains: The Rise of the New Groupthink[^].
Some days I long for a back woods cave with electricity and wireless Internet access far from everything and everyone :sigh:
Steve _________________ I C(++) therefore I am
-
Last year I posted here: The best developers have a good social life like a non-developers?[^] And I still find that feeling of not being social is still among the best developers, as this article explains: The Rise of the New Groupthink[^].
Well, I'm not sure what this means, but I have a mixed experience on this. First, I consider myself on the higher end of the programming skill spectrum in my office. It's an office of around 160 employees and pretty much everyone here is a programmer. Some are more to management but surely all have already been programmers (except the 4 HR people). Having said that, I can say that in office, I'm a very introverted person and I can say that I'm in the group of group-less people. Sometimes I have lunch with some guys, sometimes I have lunch with other guys and sometimes alone. I can't say that I'm an excluded person, but I don't connect very much with people at work. I have a couple of actual friends, but they are the ones that I have social life outside the office. Now, that's the catch. Outside the office I'm a very outgoing person. I usually make friends easily and people like to be around me, because I can be very funny. I perform very well with the ladies and always host or attend to parties on weekends. I can say that my social life on weekends is very active and productive. I observed something strange however. I wasn't always like that and I learned a lot of programming as a teenager while I was still very introverted at all times. I am self taught like that. That changed when I started college and since then I haven't been as proactive on learning as I once was. Nowadays I read books during the week only when I have time and not for long periods like I used to do as teen during the weekends. Now, I wonder what it means to be very introverted in office but not out of office. I didn't have time to read the article you provided yet, but perhaps it will provide me with a clue... I definitely have a lot to learn about myself yet.
"To alcohol! The cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems" - Homer Simpson
-
Some days I long for a back woods cave with electricity and wireless Internet access far from everything and everyone :sigh:
Steve _________________ I C(++) therefore I am
Unfortunately these kind of ideas somehow die when I realize there's no Pizza-Service nearby... ;)
-
A good article. In my experience, groups of people are far dumber and less productive than the individuals which comprise them. Some people are smart, some stupid, some are hard working, some lazy. Putting all those people in the same room might help the worst people a little, but it definitely drags down the best. There is no point in even sharing highly complex ideas with a group, some people will not understand them. Groups tend to produce work which leans more toward "lowest common denominator" than "outstanding". I have no problem admitting I am more introverted than the average person, and I think the most dedicated programmers I have encountered are the same. I make no claims on being "best", but I think the people who spend the most time focusing on how to get the most out of machines tend to have more difficulty with people. Programming people is someone else's problem, we just focus on machines. :) I have a beacon of hope to offer! I moved from Detroit to New England a few years ago. Being introverted earned me the label "anti-social" back in Detroit, but it is simply called "taciturn" here, and a respected tradition for New Englanders. :thumbsup:
Oh no! I was forced to attend training meetings where we were supposed to figure out what was the best order to do something (Your spaceship crashed on the Moon, you have the following items and situations, what do you do?). First we had to solve the problem on our own and then solve it as a group. The soul crushing lesson the company wanted us to learn was that groups made better decisions. Certainly it let us learn who in the room NOT to listen to. One person would have had a perfect score...if only he hadn't listed it in exactly the reverse order of importance. But that was coming to a solution, not coming up with something new. The cost per hour for that little group grope was astronomical. And the solution is not always worthwhile. A coworker was stuck for hours in a meeting of big wheels and stakeholders that were discussing the results of a hardware/software migration. A report totaling over $10 million was off by 35 cents. The world was going to end! The people in the room (aside from my friend) did not understand floating point errors. My buddy said he spent most of the meeting resisting the idea to throw 35 cents on the table and shout, "Problem solved!" Even if the problem had been resolved, the cost of the room would not have been recouped in a century or two. Coordination as a group is good (provided the group is small, 2 or 3), but creativity requires solitude.
Psychosis at 10 Film at 11 Those who do not remember the past, are doomed to repeat it. Those who do not remember the past, cannot build upon it.
-
Some days I long for a back woods cave with electricity and wireless Internet access far from everything and everyone :sigh:
Steve _________________ I C(++) therefore I am
Some early software developer of a famous Apple II program did exactly that! He lived in a little shack on some mountain side where he wrote his code. The article made a big deal about how he had to hike down the mountain to get food and water, but failed to mention how he was powering his computer. :laugh:
Psychosis at 10 Film at 11 Those who do not remember the past, are doomed to repeat it. Those who do not remember the past, cannot build upon it.
