
Natural born programmers - ntlk
http://programmingisterrible.com/post/63729347372/natural-born-programmers
======
pg
"belief in gift and natural born ability is toxic to all, and by eliminating
it, we won’t alienate so many from technology"

There is certainly some inborn variation between people. Anyone with children
is aware of it. Two children of the same parents can have very different
personalities. So what exactly is it supposed to mean to "eliminate a belief"
in variation in inborn ability? That we're supposed to believe something
that's not true? That seems a bad road to go down. Not just because it's
unwise to base your ideas on lies, but also because you won't convince anyone
smart with an ideology based on a premise so obviously false.

Better just to say that determination can matter as much or more than inborn
ability. That works just as well and has the added advantage of being true.

~~~
steveklabnik
Paul, you are incredibly smart guy, so seeing you respond to scientific
studies with "anyone with children is aware of it" is pretty disappointing.

As tokenadult points out, these studies are serious business. Anecdata doesn't
really cut it.

~~~
cpuguy83
Steve,

How do you explain savants/prodigies?

We are all born differently. Our brains work different ways. Our muscles want
to do different things. As such we have a propensity towards one thing or
another.

It is true if you have kids you can see this. Every single baby is completely
different, even newborns, in how they respond to things.

~~~
steveklabnik
When discussing populations, and making statements about them, the presence of
an outlier does not invalidate the statement about the characterization of the
population.

We are, of course, all different. Diversity is a great strength. That doesn't
mean that there's a biological basis for every kind of difference.

~~~
cpuguy83
Certainly not, but I also don't believe that we are all born with the same
abilities. Things that comes easy to some are more difficult to others. Even
at the youngest ages kids show signs of what they like and don't like, and
this will play out later as ability.

~~~
steveklabnik
You should read the studies. What you're saying isn't the same thing.

Also, even if it was, I'll take scientific evidence over 'belief' any day.

------
leoedin
I have a twin sister. Throughout school, she struggled with maths in a way
that I never did. Until university, maths for me was always a case of doing
minimal effort and getting As. My twin sister ended up going to maths tutors
out of school, spending far, far longer on the topic than I ever did. Even
then, when the opportunity presented itself, she dropped maths. There was more
enjoyable and easier subject areas to study.

Equally, I spent a long time struggling at school with french. The amount of
work I had to put in to achieve an "acceptable" result was considerably more
than my peers. When the opportunity presented itself, I stopped studying
french.

I firmly believe that, given enough tutoring, almost anyone could learn the
maths that I studied all the way up to at least the first year of my degree.
Equally, the evidence is that anyone is capable of learning a language. If I'd
put in enough work, memorised enough vocabulary and been willing to practice I
almost certainly could have achieved something approaching fluency.

However, in both those cases my sister and I came to the table with some
innate abilities. She pursued what she found easy and enjoyed, and I pursued
what I found easy and enjoyed. Today she's fluent in 3 languages and I'm
fluent in 1, while I have an engineering degree.

Incidentally, I have an older sister who did study maths to a higher level.
Hopefully that's slightly indicative that the environment that we grew up in
wasn't discouraging towards girls studying maths or sciences.

------
danso
Hmmm....I've been a programmer for awhile now and have never really felt the
mythos that "you are born a programmer." In fact, I would argue that among
professions, programming is probably one of the most merit-based ones around,
in which we routinely celebrate those who can hack something clever after a
relatively short time of learning programming. What other profession can you
think of that would allow (and usually, embrace) a "Learn to Code" type
movement, which implies that coding is a skill that any one at any stage can
pick up and make use of. The fact that the OP doesn't actually quote examples
of "natural born programmer" myths makes it hard to evaluate whether this is
really "killing our culture"

In the OP's defense, perhaps the OP is referring to the idea of women being
less genetically suited to programming? If so, I agree that that _is_ a
problem and a harmful mythos. But overall, I think the programming profession
does not celebrate the idea of "born programming"

~~~
llimllib
> I think the programming profession does not celebrate the idea of "born
> programming"

Seriously? Just read the comments above. I'll quote you some of the best if
you'd like.

