Hacker News Reader

I read it as coding just being a particular example. The argument works equally well for a pure-tech founder who needs to pick up some marketing to take his project to the next level.

That's absolutely the way it was meant to be read.

Not everybody can learn to code -- even "basic" stuff like a blog -- even though the tools now are better than ever.*

More importantly, not everyone should learn to code. Some people who teach themselves do so very poorly, then cause more trouble than if they had just left it up to someone who is better at it in the first place.

* - This is always true at any point in history, so it's a pretty meaningless point.

Not everybody can learn to code

While I know that many programmers have this attitude, I have not seen any evidence for it. Nor have I heard of any attempts to verify it. Certainly many people don't care enough to learn to code. But that's a different point that one of aptitude, which implies that programmers are a special breed. That's an attitude that I reject.

It's good that you're rejecting that attitude, but that doesn't necessarily invalidate the grandparent's point. Some people can't learn to code because their mind just doesn't work that way. Just like they probably have some skill that we probably can't learn because our minds don't work that way.

Some people can't learn to code because their mind just doesn't work that way.

That very assertion is what I am saying is false. That is a belief you have about how our minds work. I have not seen evidence for it.

Want to see evidence?

1. Go to a mental hospital.

2. Find the most insane person there.

3. Teach them how to code.

Once you've done that, I will grant you that anyone can learn to code.

I'm talking about people who do not have severe mental disabilities or disorders that prevent them from even doing basic things.

For some reason this reminds me of the movie Ratatouille, and the "Anyone can cook" theme.

For those who haven't (and won't) seen the movie, one of the themes (as I see it) is based around two different interpretations of the phrase "Anyone can cook"

1) The looser interpretation that upsets the "ultimate food critic" would be better phrased as "everyone can cook"

2) The interpretation that the movie guides us to (not quite as heavy handed as I'm phrasing it!) is that a cook can come from any background, we shouldn't think that the best cooks can only be found in the trappings of a well respected multi-Michelin-star restaurant kitchen.

The parallel for coding seems obvious to me, we often have very preconceived notions of what it takes to be a "coder", what background, personality type, etc. and we should reject that. The "suits vs. nerds" concept is a form of deception, because it leads us to think that "coders" must be "nerds" and "suits" can never be "coders", neither of which are true.

We should judge people by their ability and capability, not by the fashionable trappings with which they drape themselves; often suits, or nerdy/geekish behavior is merely a social camouflage with no deep correspondence to skill set.

Just my 5c

I think your point is pretty hard to argue with but it doesn't have much bearing on the original point; not everybody can be a programmer.

Yeah a programmer can be a hipster douchebag, a Star Trek loving nerd with Asperger's or a stay at home mom. But not everyone will ever be able to do it.

PS - I love Ratatouille.

EDIT:

To clarify further; anybody CAN have aptitude for programming, but not everybody DOES.

This.

I think (in your edit) you are stating the point I'm trying to make rather better than I did.

It depends what your standard is. If your standard is merely memorizing how to get a compiler or interpreter to spit out "Hello world!" then, yeah everybody can do that.

But if you're talking about really learn how to program, for example to learn the skills necessary to create a basic blog with a database, login, posting, commenting, etc. Then, no, not everybody can do that. If you get some experience in the real world and try talking to people who aren't technical, it will become readily obvious that not everybody can do it.

It's not that programmers are "a special breed", stop being so coder-centric. There's plenty of things you're not good at and can't do as well. Or do you believe what we were told as children; you can do anything! Sorry, but you can't.

You'll never be a Formula 1 driver. You'll never be a fighter pilot. You'll never play in an international level orchestra. You'll never be an architect or civil engineer. Et cetera.

And billions of people will never be programmers.

It's not that programming is so intrinsically special, it's that it's one thing among many things people have varied proficiency for (the origins of that proficiency I have no idea and won't get into), and some have no proficiency for whatsoever.

This is all really obvious if you've spent much time with people who aren't programmers.

That's ridiculous.

