"No, You Can't Make Video Games"

General Discussions
#41

Does anybody else see something wrong with a bunch of people who can presumably program talking about how programming is just too hard for people who aren’t as intelligent as “we” are?

I think that actually does a disservice to the Computer Science field: instead of trying to be more inclusive or welcoming (especially to girls, minorities, and other groups that have been historically under-represented in CS), this thread seems to be a lot of “yeah, some people just aren’t as smart as WE are”, which bothers me a little.

Is programming hard? Abso-freakin-lutely. Does it require patience, drive, creativity, and quite a bit of banging your head against the desk until you understand it? Yup.

But so does every other creative endeavor. Science, art, math, all of it. So instead of saying “programming is too hard for some people”, I think it would be more constructive to focus on “programming is equally as hard as any other art or science, and in fact here are some ways they overlap”.

I understand where everybody is coming from: it can be pretty frustrating to see a novice planning out how they’re going to become a millionaire by simply combining ideas from WoW, CoD, and Facebook. They’ll start marketing their product before they write a single line of code. That person needs a healthy dose of reality, which I think is what a lot of these posts (and the original article) are trying to be.

But I think it’s also important to keep in mind the well-meaning novices that might get turned off by these kinds of statements. I think anybody can learn to program, and I don’t think there is anything “special” about programmers, other than the thousands of hours of practice we’ve put in.

This “some people just can’t program” attitude is a close relative of the “programming just comes naturally to some people”, which is equally frustrating. I bet we’ve all received offers from people with ideas for games who “just needs somebody to program it” as if programming is some inherent ability that simply comes natural to us. I try to point those people to tutorials and tell them that programming their dream project won’t be any easier for me than it would be for them. But this “programming is too hard for some people” message helps perpetuate the idea that looking at tutorials would just be a waste of time.

I think it’s part of our job as programmers to help dispel some of the incorrect ideas about programming. This article is meant to be a kick in the butt for people who need a reality check, but I think it does more harm by perpetuating ideas that simply aren’t true.

#42

Actually it turns out learning (or maybe teaching…) programming is not quite as simple as most other subjects. It has one of the highest rates of failure of any “science” discipline at university. I seem to recall that about 66% of students who started a degree course in programming simply could not grasp the subject, at all, and failed. This is a marked difference from almost all other science subjects.

Make of that what you will.

Cas :slight_smile:

#43

I think it does sound a bit pretentious, but it has been known for quite a while however that some people just don’t have the “mindset” or thought process required to solve problems in the way a programmer does.

See http://blog.codinghorror.com/separating-programming-sheep-from-non-programming-goats/

I just discussed this with one of my teachers (not CS) and he says it’s the same in physics, there was always a double-humped curve on the exams, split between those who “got” it, and those who just didn’t.

#44

I think you hit it on the head: it’s the teaching that’s still catching up. Traditional CS was done by physicists and engineers, and in many (most?) places, that’s how it’s still taught. Most first year programs involve solving math equations, printing prime numbers, etc.

Compare that to why most people want to get into programming: to make games, highly visual apps, deploy to mobile devices, networked applications, etc. That’s a stark contrast between what the student expects and reality, which I think is a common theme in this discussion.

Education (with the help of more usable languages) is slowly catching up, but another problem is that most students aren’t exposed to programming until college (er, university, whatever everybody calls the the level after high school). Then they have trouble “thinking” like a programmer, because it’s the first time they’ve seen it, plus the programs they’re expected to write are more math and engineering focused than most people expect.

Compare that to art or science, which are both taught from pre-kindergarten on. Children are encouraged to “play” art or learn about science, even if they won’t be the next Picasso or Albert Einstein. And even though every one of them will use computers every day for the rest of their lives, programming isn’t taught at all.

Then the few that are interested in programming go into it with zero experience and high expectations, and you get the types of things the article is complaining about.

Movements like Code.org and Black Girls Code are helping expose more kids and under-represented populations to programming, and I think it’s an exciting trend. If a kid is exposed to programming the same way they’re exposed to art, then maybe programming won’t be “simply too hard” for some people?