------
eloff
Nature or nurture. Programming is a highly skilled trade, requiring creative
thinking. It's like a combination of engineering and writing prose. While
genetics no doubt plays some role, much larger are the attitudes and aptitudes
a child learns in their formative years (mostly before school age.) Everybody
can learn to program, but not everyone has the attitudes that will make them
well suited to it. You're not born with those attitudes for the most part, but
if you don't have them, you're probably not going to acquire them.

I taught myself programming. I'm now very good at it (at least I like to think
so) but it took 12 years of constantly pushing my limits and constantly
learning. People who like to go out and drink with their friends every day
after work, instead of learn new things at their computer will never be
competitive with me. You need to be self-motivating, inquisitive, constantly
improving yourself, and put in the massive amounts of time required, not just
from 9-5.

~~~
davedx
> much larger are the attitudes and aptitudes a child learns in their
> formative years (mostly before school age.)

Sorry, but... citation needed. I think the point the article tries to make is
that there is no substitution for good old hard work: not your preschooling
(or preschool parenting), not your genes, not the colour your bedroom walls
were painted: dedication to improving your skills always wins.

> People who like to go out and drink with their friends every day after work,
> instead of learn new things at their computer will never be competitive with
> me.

I spent a large part of my 20's drinking & socializing, and it made me a much
more rounded, resilient person. I now _occasionally_ work on my side projects
at home, but it's no substitute for the 100,000 hours of in the trenches
experience in various sectors of the IT industry. What I've learned at work
vastly dwarfs what I've learned at home.

~~~
eloff
I don't doubt that socializing not only makes you a more rounded person, but
is necessary as well.

However, I'd bet you anything I'm in a different league compared to you when
you were 29, because I spent most of my 20's learning and coding (about 50K
LOC/year on average across 20 languages.)

There's no substitute for putting in the time. However, who I was permitted me
to make those choices while most of my peers made choices more similar to
yours. So in a sense, there is a very real effect that's out of your control
and probably goes back to your childhood.

------
yummyfajitas
This article is nothing but a blatant argumentum ad consequentiam, which is a
logical fallacy.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_consequences](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_consequences)

The argument given here is basically "mathematical ability is not innate,
because if it were, women would react badly to this fact." The article
provides lots of evidence that women react badly to this belief, but no
evidence whatsoever that the belief is wrong.

~~~
davedx
Isn't the women's performance being the same as men's in the math tests when
they weren't told math skills are innate evidence that women are just as good
at math as men?

~~~
yummyfajitas
"Women are just as good at math as men" is not the same proposition as
"mathematical ability is innate". The latter is not incompatible with the
former.

Further, the evidence cited here does not show that women are just as good at
math as men, since the samples used were not randomly chosen. The samples
chosen consisted of men and women who had already taken calculus (and some
other criteria).

[http://www.lscp.net/persons/ramus/fr/GDP1/papers/spencer99.p...](http://www.lscp.net/persons/ramus/fr/GDP1/papers/spencer99.pdf)

The articles do a good job of showing women are sensitive to stereotype
threat. But that's all they show.

------
stiff
There are two distinct things, both being true, as far as current research
shows:

\- People who believe that mathematics is an ability that can be trained
perform much better than the ones that believe it is an innate skills some
people have some people don't

\- Intelligence, and as a consequence the upper limit of mathematical ability,
is to a large extent genetically determined

There is no conflict between those two statements.

~~~
davedx
> \- Intelligence, and as a consequence the upper limit of mathematical
> ability, is to a large extent genetically determined

Which research?

