Hacker News Reader

Comment by scott_s | Hacker News Reader

but whether you're in the top 5% or the top 0.001% depends on which activity you've chosen (plus your natural talent in that field).

I would be fine with that result. My objection is when people say "I'm just not good at X," when what they really mean is "I'm not as good at X as I think I should be, that frustrates me, and I lack the motivation to continue trying." If we can demonstrate that with enough practice, anyone can get good at anything (with a large delta of good), then I think that's meaningful.

If that statement is self-evident to you, I've talked to people who don't consider it so. For example, I've talked to other CS majors who think that most people just don't have the right "mind" for programming, and I've taught programming to people who said similar things.

View on HN

If we can demonstrate that with enough practice, anyone can get good at anything (with a large delta of good), then I think that's meaningful.

I'd agree with that, which is a very different claim than "there's no such thing as innate talent".

I've talked to other CS majors who think that most people just don't have the right "mind" for programming

I'd also agree with that, and I don't think it's contradictory. Have you really not observed that some people pick up programming far easier than others? I believe that almost anyone can get to the point where they can write basic software, but not that everyone is capable of becoming the next Dennis Ritchie.

I think that initial aptitude at a task is not a good predictor for how well you can do after doing it for a decade. It is a good predictor for likelihood at actually pursuing it for a decade, because it often determines whether or not you like the activity.

Put another way, people become good at things that they like because they keep doing them. We get positive reinforcement. But I don't think there are a class of people who have the "mind" for programming.

Also note that by bring up Dennis Ritchie, you've now introduced the "what does it take to be a genius" discussion, which is different from achieving expert status.

Well, you probably wouldn't ever get in the top 5% of marathon runners if you didn't have legs [1]. I'd argue that it's similar for something like programming. I think you'll find that some people lack the mental acuity or analytical reasoning skills to be in the top 5% of programmers. Those skills can be taught to a certain extent, I suppose, but I don't doubt you'll find people that would plateau well before breaking into "expert" territory. You'd likely find the same for someone trying to reach that point in golf or any other number of skills.

Do most people lack those necessary skills? I'm not really sure.

[1]: For the purpose of the argument, ignore prosthetics. AFAIK, there isn't anything similar to prosthetics for someone that lacks certain necessary abilities to be an "expert" programmer.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com