Hacker News Reader

So I want to live in a world where I can talk to people who have never learned counting or arithmetic. So I think we should make sure those people still exist, by denying a certain percentage of the population a chance to learn about them.

Seriously, what the hell?

You are stretching the issue a bit far IMO. Also counting and arithmetic is kind of hard NOT to learn even if you do not specifically learn it from somebody or in school because it is too essential to living in society. Programming is hardly the case.

And the whole thing is not about my selfish reasons to satisfy my curiosity, it's about diversity in the thinking process of people in society. Programming changes how some people think and reason, and it may not be the best for everybody in the entire world to learn, regardless of profession. That is my entire point.

It's an absurd line of reasoning. You attacked the presupposition that everyone should learn basic logic with the further presupposition that learning to reason logically is detrimental to the thought process of certain classes or society.

Aside from being needlessly exclusionary, the entire notion that learning basic programming "warps" your way of thinking is about as ridiculous as the inverse - that learning about color theory and basic art & design irrevocably turns us into illogical über right-brained caricatures.

I never said people should not learn basic logic. What I said/meant was that learning to program may shift how people approach problems, in a way that favors logical thinking, which may not be ideal for everybody. Programmers tend to approach and react to issues/problems with reasoning, but for some people (maybe some artists for example), they may prefer to be more emotional and irrational.

In my opinion, programming is not as simple of other forms of knowledge such as color theory. Knowing color theory doesn't mean you can paint well, just as knowing the syntax of a language doesn't mean you can write good programs. Programming is more about a way of thinking, and my entire point was that this way of thinking may not be beneficial/desirable to everybody in society.

Perhaps comparing it to color theory is a stretch, but I think comparing it to something like 'learning how to see' as an artist is apt, and highlights the absurdity of the position you've taken.

But knowing color theory doesn't make you a bad programmer. Why in hell would knowing basic programming inhibit your emotions?

so, an alternate example 1. speaking english will give people advantages 2. learning a new language may quite well introduce you to new ways of thinking 3. so you'd prefer that not everyone had the opportunity to learn english, regardless of the individual benefit to them, in order to maintain the kind of society you want to be in.

That is not the case at all. I'm not saying that we shouldn't give the opportunity to learn programming to everybody, I'm saying that trying to get everybody to learn programming (which, in the ideal case, the end goal would be pretty much everybody on the entire planet learns to program when they were young) may not be all good.

Just like we shouldn't force everybody to learn English. People who can speak English may think quite differently from people who can only speak Korean or Chinese or German, and I don't think it's good to try to get everybody on the planet to learn to speak English. Part of it may be cultural, as with learning languages (programming languages included) you are inevitably exposed to the culture.

As a non-native english speaker I assure you everything has a cost even a supposedly universal good thing like english. The more fluent I am at english the more my thought process changes. There are already cases where I find myself unable to relate to the simple joy that people around me seem to get for free.

Slightly off topic, there's evidence that not having the language to articulate a concept can mean it is incredibly difficult to understand. http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2004/oct/21/research.hig...

I once knew a.old lady that never learned math, and never cared to.

I asked her, what was her age.

" oh sweet child, I have no idea, and it does not bother me, because it is not important, what is important is that I am old.now, and I will die soon, and that before being old, I did good things with ny life. You are young, do your best, strive for it while you can, and when you get old, enjoy what remains of your life. Don't care about your age, or the numbers on it, just live and do it, when the time.comes.to it be over, it will be over, it is useless to predict that."

And then, I was amazed at the wisdom.of a old lady that don't believed in math.

Knowing your age is pretty poor justification for knowing basic maths. How about understanding the true cost of a loan, or how much you should save for your pension, or whether the 3-for-2 offer at your local supermarket is good value?

If you don't know basic maths, you are likely to spend much of your life getting ripped off left, right and centre.

I agree that some programmers seem to get 'stuck' in a certain way of thinking, but I'm immediately reminded of Seymore Papert, in Mindstorms (1980), describing an ideal state beyond that:

"By deliberately learning to imitate mechanical thinking, the learner becomes able to articulate what mechanical thinking is and what it is not. The exercise can lead to greater confidence about the ability to choose a cognitive style that suits the problem. Analysis of "mechanical thinking" and how it is different from other kinds and practice with problem analysis can result in a new degree of intellectual sophistication. By providing a very concrete down-to-earth model of a particular style of thinking, work with the computer can make it easier to understand that there is such a thing as a "style of thinking". And giving children the opportunity to choose one style or another provides an opportunity to develop the skill necessary to choose between styles. Thus instead of inducing mechanical thinking, contact with computers could turn out to be the best conceivable antidote to it. And for me what is the most important in this is that through these experiences these children would be serving their apprenticeships as epistemologists, that is to say learning to think articulately about thinking."

Luckily some people's minds are quite resilient to becoming irreparably warped by logical thinking. :) I think you're overestimating how easy it is to fundamentally change the way someone thinks, as are the people who think anyone can get good at programming. There's practically no downside to letting everyone try programming because many will either quit or fail. But the upside is that some people will find out they're good at it.

You imply that logical thinking is a desirable trait for everybody

It's certainly a desirable trait for everyone whom we allow to vote.

The politicians of many "democracies" would disagree. They want the voters to be as stupid as possible.

> For example some artists may not want to "limit" their thought process to just logical, to more freely connect with and express their emotions [...]. But after being trained to program it may be quite difficult to think any other way but logically.

Is there any evidence for this assertion? I've noticed changes in the way I think after years (not a couple classes) of programming, but I highly doubt basic programming knowledge in any way inhibits creative ability. However, if there is reason to think so, I'd be fascinated to read about it.

I think programming warps your thinking when you do it for 10 hours a day 5-7 days a week, not so much if you do 1 semester of it at school.

I want to live in a world where I can find and talk to somebody who has not learned to write, who does not have any idea how the alphabet works, but is exceptional in some other completely unrelated field.