Ehh… Cero ninja’d me…
This is basically exactly what I wanted to say 
On a side note: I’m really amazed at all these awesome discussions popping up in this forum.
Your argument is in the direction that almost any deviation from the average is either a positive or negative handicap which can be excluded from the sample set. What is left is a set of average brains that are all alike, and all equally capable, given a stimulating environment. I can wholeheartedly agree with that conclusion, for the given subset.
I’d say that your example of the human that is capable of memorizing every event that happened the last 800 days is a bit of extreme. That’s exactly what Cero was talking about (positive/negative handicap).
You don’t need to have such a strangely ‘mutated’ brain to be good at programming (oh my. I always find the wrong words).
My point is that there is a huge variation in intelligence within the population we deem healthy and not mentally handcapped. As long as science backs me up - mostly regarding different ratios of types of braincells, where that ratio is constant throughout your life - and linked to higher measurable intelligence, I can simply discard any fairy tale view of humans being equally capable, and merely ruined or stimulated by their environment. Intelligence is mostly in the genes, just like appearance or ‘beauty’. One would be ridiculed when stating all humans are equally beautiful, where they just get ruined or stimulated later in life to either remain beautiful or turn into an ugly bastard because of their upbringing. There is a huge variation in facial bone structure, without even being close to be deemed a ‘handicap’. Same rules apply for the brain. No matter how unfair it is, nature doesn’t care. The inequality within a species, within a population even, is what drives evolution. Or are we not so sure about that either?
Just because there are two views on the story, doesn’t mean the truth lies in the middle. Intelligence is easy to lose and exceptionally hard to gain, where your brain structure determines your potential.
Holy moly did this topic explode overnight. 
I’m really glad we can have this level of intellectual discussion on this forum. It’s a rarity to go this deep into a topic on the internet without some idiot turning it into a flamewar. 
I do agree with the statement “You can have whatever you want, as long as you work hard for it.” perhaps that’s the key difference, is some people lack the drive to work hard.
Not to toot my own horn, but I am currently in college, going after a PhD in Psychology. I have never gotten a grade less than “A” in anything I do. My lowest final grade in any class I’ve ever taken was a 93. I have a rock-solid unwavering 4.0 GPA. Yes, I am quite above average intelligence (… and I probably study about half as much as the people who get a C in everything) but the key difference isn’t actually my intelligence, it’s my drive to obtain knowledge. I go to every class actually wanting to know the material, completely candid and enjoying every word the professor is saying. I don’t just want a piece of paper, I want the knowledge that paper represents. I believe this is a the core difference between the cans and can-nots. The can-nots don’t want to try, they just want it to happen. They ave no interest in intellectual pursuits, they just want the tools needed to make more money so they can buy more material items and fast food.
The same can be said for programming, similar to something theagentd said, I am not a good programmer because I am lucky enough to have a above average brain. I am a good programmer because I spend 10+ hours a day, almost every day, programming because I love to do it. I love to solve problems, and I love to learn new tricks. To me, programming is the equivalent to putting me in front of a puzzle game like Myst (Loved that game way back when). It’s problem solving at it’s purist, and I crave that challenge.
As of writing this, I have 1 and a half years experience in programming, realistically, I only have about 1 because I took a 6 month break in the middle. But I am leaps and bounds ahead of about 95% of the people who have the same amount of chronological experience. It is mostly not because I’m smart, while I may of only been doing it a year and a half, I am more productive in one day than a lot of others are in an entire week. So assuming that isn’t a made up number and was actual fact I work 7 times as harder as the average person trying to learn programming, within a years time I am in year 7 compared to the 95%. I know that’s totally an unrealistic number, I’m just making the point that you can’t compare chronological experience between someone who has been “programming for years” but only programs 2-3 hours a day, every other day, compared to someone like me who programs 10 hours a day nearly every day to the point it sometimes interferes with his studies. That’s not where smarts comes in, that’s where drive and dedication comes in.
Still though, even having said that, I do feel there is a break in human evolution sometimes. There seems to be a distinctive difference between the highly intelligent, and the brain-dead that seemingly only the highly intelligent can see. It’s hard to explain, but I’m sure those of you who can see this distinction know exactly what I am talking about. There simply are people out there that almost seem like they quite literally have lower-evolved brain. I could get into the deep social science to back my claim up, but that would just derail the topic. But it does go into Riven’s point here:
[quote] Intelligence is mostly in the genes, just like appearance or ‘beauty’.
[/quote]
I’m not sure if Riven has read the research, but he’s quoting pretty much exactly what is accepted in psychological social science. Intelligence is mostly genetic, it’s not simply just acquired. Although it can be squandered. That’s why there’s a lot of “stupid families” out there. Does it mean you’re doomed if your family is stupid? no. You could be an anomaly, but generally speaking (yes, there are always exceptions), stupid people have stupid kids. (and vice versa, generally speaking, smart people have smart kids.)
(To clarify, I consider most everyone here, even the kids who stop in, much higher on the programming-dedication food chain that the 95% in my above statement. There’s a whole group of programmers none of us ever see because they don’t even have the drive to register on forums and join communities, those would be like my friend I described)
I’ve seen family members working the ‘10 hours a day’, passionated, driven, and sadly failing the study they worked so hard for. It’s heartbreaking. It was simply due to intelligence. Just not quite smart enough for that level of education, no matter their effort. She thrived doing exactly the same study at a slightly lower level.
Now, people, get off your high horse blaming it on lack of dedication. Life’s unfair, not everybody has a brain capable of their passion, even in the most stimulating, supportive environment.
I just wanted to add that I’m agreeing with everything said and that unfortunately people are not given the best odds in life but there is still a chance.