-
Well, I'm not sure what this means, but I have a mixed experience on this. First, I consider myself on the higher end of the programming skill spectrum in my office. It's an office of around 160 employees and pretty much everyone here is a programmer. Some are more to management but surely all have already been programmers (except the 4 HR people). Having said that, I can say that in office, I'm a very introverted person and I can say that I'm in the group of group-less people. Sometimes I have lunch with some guys, sometimes I have lunch with other guys and sometimes alone. I can't say that I'm an excluded person, but I don't connect very much with people at work. I have a couple of actual friends, but they are the ones that I have social life outside the office. Now, that's the catch. Outside the office I'm a very outgoing person. I usually make friends easily and people like to be around me, because I can be very funny. I perform very well with the ladies and always host or attend to parties on weekends. I can say that my social life on weekends is very active and productive. I observed something strange however. I wasn't always like that and I learned a lot of programming as a teenager while I was still very introverted at all times. I am self taught like that. That changed when I started college and since then I haven't been as proactive on learning as I once was. Nowadays I read books during the week only when I have time and not for long periods like I used to do as teen during the weekends. Now, I wonder what it means to be very introverted in office but not out of office. I didn't have time to read the article you provided yet, but perhaps it will provide me with a clue... I definitely have a lot to learn about myself yet.
"To alcohol! The cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems" - Homer Simpson
I can relate to your situation. I think deep and concentrated problem solving causes your brain to temporarily rewire itself while you're performing that task. I've noticed that if some coworkers start chatting while I'm bored or not doing anything requiring concentration it's much easier for me to joke around or be social with them. But if I've just completed or am in the process of something requiring deep concentration, logic, or problem solving it's much harder (or even impossible) to talk with them on that lighter level. Here's my theory about humor (and therefore socializing): I'll start with an analogy. You expect your program to execute function A and possibly function B. Someone runs your program and executes function Fart which was unexpected and you laugh. So your assumption was that only A or B could be run but the user ran Fart! Humor is generated by hearing something you didn't expect (which was meant to be funny). Or sometimes someone will say or do something, with no intention of being funny, which makes you laugh because it was unexpected. That is the basis of every "Funniest Videos" TV show. This guy explains it better than I could: http://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2011/11/20/why-our-brains-make-laugh/l0OWxVcnRpzfyIheFgab5N/story.html?s_campaign=sm_tw[^] So the theory is that because you're thinking so logically you are physically incapable of setting someone up with an assumption and then crushing it in an unexpected way (causing humor). But later in the day when you leave work and are no longer problem solving it becomes much easier to be irrational and make odd connections and humor.
-
A good article. In my experience, groups of people are far dumber and less productive than the individuals which comprise them. Some people are smart, some stupid, some are hard working, some lazy. Putting all those people in the same room might help the worst people a little, but it definitely drags down the best. There is no point in even sharing highly complex ideas with a group, some people will not understand them. Groups tend to produce work which leans more toward "lowest common denominator" than "outstanding". I have no problem admitting I am more introverted than the average person, and I think the most dedicated programmers I have encountered are the same. I make no claims on being "best", but I think the people who spend the most time focusing on how to get the most out of machines tend to have more difficulty with people. Programming people is someone else's problem, we just focus on machines. :) I have a beacon of hope to offer! I moved from Detroit to New England a few years ago. Being introverted earned me the label "anti-social" back in Detroit, but it is simply called "taciturn" here, and a respected tradition for New Englanders. :thumbsup:
I too get tired of the "anti-social" label. when tell people that i'm just introverted; outgoing people just seam to want to 'fix' that and it drives me mad. I actually got told to "keep tring" you'll get better. As if I wanted to change. I do fine when there are just 3 or less other people in a group/meeting but any more than that I just tend duck out.
Customer: what's this 'PID' thing for? me: It's a calculus math formula for controlling your mod motor. You can adjust.... Customer: Never mind.