~~~
LanceH
He's not making that claim, merely pointing out that the claim isn't mutually
exclusive to the other claim.

~~~
rm999
He is making that claim:

>both being true, as far as current research shows

------
tokenadult
His first link is to a research article in a collection of research articles,
and I'm glad I followed the link,

[https://www.stanford.edu/dept/psychology/cgi-
bin/drupalm/sys...](https://www.stanford.edu/dept/psychology/cgi-
bin/drupalm/system/files/cdweckmathgift.pdf)

because a publication by Carol Dweck in a collection edited by Stephen J. Ceci
and Wendy M. Williams just has to be worth a read. (The various monographs
edited by Ceci and Williams are some of the best books available today about
psychology research.) We still need to find out more about the issues of
"innate" talent distribution and especially about the issues of talent
development over the course of growth from infancy to adulthood. It may very
well be that there is a lot of latent talent for mathematics, for programming,
and for plenty of other challenging domains that stays latent (hidden) because
no one lifts a finger to find it and develop it.

------
chroma
Let's say I grant the author his points about harming gender balances and
programming culture. That still doesn't address the most important question:
Is it true? Is programming an innate ability?

It's unclear whether programming can be taught, but the most depressing study
in this area is called The Camel Has Two Humps [1]:

 _We have found a test for programming aptitude, of which we give details. We
can predict success or failure even before students have had any contact with
any programming language with very high accuracy, and by testing with the same
instrument after a few weeks of exposure, with extreme accuracy. We present
experimental evidence to support our claim. We point out that programming
teaching is useless for those who are bound to fail and pointless for those
who are certain to succeed._

It will take more than this single study to fully convince me, but it
definitely put a dent in my initial belief.

1\.
[http://www.eis.mdx.ac.uk/research/PhDArea/saeed/paper1.pdf](http://www.eis.mdx.ac.uk/research/PhDArea/saeed/paper1.pdf)

~~~
yummyfajitas
"Two years ago we appeared to have discovered an exciting and enigmatic new
predictor of success in a first programming course. We now report that after
six experiments, involving more than 500 students at six institutions in three
countries, the predictive effect of our test has failed to live up to that
early promise."

[http://www.eis.mdx.ac.uk/research/PhDArea/saeed/paper3.pdf](http://www.eis.mdx.ac.uk/research/PhDArea/saeed/paper3.pdf)

~~~
chroma
I didn't know there was a new study. Thanks for linking to it.

It looks like there's a meta-study too:
[http://www.eis.mdx.ac.uk/research/PhDArea/saeed/SD_PPIG_2009...](http://www.eis.mdx.ac.uk/research/PhDArea/saeed/SD_PPIG_2009.pdf)

------
skraushaar
I am one of these folks that claims natural math/development skills which were
inherited from my natural parents. Here is my empirical evidence:

I was neither raised by or knew my biological family growing up (though I know
them now). My mother is a developer, my supposed bio-dad is a developer, my
late grandmother on my mother's side was a mathematician & psychologist, my
grandfather on my mother's side was on the early teams at IBM, and my uncle
whom is close to a doppelganger of me is a developer/linux admin. I knew none
of these people growing up. My father and mother who raised me are
respectively a restaurant manager and a hair stylist. Neither have any
significant interest in the sciences or mathematics realms. Somehow I ended up
in the family business without a shred of influence from them.

Take my story for what you want, but in this case the women were very much
involved with the biological version.

~~~
steveklabnik
One individual is not 'empirical evidence.'

~~~
gruseom
Individuals and stories are part of good conversation. Skraushaar's comment
was relevant and enjoyable.

Reflexive ideological dismissals, on the other hand, are just tedious.

~~~
steveklabnik
Absolutely. For conversational value, it's great. But in a discussion about
empirical research, it's misleading at best.

~~~
tptacek
I agree. Nobody would have realized that this was just a single person's story
if it hadn't been pointed out. Thank you; I was almost about to add a
"biological mother's profession" and "biological father's profession" field to
our recruiting questionnaire, and have been spared an embarrassment.

------
hugh4life
"Stereotype Threat and Women’s Math Performance"

The childish belief in stereotype threat is killing our culture.

[http://drjamesthompson.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/are-girls-
too-...](http://drjamesthompson.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/are-girls-too-normal-
sex-differences-in.html) [http://drjamesthompson.blogspot.com/2013/09/maths-
is-man-thi...](http://drjamesthompson.blogspot.com/2013/09/maths-is-man-
thing.html)

~~~
theorique
Does stereotype threat only work if you believe in it? What if you have issues
with the methodology?

------
auggierose
We all observe that people differ in height. Not greatly, the range is about
50cm wide. Of course height affects certain abilities and can have major
impact on self esteem, but these days this is just a societal factor: There
are no important activities left where a short person could not perform just
as well as a tall person.

I don't understand how people struggle to transfer this simple truth to mental
abilities.

