"...a smart person eager to learn is a breeze compared to teaching problem solving to someone who memorized the reference manual."
I would guess that there is actually significant overlap between these two groups.
I would guess that there is actually significant overlap between these two groups.
Memorising the manual is the strategy of a surface learner. Surface learners can make pretty good PHP programmers, but they'll struggle with, say, passing Javascript closures.
A deep learner will look for the underlying principles and abstractions. They can quickly get an overview that, even when it's fuzzy, is still accurate enough for them to know where the gaps in their knowledge are, so they can fill those gaps quickly when they need to. They're like Mendeleev with his first periodic table. He didn't need somebody to show him a sample of gallium to know that it existed: he could inferred its presence and properties from the overall structure of the system.
Of course, a really advanced programmer will have done both. They will know and understand everything. But those guys are few and far between.
a) IT is akin to playing computer games all day.
b) It's easy work in a climatized office with solid pay
c) The jobs are relatively secure and abundant.
I've seen many people go into IT that would much better have been employed elsewhere, so I think that we, as programmers are not more intelligent on average than the rest of the population. I might agree that people who enjoy programming have a knack for a certain type of intelligence and problem solving ability, but I don't think that programmers are limited to the group of people that enjoy programming.
The phenomenon of the Computer Science graduate who can't write a FizzBuzz program, or even the post-graduate who can't write a simple recursive function, is well attested. But a Math student who can't handle a recursive definition is unlikely to make it through the first term.
I wouldn't. Smart people get bored sitting around memorizing things. They'd rather be thinking. Purely anecdotally, the smartest people I know rarely have encyclopedic knowledge of anything.
Yes, this is more what I was thinking of as "encyclopedic knowledge" (which may not be what the parent post to mine meant by the term).