-
I can relate to your situation. I think deep and concentrated problem solving causes your brain to temporarily rewire itself while you're performing that task. I've noticed that if some coworkers start chatting while I'm bored or not doing anything requiring concentration it's much easier for me to joke around or be social with them. But if I've just completed or am in the process of something requiring deep concentration, logic, or problem solving it's much harder (or even impossible) to talk with them on that lighter level. Here's my theory about humor (and therefore socializing): I'll start with an analogy. You expect your program to execute function A and possibly function B. Someone runs your program and executes function Fart which was unexpected and you laugh. So your assumption was that only A or B could be run but the user ran Fart! Humor is generated by hearing something you didn't expect (which was meant to be funny). Or sometimes someone will say or do something, with no intention of being funny, which makes you laugh because it was unexpected. That is the basis of every "Funniest Videos" TV show. This guy explains it better than I could: http://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2011/11/20/why-our-brains-make-laugh/l0OWxVcnRpzfyIheFgab5N/story.html?s_campaign=sm_tw[^] So the theory is that because you're thinking so logically you are physically incapable of setting someone up with an assumption and then crushing it in an unexpected way (causing humor). But later in the day when you leave work and are no longer problem solving it becomes much easier to be irrational and make odd connections and humor.
jabit wrote:
But later in the day when you leave work and are no longer problem solving it becomes much easier to be irrational and make odd connections and humor.
That actually makes a lot of sense and when I leave work, I completely disconnect with it. Many people can't and end up bringing work home, even if just on their thoughts. I feel lucky I can do this so I can actually be a more pleasant person.
"To alcohol! The cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems" - Homer Simpson
-
Acaz wrote:
An excellent article. I shall be sure to ram it up a few people's noses.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
-
Last year I posted here: The best developers have a good social life like a non-developers?[^] And I still find that feeling of not being social is still among the best developers, as this article explains: The Rise of the New Groupthink[^].
The best programmers are able to work *both* alone and in teams. Sorry introverts, this is just the facts. People tend to value the skills they possess over the skills they don't possess. Thus introverts look for NY Times articles that support their belief that their skills are valuable, and dismiss articles and exercises (the "you crashed on the moon..." exercise) that emphasize skills they don't have. Teams do make better decisions than individuals on average, as long as they have the same goal. Multiple perspectives on a problem result in more thorough analyses and more effective brainstorming. The lone genius is great unless he gets stuck, at which time there's no one to get him over the problem that's blocked his progress. Privacy is not effective for true creativity, but only for the craft of actually lining the bits up in rows and columns. (There's nothing wrong with this activity. If it wasn't for OCD there'd be no computers). We also must face the fact that not all programming is greatly creative. For every lone genius bringing us some great innovation, the world requires 10,000 login pages and add/change/delete screens. If the bulk of the programming work in an organization is routine, then people who can work together are relatively more valueable than lone geniuses. They're easier to manage, and that is what managers value most. Introverts are high-maintenance.
-
The best programmers are able to work *both* alone and in teams. Sorry introverts, this is just the facts. People tend to value the skills they possess over the skills they don't possess. Thus introverts look for NY Times articles that support their belief that their skills are valuable, and dismiss articles and exercises (the "you crashed on the moon..." exercise) that emphasize skills they don't have. Teams do make better decisions than individuals on average, as long as they have the same goal. Multiple perspectives on a problem result in more thorough analyses and more effective brainstorming. The lone genius is great unless he gets stuck, at which time there's no one to get him over the problem that's blocked his progress. Privacy is not effective for true creativity, but only for the craft of actually lining the bits up in rows and columns. (There's nothing wrong with this activity. If it wasn't for OCD there'd be no computers). We also must face the fact that not all programming is greatly creative. For every lone genius bringing us some great innovation, the world requires 10,000 login pages and add/change/delete screens. If the bulk of the programming work in an organization is routine, then people who can work together are relatively more valueable than lone geniuses. They're easier to manage, and that is what managers value most. Introverts are high-maintenance.
It's not as simple as having a team or an individual. Teams can be onerous depending on the personalities, authority, type of tasks, process applied, etc... They can also be very productive if kept small and focused. And focus is the great benefit of the lone individual. We become less productive the more we're distracted from a given task. Introverts are not necessarily high maintenance, in fact I would generally say it's the other way around. If they are then they probably aren't being managed correctly. But there are social aspects of being a developer apart from working with other developers or not. One also sometimes has to interact with managers, business people, vendors, clients, users, etc... Often the developer is also required to be a business analyst, artist, technical support, and on and on. Many roles falling under the umbrella of "developer" that require good skills in asking the right questions and getting the needed information out of someone that may not even realize what the answer is themselves. So you put the right people in the right roles based on all the properties of that individual. A mistake often made is seeing developers as interchangeable cogs, and assigning them to something based solely on a list of technical aptitudes. Ultimately it's ALL individuals and viewing it otherwise will eventually lead to problems.