------
return0
It's one thing to show that some ability can be attained in a controlled, toy-
model environment, it's another thing to say that excellence in a field can be
achieved solely by environmental factors. In the nature vs nurture debate,
it's not fruitful to argue for either extreme.

~~~
davedx
How is arguing that excellence in a field is inborn fruitful in any way? All
it does is disempower.

------
LanceH
What if some people are naturally disposed to believing they can accomplish
things?

------
chrisreichel
Is not just a matter of having maths skills. There's some other traits
involved. These traits sometimes are developed and sometimes are born with
you.

You born being introspective or not. This will have a great influence in what
kind of professional you will be.

I'm not saying that you can't change yourself, but in my opinion a big part of
you is defined by your natural talents.

I consider myself as an introspective guy. This is something that I'm not able
to change, and surely it has a great importance in what kind of work I'm able
to be useful.

------
realrocker
Perception is everything while learning a skill. Recently, I taught the Go
programming language to a bunch of non programmers(mostly from arts and design
background). The things I skipped talking about were the history of
programming, the place of Go in the world of programming and consciously
ignored questions similar to, "How difficult is this?", "How much time this
will take?" The idea was to teach a programming language with a sense of a
planar plateau of difficulty for everyone in the room. I tried to develop the
perception of programming as a non-elite skill. The results were surprising.
Most of the students picked up the language fairly well and went to write
their own apps without any guidance. One guy remarked, "This is like
carpentry". I don't understand his reasoning behind the remark but I can infer
that as soon as the aura around programming was removed, students responded
with much greater understanding. This approach was polar to my earlier methods
of trying to ignite a fire of passion in the students by elucidating the
complexities and charms of programming. The previous approach was successful
too but I had a feeling that I was preaching only to the converted. Now
whether natural aptitude is a factor in learning a programming skill is highly
suspect. Even if a learner has exceptional natural aptitude(i.e. the X factor
gene) he might be living in ghastly social circumstances with unknown effects.
Except documented medical conditions there might be no link of learning on
natural aptitude. The point is that there is far too less data supporting it.

------
32bitkid
I think that in any skill/talent/profession, it is tempting to identify the
individuals that thrive at it -- seemingly without effort. Almost all "arts"
have some variation of this myth -- programming, sports, painting, writing.
Its easy to identify those people -- Pablo Picasso, Bo Jackson, John Carmak,
Jane Austen -- and say that they were natural-born _whatever_...

I reject the idea of innate "talent" or "skill". However, I firmly believe
that certain individuals are more adept -- either through genetics or
environmental factors -- at "learning" a skill, which is a by-product of the
assumptions and abstractions that we construct to process information in the
world.

I think that this myth is much more prevalent in the visual arts. Any one can
be taught to draw; a good chunk of the first half of art college is unlearning
the bad assumptions you have made about visually processing the world. Those
that learn "quicker" are a product of an environment where they never made
those assumptions in the first place. But that is simply the first step -- the
foundation -- beyond that it takes hard work and practice... A dedication to
the craft. If you lack the commitment to the craft then it will suffer... And
I think that's true for anything: math, programming, writing, drawing, sports,
cooking... and so on.

I think that telling someone they "can't" do something or they are naturally
"bad" at it is definitely an environmental pressure that could affect ones
ability to learn a craft. In fact, it doesn't sound like a good environment to
learn _anything_.

------
ctdonath
While certainly a combination of nature _and_ nurture, there's little question
natural born programmers exist. I am one. At 4th grade Dad brought home a
terminal and had me type in a 3 line BASIC program (printed a sine wave). I
was instantly hooked, programmed daily, and some 35 years later I'm still
lovin' it. That nature had to be nurtured lest it be starved or destroyed, and
given room and care to flourish it did.

~~~
pradocchia
_I was instantly hooked, programmed daily, and some 35 years later I 'm still
lovin' it._

This doesn't demonstrate innate ability. It demonstrates your interest in
programming. Do we have natural born interests?

~~~
ctdonath
Ok, so how should I phrase it? I grok most programming concepts immediately.
When about to take my AP test in programming, my brother realized I was
completely lacking in knowledge about pointers, spent a couple hours going
over linked lists etc, and the next day aced the test - which was mostly about
pointers.

I don't know what verbiage would constitute "demonstrate innate ability" to
you. I thought what I wrote did.