I just think though that it is important to not label people. I am an above average student at an above average school but that day when we start brain screening kids and say “ok you will be an artist” or “you’ll be a great politician” I will be very sad, everyone should be given the opportunity to prove themselves. That is why I like exams it gives me the opportunity and a lot of people the same opportunity to show what they are worth they can try or not, up to them. But just because you don’t do as well makes you no less of a person.
Anyway this is a good discussion.
BeardedCow
Don’t know if you caught my post edit before writing that, but yeah, I pretty much agree with you. Some people quite literally lack the raw brainpower to accomplish the goal.
I mean, take the extreme cases like actual mental retardation. I don’t think any amount of dedication is going to help someone whos IQ is below 70 get a PhD in theoretical physics. It’s just not going to happen. The same can be said for the “below average” people who have IQs around 90~. Yes, they can function in life like an adult, but they simply lack the brainpower to do some higher order tasks.
There’s also some interesting research in how IQ effects base primal instincts that is really fascinating. You ever notice the highest-of-the-highest intelligent people you know seem to have an inhuman ability to control their more primal instincts, like, anger, hunger, sleep and even their libido when it it’s an “annoyance that is in their way”? The top-level people seem to have almost direct control over their Limbic System, where as others are controlled by it. It’s very interesting stuff.
Now folks, we’ve seen our cute overlord showing off his knowledge in:
Neuroscience
Evolution theory
Psychology
Psychiatry
Philosophy
Motivational lectures
Family values
Seriously, i aim to be an all-round knowledgeable person, but why do you have to know everything?
[spoiler]that’s why i love him, even though he’s an android[/spoiler]
Rayvolution, i guess it all comes to talent. Some tasks require less intellectual power than others. Someone with 90 IQ totally can be an international chef, or a brilliant author - no offense, i know most of them are exceptional people. I’m just saying it’s totally possible.
This reminds me of a post made by Jeff Atwood. Are some people just not cut out to be programmers? http://blog.codinghorror.com/separating-programming-sheep-from-non-programming-goats/
I don’t know that I agree with that, as I think programming is just as much an art as it is a science or math.
But programming does seem to require a bit of stick-to-it-ness that not everybody seems willing to put forward. That can also be said of other kinds of art though: plenty of people start out with some masterpiece in mind, then get frustrated when they’re stuck with stick figures. Does that mean those people are too stupid or lazy to be artists? I dunno, but I think it’s pretty unfair to just dismiss programming or art as “too hard” for certain people. I think people are more nuanced than that.
It takes a LOT of practice to get past the stick figure stage. It takes a LOT of practice to get past the “printing out prime numbers” stage. I think a lot of people don’t realize that, so when things are “too hard”, they quit because it’s taking longer than a few hours to have their masterpieces completed. I don’t think that makes them too dumb or lazy, it just means their expectations didn’t match reality.
So it becomes a question of what we can do to help manage those expectations. Different types of education are popping up where the focus is results and feedback rather than syntax and memorization (things like Code.org for example), and different types of languages are doing the same (Processing for example). I think these trends are overall A Good Thing, but there will still be people who think they can bang out the next facebook or Call of Duty in a weekend. Just like there will still be people who think they can buy an easel and start selling their art on etsy for hundreds of dollars.
I don’t think any of this is particular to programming, and I don’t think it’s fair to speak in absolutes. I think this dismissive style of thinking is especially dangerous when we think about making Computer Science more accessible to people who have historically been under-represented in the field. Is programming hard? Sure. But so is pretty much every other creative endeavor.
At my school nobody uses libraries or actual code. They either use the good old scratch or try to make mods. I remember using scratch and alice, but that was years ago…
My school don’t do any sort of coding what-so-ever I remember doing ICT and designing a website, thought “This will be good” knowing some basic HTML, but nope just got taught how to use Dreamweaver design, using TABLES… I just went ahead and did it using code as I feel that it was more exciting and well more practical than drag and dropping pictures.
I think the blogger doesn’t know anything about software development… Professional software is not written by gurus in ivory towers - it’s written by hacks with too little time just trying to keep their jobs. Real software art is written by loners in their spare time…
Hint: League of Legends.
EDIT: You guys have NO IDEA how long I’ve been holding on to this joke waiting for the right moment.
EDIT2: Please make this your profile image, Riven!
Huh, unexpected intellectual conversation here.
Reading that whole article, I agree with the author. Just like OP, I have known friends who simply just don’t “get it”. They tried, I explained as best as I could, and they can’t see the pattern, they can’t make the connection. So yes, not everybody can make games because, as I also agree wholeheartedly with Riven, not everyone has the aptitude and level of intelligence for it.
Also theagentd, that’s just perfect, and the cosplay for that Battle Bunny Riven is always the best ;D
…Well that was discouraging…
Assuming you’re implying what I think you are;
We (well, the ones I think you’re referencing) are not saying if you suck at programming now, you’ll suck forever. We’re saying that some people will suck forever because they lack the mental capacity.
I mostly agree with that, but I side with the “intelligence/IQ does not matter” camp. Its about what you want, not about what you can or can’t do. Example: I can learn Spanish. But when I got the course material, I realized that I really, really, really didn’t want to invest all that time and effort. So that makes it that I “can’t” learn Spanish regardless of how well my brain works. I learned Ruby on Rails in under two weeks because I wanted to learn it (at the time).
Some people like to build games, some people like to build engines. Some people only like to play games. Good thing too.
Also, admitting that you suck at something is the first step of getting better. But there’s a limit on how much you can get better.
No one was a born programmer. We all had to learn.