#45

Heh, I linked to that same article above! I should stop posting long rants, then maybe people would actually read my posts! :stuck_out_tongue:

But that’s exactly what I’m saying: everything contains people who appear to “just get it” and people who fail miserably because their expectations are so different from reality. I don’t think that the “programming mindset” is a biological thing that you either have or don’t: it’s a result of years of practice. Just like every other creative endeavor.

Sure, some people might have some natural ability when it comes to X, Y, or Z, but even the “most natural” programmers still need to practice to do anything worthwhile. Saying that some people just can’t understand programming leaves out all of the practice that goes into it.

Presumably, most people on this forum come from a life that’s privileged enough to have been exposed to computers, programming, math, etc. So it leaves a bit of a bad taste in my mouth (er, ears) when I hear (er, read) a discussion about how “some people just can’t understand it”. We only understand it because we were exposed to it!

(I am not trying start arguments with people who only started programming when they were 40, I am simply saying it has been historically less likely for, for example, black girls from poor areas to get into computer science… which doesn’t mean they simply lack the ability, it’s a question of exposure.)

#46

This all reminds me of an interview I heard with Neil DeGrasse Tyson on NPR. You can read the whole thing here: http://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?storyId=283443670

But here is the part I’m talking about. The interviewer asks him about his “gift” of communicating science, and NDT corrects him and explains that nothing is a gift, but that difficult things require a lot of practice.

[quote]DAVIES: When did you realize you had a gift for communicating with people about science? I mean, you’re, you do this in a lot of venues, and have for a long time.

TYSON: Yeah. People call it a gift, and that implies you sit there and someone hands it to you. I want to encourage people to not think in terms of gifts, but think in terms of, wow. You work hard to succeed at that, because that’s exactly what I do. For an example, before my first interview on Jon Stewart - you know, that’s a tough interview right there, all right, because he’s brilliant and he’s laden with pop culture referencing.

And so I said to myself: If I’m going to have a successful interview with Jon Stewart, I want to study how he talks to his guests. So I sat there and I timed how long he lets you speak before he comes in with some kind of wisecrack or a joke. And what’s the average time interval of that? Is it a minute, 90 seconds, 30 seconds? And I would create a rhythm in the parceling of the information I would deliver to him so that a complete thought would come out. So that when he does interrupt, there’s a complete thought and then a fun joke, and then there’s a resonance to that where you can then move on. Yeah. No, it’s not a gift.

DAVIES: OK.

TYSON: I work at it.

DAVIES: Oh, OK. OK.

(LAUGHTER)

DAVIES: Did Stewart notice that you were prepared?

TYSON: No. People say, oh, you’re such a natural. That’s what they say. I guess I’ll take that as a compliment.

DAVIES: You make it look easy. Right. OK.

TYSON: Oh, by the way, this is - this goes back. I mean, you mentioned a race thing earlier. Generally I never talk about race but you did. You remember the comparisons between Michael Jordan and Larry Bird of the Boston Celtics. When they described Larry Bird’s very high, obvious talent, they say, well, he’s a student of basketball and studies where the ball is and where people - and they talk about Michael Jordan and say, oh, he’s just a natural.

DAVIES: Gifted athlete.

TYSON: There’s a denial of, yeah, he’s a gifted athlete. Meanwhile, he was not a first round pick out of his college or getting into college. The man worked at it. And so at some point one needs to say, yes, black people who are talented work at what they did to become talented. All right? Oh, it’s just genetic. Oh, it’s fast twitch muscle. It’s low twitch. Shut up. Give me a chance to tell you how hard we work at this stuff.
[/quote]

#47

Ah, so you did, whoops.

[quote]We only understand it because we were exposed to it!
[/quote]
Would you agree with this: Some people won’t get it even when they are exposed to it?
That’s what I got out of Mr. Atwood’s post.