~~~
vezzy-fnord
Considering the reliability of standardized testing, I'm not particularly
impressed.

I don't deny that some people are more capable and likely to pursue certain
crafts and trades, but your initial example was mediocre.

------
debacle
I've never even heard someone be referred to as a "natural born programmer."
While something like Mathematics can come to someone in a way that makes that
person seem like "a natural," programming has so much culture, history, and
happenstance ingrained in its reality that it is impossible to become highly
skilled as a programmer without a great deal of passion.

~~~
steveklabnik
The 10x meme is largely about some sort of mythical, inherent attribute that
makes people super amazing and awesome at writing software.

Some people also say that the reason there aren't more women in computer
science is because they lack some sort of programming attribute.

~~~
debacle
10x is all about passion, comprehension, and drive. I would say that almost
100% of it is learned/obtained.

------
joelhooks
I've been reading Papert's Mindstorms[1], which is a discussion on math
education and the genesis of LOGO. If this topic interests you, I highly
recommend the book.

[1] [http://www.amazon.com/Mindstorms-Children-Computers-
Powerful...](http://www.amazon.com/Mindstorms-Children-Computers-Powerful-
Ideas/dp/0465046746)

------
rimantas
Blog post is terrible. First quote talks about of the stupidity of the idea
"hereditary wise man". That idea is indeed stupid, but what it has to do with
the idea of "natural born"?

And while my ability to play basketball can indeed be developed to some
degree, can it be developed to be good enough to play it professionally? I
doubt that. Now, some my say that there is difference between physical and
mental abilities, but really, are we so sure that we are all born with exactly
equal mental setup and potential? Or is this a problem which is better
avoided, because it does not play well with polit-correctness?

For the last point: does this "belief in natural born ability" apply only to
programming and math? What hurts technology is not those "childish believes"
but belief that it is at the centre of the universe.

~~~
davedx
> First quote talks about of the stupidity of the idea "hereditary wise man".
> That idea is indeed stupid, but what it has to do with the idea of "natural
> born"?

Because "natural born" means "genetically determined", and your genes are
something you get from your parents, right?

~~~
3minus1
There's a huge difference between saying "Some people are born smart because
of their genes" and "Some people must necessarily be smart because of their
parents"

------
truthteller
there are serious problems with replication and publication bias in the
literature on stereotype threat. it does not seem like the author is genuinely
curious about gender differences in mathematical ability but rather he is
simply on the hunt for material that confirms his biases.

------
derekp7
One thing that is natural, is people's enjoyment of something when exposed to
it. If you don't enjoy programming, or math, or creating art, then you _will_
be hampered in developing a skill for it.

------
jjcroftiv
I would like a showing of +1's from anybody who thinks they would be as good
as Terence Tao if they just studied more mathematics.

~~~
_delirium
If you're interested in what Terence Tao himself has to say on the subject:
[http://terrytao.wordpress.com/career-advice/does-one-have-
to...](http://terrytao.wordpress.com/career-advice/does-one-have-to-be-a-
genius-to-do-maths/)

------
davidbrear
Just like anything in life, there's a level of effort to
science/math/engineering. If you begin when you're 3 or when you're 30, you
still are going to have to give that level of effort. I think people confuse
those who started early as winning some genetic lottery but in fact, they
simply got started earlier.

------
Dirlewanger
It's a societal thing. Too many people have in their mind that STEM fields are
nerdy and for guys only and they bring this retarded attitude into parenting.
Only way it's going to change is gradually unfortunately.

------
mortice
hello i am a natural born programmer i am a creature of pure logic birthed
from the essence of paul graham's reckons, may i join your society

------
mrleinad
Neo: I thought it wasn't real

Morpheus: Your mind makes it real

Neo: If you're killed in the matrix, you die here?

Morpheus: The body cannot live without the mind

------
cliveowen
Mathematicians have no problem whatsoever learning to program, it's just
another way to bring reason into action. The other way around is not true
though, programmers can't learn to write proofs, that's just an innate
ability.