The only thing stopping me from doing any of those things is my own lack of interest in doing them. Likewise, the only thing stopping other people from programming is their own lack of interest.

Could I be the "best" architect ever? Probably not. I can't be the best programmer ever, either, but that's never stopped me from programming. A person doesn't have to be in the top 0.0001% to do something successfully.

If you're going to have a shit attitude, then you're probably right, and you're a loser and you'll never do anything.

> The only thing stopping me from doing any of those things is my own lack of interest in doing them.

That's some powerful positive thinking you've got going on there.

You obviously have no idea the work and training involved in some of the examples I gave (fighter pilot, F1 driver.)

Yeah, maybe you could spend the next 4 years getting a degree in civil engineering and maybe you'd be good at that one, if you're already an engineer of some type. But that was just a random example I chose. There's plenty of other fields where you do not have aptitude.

I'm not saying you have to be in the top 0.0001% to count. My point is that of all the things you can do, you have varying aptitudes for all of them.

And whether you accept it or not, there are some things out there that you are going to be completely worthless at. That's just reality. Everybody's great at some things, and shit at others.

Some people are shit at programming. Some people are shit at football. Some people are shit at painting. Nobody's good at everything -- despite what some overly romantic biographies about historical figures might have you believe.

> If you're going to have a shit attitude, then you're probably right, and you're a loser and you'll never do anything.

Nice ad hominem, buddy.

I don't have a shit attitude, I'm a realist. I think everybody's probably good at some things. Some people unfortunately never find what those are, or they don't pursue them, which is sad.

But not everybody can play the piano. Yeah everybody can memorize how to play "Twinkle, Twinkle Little Star" or "Chopsticks". But that doesn't really count as playing the piano, unless you're defining your standards so low that a cat can play the piano.

Likewise, some people are never going to be able to program beyond following rote instructions -- which, IMHO, doesn't really count.

But unlike some people, I don't see that as a bad thing. It's just how it is.

There are plenty of things I am not good at. But, yes, I believe I have the aptitude to do them. I am capable, but not willing. There is an enormous difference. The importance of the difference is: anyone who has to the drive to learn to program can do so.

Whether or not they'll be good is a different question. I'm just talking about competency.

To repeat myself: there is a difference between things you can't do because you have not pursued them, and things you are not capable of doing no matter how much you pursue them.

> To repeat myself: there is a difference between things you can't do because you have not pursued them, and things you are not capable of doing no matter how much you pursue them.

I would agree with this statement. And my point is that for some people, programming is one of those things that even if they pursue it they will never be any good.

I think that applies to pretty much everything that takes training/skill/practice. That's my whole point.

And my point is that that is a belief you have about human intelligence. I am not aware of any support for this belief.

Try getting to know more non-technical people I guess?

It's mostly the abstractness that people have difficulty with.

I know lots of non-technical people. And I still think that if they wanted to learn, they could. I'm thinking of one friend in particular who avoided technical subjects as much as possible, studying history in college and public policy in grad school. And I submit that the kind of reasoning he has to do in public policy, and to navigate the bureaucracy of the State Department, is similar to the reasoning that a programmer does.

I like how you went from comparing passable skills in programming, to being international level experts in other areas.

I know plenty of people that are both programmers and in orchestras, that race cars, and fly planes, paint beautifully, can do UX, and many other things. These people aren't geniuses. They just don't give up immediately when trying to learn something that is difficult.

"You can teach yourself enough code in 6 months to build SOMETHING, to move yourself along far enough to get to the next level."

What is "the next level" in this case, though? Is the idea that if you can slap together a proof of concept it will be easier to find more experienced coders, and then you can stop learning to code and go back to being a non-technical partner? Or is the idea to continue coding after the six months? Because the latter seems like a bad idea to me - if someone doesn't want to code, and they have other skills which coders may not have, it makes more sense for them to focus on these other skills; if learning to code helps them get to a place where they can use their non-coding skills, fine.

Point well taken. I will take encouragement from it. Thanks.