What a remarkably insignificant and profoundly meaningless conclusion.
Not unlike much of what has been unveiled in this thread, however.
The harder I work, the luckier I get.
Cas 
Actually I think it makes a very straight forward and painfully obvious conclusion. Luck does have an effect on the outcomes of events in your life and in your ability to learn if you get lucky and find the answer quickly or stumble into the right situations, but the actual ratio of the effect luck has is heavily mitigated away by your raw intellect. Thus, smart people use much less luck to obtain goals.
I’m not entirely sure why this thread offends you. Most of the topic matter has been very interesting to read, gathering other peoples perspectives on intelligence and it’s impact on our lives. If you do not want to partake it actually having an intellectual conversation here, you’re more than welcome not to. 
Actually I was one of them, I just couldn’t fathom it in the slightest and got the worst grades ever. I didn’t like it at all.
Until one of my best friends in the same class, who had already been programming basic at age 8, started to make games and I realized “crap… I can become a game developer!”. At that point it all flipped around and within a year I was known in the hallways as “that guy that is incredibly good at programming”. Of course I didn’t end up becoming a professional game programmer because I “couldn’t” at the time.
Nowadays when I spot someone who is struggling to find programming entertaining, I advise to create little games. How quickly it turns around only because you start to apply it towards something fun.
On that same note… I advise people to start with BASIC if they can.
It’s such a shame computers these days don’t just boot to a BASIC interpreter prompt.
Cas
G2y8Sx4B2Sk
You may be quite right, although I think the problem only lies for a small part in the teaching. First of all, students overestimate themselves, I remember someone saying in this thread that most people think of themselves as ‘above average people’. People think they can do/learn whatever they want, an opinion shared by many people in this thread. So they think like: games, cool! And Bill Gates, money! And they almost expect to make a Call of Duty by just dragging images to the corners of the screen like you do in Word. So you made a point, I agree with you on the fact that programming is NOT what people expect it is. An explanation why the ‘suck-rate’ in computer-science is so much higher, but it’s also the ‘self-confidence’ that plays a big role.
But this doesn’t mean that there is something wrong with the way programming is teached these days, if math equations even give you a single problem, it’s indeed better to quit as soon as you can and increase the ‘suck-rate’, (since programming == math returns 90% true). I also don’t think that the amount of graduated programmers will increase by learning kids what code is (through Code.org or whatever inventioned), programming won’t be easier with help of these inventions, but it will reduce the ‘suck-rate’ since people will have better knowledge of what programming really is.
I actually attribute most of my success to good luck.
We were lucky enough to be born in countries/regions/families that had access to computers. We were lucky enough to go to schools, or have access to educational resources, that made learning programming possible. We were lucky enough to stumble across a language that “fit in our brains” early on. We were lucky enough to be encouraged to learn about programming (as opposed to how the field often treats minorities and girls).
That is not to say that it was particularly easy for any of us. We probably don’t come from mega-rich backgrounds, and we’ve all had our difficulties along the way. I’m not trying to be dismissive of any of that. But I also don’t think we can be dismissive of the misfortune that others go through, either.
There is a lot of stick-to-it-ness and hard work that goes into learning how to program. But attributing all of your success to your “intelligence” and all of everybody else’s “failures” to laziness seems a bit short-sighted, imho.
I guess there are a couple different types of non-programmers, and we might each just be talking about different types, which is why our viewpoints seem to be so different?
For the exact same reason, I recommend people check out Processing first. It’s got a simple Java-like syntax, but it’s trivial to have something visual and interactive going in just a few lines of code. Perfect for keeping novices engaged while also teaching them “real” programming.
[quote=“Herjan,post:87,topic:48933”]
Movements like Code.org don’t directly aim to increase the number of CS graduates. They aim to increase the diversity in the field by introducing programming to different types of people at an earlier age when there are fewer pressures from society about what they should and should not be. They aim to increase the amount of exposure the “average” person has to computer science concepts. They don’t aim to make programming easier, but they do aim to increase the exposure that people have to it. That might lead to an increase in CS enrollment, retention, and graduation, but even if it doesn’t, I don’t see how educating more people is a bad thing.
