Comment by St-Clock | Hacker News Reader

Comment by St-Clock | Hacker News Reader

"I agree with Bill. From what I've seen, there's just no crossing the skill chasm as a software developer. You've either got it, or you don't. No amount of putting your nose to the grindstone will change that."

This is a very condescending look on humanity and I did not know that Jeff had said such things.

To anyone thinking the same, let me introduce you to the concept of deliberate practice (how to really improve a skill) and please, even if it wasn't published then, read "Talent Is Overrated" by Geoff Colvin. This will probably change your perception on things like excellence, creativity, so-called "talent" and whether it's true that you must be born a genius to become one.

And by the way, that does not mean that everything is an american dream and that anyone can become a self-made person. Geoff shows through many examples and studies in his book that superstars in music, sports, and science had an exceptional learning environment in their childhood. They did not suffer from hunger and extreme poverty. He also talk about a study that demonstrated that ordinary people could increase their short term memory (remembering up to 100 items if I recall correctly, no pun intended) by doing deliberate practice.

When I was first starting as a programmer, I would have agreed with you. But over the years I've learned that it is 100% accurate that some people can program while others simply cannot.

But it's not a matter of stupid/smart. It's actually the same reason why Paul Graham's 'Hackers and Painters' analogy is so apt. The reality is that some people can think in abstract terms, while others cannot.

Someone who can think in abstract terms can be a graphic artist or a programmer. Consider that even in mathematics, the most concrete things are numbers, which are completely abstract. If you understand that, then guess what? You can think in abstract terms.

I completely agree with you that some people, right now, cannot think in abstract terms. My point though, is that they could learn it through deliberate practice, unless they have a severe medical condition that affect the way they think.

Maybe they don't know they can learn it (possibly because others have told them that they would never get it), maybe they try hard but fail to do deliberate practice (which is different than programming every day), maybe they aren't interested and still want to have a programming job (that's a problem and they should be redirected to a more appropriate position).

Another book I really like to recommend for people who hate maths or don't understand them is Innumeracy by John Allen Paulos. It really helps you get a more positive view on maths. The sequel, Beyond Numeracy, is less groundbreaking though.

> The reality is that some people can think in abstract terms, while others cannot.

This is true, although there's also a gray area of spectrum in between. I've worked with a few programmers who could write imperative-style code just fine, commented and clean, looping over arrays and FizzBuzz and such; but who never grokked first-class functions or SQL set-based operations. (I've replaced many a complex cursor-looping SQL procedure with a set-based query running ten or more times faster.) I think a more nuanced description of the question here is whether and how one can successfully drive oneself to think in progressively higher abstractions. It's not all black and white, abstract or concrete.

I totally agree with the 'thinking in abstract terms' thing but I would never reduce programming to that. It's not always so abstract.

I tend to think that it'soften good rhetoric skills. A great ability with the three different types of rhetorical proof: ethos, logos, pathos.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetoric

Since I'm recommending books today, I really liked "Thank You for Arguing" by Jay Heinrichs. Very fun and instructive intro to rhetoric.

I can see how rhetoric (and religion!) can come into play in design meetings :-)

The author of that also uses a great deal of selective evidence, flat out ignoring genetic research in relationship to music, for example. Specific genetic sequences have been linked both to perfect pitch and to success in classical music. If you can't find it via a quick google search, I'll be happy to provide citations.

Evidence for the role of genetics in running, swimming and a variety of other sports is equally overwhelming. In short, he (and others like him such as gladwell) sell a fantasy that millions, possibly billions would like to believe. It's an excellent strategy for selling books and developing a base of hard-core fans, but it's just not true.

You are right: genetics can certainly give you an edge and this is briefly mentioned in the book.

But do you mean that someone without the right genetic sequence can't play music? Or do you mean that someone with the right genetic sequence but who never does deliberate practice will be better than someone who has practiced 6 hours per day for the past 20 years under the best masters?

I think you don't mean that and the book did not mean that everyone can be star.

I'm sure some programmers are advantaged by their genes, but saying that all the bad programmers don't have the right genes and should look elsewhere is another thing. I would prefer to look at their learning practices and motivations before studying their genes. I'm sure I would have a lot more success than a geneticist in this case.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com