To link another of his: evidence (not the best, but still noteworthy) is seen in many students: http://blog.codinghorror.com/why-cant-programmers-program/

[quote]I don’t think that the “programming mindset” is a biological thing that you either have or don’t: it’s a result of years of practice. Just like every other creative endeavor.
[/quote]
Maybe not the “programming mindset” specifically, but I do think that it is completely possible to simply tend towards a certain way of thinking. To re-beat a faulty, undead horse: the whole “Left-brained vs. Right-brained” topic.
For example, I am an INTJ (not officially, but it’s rather obvious, nearly stereotypical) when typed under Myers-Briggs, and I tend towards a very methodical, logical method of thinking. Obviously not everyone works that way (INTJs are often cited at 1-2% of population, although of course you don’t have to be INTJ to be a rational person), and I think that someone with such a method of thinking as their natural state will simply be more likely to be in their element doing something like programming (as I am).

I hope I’m making as much sense as I think I am, I’m not fully awake yet :wink:

EDIT: To follow up, I’m not saying a certain mindset is an automatic free ticket to greatness in a given career, of course being practiced in a discipline is a huge part, but I think it is definitely enabling.

#48

It’s sad to see how so many smart people are too stupid too see the advantages they have as smart people.

#49

That’s because they don’t want to see. They’d rather sit on facebook than to actually do something usefull.

#50

I think you missed the point? I was addressing people here.

#51

Lol. I guess I don’t belong to the smart ones then :slight_smile:

#52

http://instantostrich.com/

Intelligence comes in many forms. I don’t think it’s that black and white. Much like any muscle you can train the brain and a lot of that has to do with your surroundings/environment/education/support etc.

There are much more important traits than the relative ‘intelligence’.

#53

Please read the entire discussion. I never said intelligence was a constant or that there is a hard threshold, I even addressed analytical and social intelligence, including how you get more intelligent through training, but that you’re limited in your potential by your brain structure/physiology (the ratio of types of braincells in certain areas in the brain). Why do people read all kinds of cold hard stereotypical views into my statements, when most of my posts are overloaded with nuance. People read one sentence, take it out of context, and try to prove the contrary. Oh well, c’est la vie!

#54

I’m pretty sure I read that the latest research does show that your brain structure changes over time, and that you can affect how it develops. I did some quick Googling but couldn’t find a good credible source though.

#55

Well I dont count myself to those, because as I said, I do believe most people are utter idiots and not worth my time, however the CAUSE is bad parenting, broken education systems, pressure from social norms and a lack of intellectual focus and curiosity - not anything inborn.

#56

I couldn’t have said it better.

#57

Limited by ones potential, what does that even mean, really? Ones potential? A tiny gray - startling little cat with diarrhea - sitting on a mattressless iron strung bed mewing at you?

Not worth your time - as if your time would be of value to most people?

#58

Most people are not worth the air they breathe unfortunately.

I agree with Cero, most people are not worth any ones time.

I do not help people who do not wish to help themselves.

#59

It’s the classic nature vs nurture argument that’s been part of Psychology since Wilhelm Wundt and into into the old Philosophers of Plato’s time. The reality is, you’re both right and wrong.

Nurture (Upbringing) has a huge effect on how you use your brain, and what direction is develops. But nature (Genetics, as Riven has been saying) is also a huge factor. The real argument in psych isn’t what side is right but what side is more influential. People want to feel like their intelligence is within their control, and sadly, it’s not. Some people are simply born morons and have a very high chance of remaining a moron their entire life.

Any argument to the contrary is people just wishing they had more control over the situation. The latest research still divides up the nature vs nurture argument but it more hindges on the side of “The brain you’re born with”. So, the reality is, you’re born with the brain you got. While it’s your own damn fault if you don’t use it and let it atrophy, some people are just simply born with naturally more powerful brains, just like some people are born with bodies that are naturally more athletic or attractive. Society needs to stop pretending like we’re all the same, we’re not. I’m all about equality, but the reality is, we are not all mentally equal. :wink:

Some people really are just born stupid. That’s scientific fact.

(Also; this thread wasn’t intended to be a rant to you, I was just stating I both agree and disagree with you. I just worded it strongly to make my point to everyone. :smiley: )

#60

The next post is gonna be the 60th one in this thread btw :slight_smile: (sorry, just thought that this is interesting, its just one day…)