Shoo troll.
Suggested reading:
…and a video: (Starts at 5:50)
I think the deep rooted reality is we’re having an External vs Internal debate, hiding under the word “luck”.
But anyway; I’m not really saying that being a brainiac is a dead-on the reason you will be successful no matter what. I mean, yeah, of course we could of all be born in a poverty stricken area of South Africa where just owning a computer isn’t even a thought, because we’d rather sell it for food. But still, intellect is a major contributing factor to success in all situations. Sure, the smarty-pants may not of turned out to be computer programmers, but I’m sure (assuming the same exact genetic person) they would of somehow climbed whatever ladder they could climb in whatever situation they were in if it was related to their aptitudes anyway.
Yes, luck does matter, but once you toss out the random chance “where I was born” stuff, a lot of what you get in life is within your own control. You don’t have to be a genius to be successful, and being a dummy won’t cause you to fail. All I’m saying is; it sure helps. Regardless, Smarts doesn’t == success, it just makes it easier to obtain. But the major factor isn’t luck, it’s willpower and determination. Those are the big factors.
Now the major irony to my own argument, is you’re lucky to be born with a superior brain in the first place. 
There are two kinds of people: those on whom nuance is lost, and those who disagree with this statement.
I think we’re picturing two different types of non-programmers, which is why we’re looking at it so differently.
It seems like you’re picturing somebody more or less like you: from a similar background, with similar opportunities, similar economic background, etc. You probably picture your person coming home and watching reality tv every day instead of learning something new, but then complaining that they can’t “catch a break” in life. That person might look at you and say “oh, you’re a programmer, I have a great idea for an app, I’ll even offer you 5% of my profits if you just code it up!”
And sure, that person is pretty obnoxious. They could be a programmer if they wanted to, but they choose not to. You’re blaming that on their lack of intelligence, but I would argue it’s more to do with their expectations and willingness to put forth effort than it is their intelligence, and I would argue that it could be fixed if that person had exposure to programming at a younger age.
But the person I’m picturing doesn’t look anything like me. I’m picturing a kid from a less fortunate (read: lucky) background, who not only doesn’t have any exposure to programming, but is actively discouraged from pursuing any interest in programming they might have. The posts here are telling that kid that they’re probably too stupid to learn programming, which is why this thread, and the original article, rustled my jimmies so much.
But I can pretty much agree with your frustration at the first type of person. I’m just not sure the language here proclaiming us all to be geniuses who are better than the commoners is exactly helpful for anything, and is part of what gives CS such a bad name to start with.
A good point.
There are we, programming, for different reasons. And there are other people who don’t, but for even more different reasons.
If they could or not - we will never know. It also depends on what we mean by “can”.
If they can’t bring the effort, but are intellectual absolutely able - “can” they?
And so on…
I think the original article was aimed at the first type of person (the person who could be a programer but chooses not to), and it was meant as a bit of a reality check for people think think game development is easy.
But I disagree with its purposefully-insulting tone, which just comes off as condescending and rude. CS has come a long way in the last 20 years or so, and this guy apparently didn’t get the memo about not being a jerk about it.
I also disagree with his “we don’t need more noise” argument. Do we tell kids that they shouldn’t bother playing with crayons because the art world has enough “noise” in it? No. We encourage them to explore their interests. We should be doing the same with programming.
Yes but kids with crayons are not pushing for their “art” into art galleries. :clue:
Google Play is not the guggenheim
The original article criticizes places like DeviantArt where anybody can post their art. I believe he says that DeviantArt is where “art goes to die”. Who cares if not all of the art is the Mona Lisa? And who is it to decide what is “good” art? Who decides what is a good game? How is encouraging more people to try something out a bad thing, for anybody?
Exactly. If we’re going to criticize somebody, I would aim my frustration at the “talented and intelligent” programmers who instead of doing anything creative are working at clone factories just to make a quick buck.
Does that really happen?