I guess the stat I gave must be from the other 12.4%.
I post on Slashdot quite a bit.
Congratulations. I guess that makes you a very worldly person.
..and I'll go so far as to say that - insofar as reading entails comprehension rather than mere annunciation - even Slashdot has a dearth of those who can read. You are a case in point.
Nice lawyerese... I guess you were destined to mince words at birth.
Considering how you purport to be a frequent contributor to Slashdot, perhaps you might find these links to be enlightening. I'm sure the community would appreciate your attention to them:
"I'm trying to say that you severely underestimate the number of people who "spring forth from the womb" who will never be competent programmers no matter how hard they try."
That's simply an opinion with no evidence to support it, unlike the work of countless psychologists who've studied learning theory (like Dr. Carol Dweck), which basically refutes everything you're saying.
I take the idiom "have what it takes" to mean "have the ability to do something". Further, I don't think "ability" means the same thing as "inclination". To put a finer point on it, you probably have the ability to be a homosexual, but probably don't have (statistically speaking... obviously we don't know each other) the inclination to be one. So, you "have what it takes" to be a homosexual (you have the proper equipment), just not the inclination.... presumably.
The world is jam packed with those who can barely read or cannot read at all. Many of them will never be able to do it.
Jam packed? The world literacy rate is 82%. In developed nations it's well above 95%. In the United States it's 99%. Is your assertion that it's impossible to teach an illiterate person to program?
I've been a professional developer (making my living from it) for 20+ years. My ego isn't tied into the need to believe I'm special. I started coding video games as a teen, enjoyed the challenge of it, took classes in college, and got a job in my field. There's nothing special about that.
It sounds like you don't get out that much outside of the circles where people are like you.
Oh, I had no idea I was in the presence of the the Secretary of State, sorry Madam Secretary.
I think you're being a bit pedantic. If the oil change analogy bothers you, substitute any other mundane car care task, like changing the windshield wiper fluids, or filling the car with gas -- the point is, there's nothing magical about the work itself -- it's simply a hierarchy of mundane tasks coupled with experience. An oil change can be turned into two smaller tasks for example.
Are you trying to assert that there exist children who spring forth from the womb knowing how to change brakes on cars? The guy who gets paid to change the brakes on other's cars most likely started by changing his own brakes, or learning from his/her parents. At what magic point, in your opinion, does someone transition from being an amateur to being a professional? It is my assertion that there is no magic point -- for mechanics, programmers, architects, physicists, authors, or any other kind of knowledge worker.
I believe, with the obvious exclusion of illness (mental or physical), almost anyone can do almost anything with enough training, time, passion for the endeavor, and a proper feedback loop. The only real unknown is how long it will take for a particular individual in a particular context.
I do _not_ believe that some people are "destined" for particular life roles. That kind of thinking inevitably leads to the subjugation of others (a la "Proles", "Outer Party", and "Inner Party" - Orwell's 1984). There is such a significant overlap in our individual abilities (although not our individual desires) that we should rightly consider ourselves all effectively equal in ability, but simply different in inclination.
I think it depends on where you put the magnifying glass.... what does "has what it takes" really mean, and when am I officially "a mechanic?"
Probably almost everybody "has what it takes" to learn how to change the oil in their car. At a certain fundamental level, they're "a mechanic". If you can break down a complex task like "change the air conditioning compressor" into a smaller set of steps as simple as changing your oil, then again, almost everybody "has what it takes" to change the air conditioning compressor on their car, and now, in a much more general way, they're "a mechanic" (maybe they qualify for "shade tree mechanic" now).
It's all related to learning theory, and it's also why striking teachers in Chicago rightly say that everybody has an opinion about education, but very few people are actually trained at it (and by extension, qualified to evaluate how well it's being done in a given context).
Dr. Carol Dweck spent much of her career answering the question "Why do some kids seem to excel at school, and others seem to struggle?" Using various controls she developed her somewhat famous "Mindset Theory".
At a fairly early age we all start bifurcating into either "fixed mindsets" or "growth mindsets" about various things in life (sports, academics, musical prowess, etc.) That is to say, we frame the world up into a set of interrelated closely held beliefs that subconsiously tell us either: everyone is essentially born a certain way and can only change a little around the edges, or anyone can be anything with perseverance and the truth. The more you practice behaviors related to one or the other of these mindsets, the more it reenforces your beliefs, until eventually it becomes a core part of your personality and becomes difficult to change.
People who say "it takes a certain kind of person to be a __________" are either revealing that they have a fixed mindset about ___________, or they're just stating something like: "in practical terms" some people grow faster than others when learning ___________.
Of course, neither fixed nor growth mindsets are good or bad per se, but they do produce certain predictable results. A fixed mindset toward a domain ("I'm not good at math."), will produce plateaued and unchanging ability in that domain. A growth mindset toward a domain ("I'm not good at math right now, but I can be if I choose to pursue it"), will produce continued growth so long as the learner remains interested in the domain, and finds someone who is good at the subject and is truthful with the student on his/her progress.
Oh yeah, quick follow on... it's also possible that xTrashCat is actually fixed mindset, and he's stroking his own ego (as many have commented) -- a fixed mindset behavior.
If that's the case, then guess what xTrashCat, you're well on your way to becoming exactly like you accuse your coworkers of being. You see, fixed mindset behaviors cause us to stop trying new things -- our thinking switches from "I gotta learn this new thing, never know when it might come in handy." to "I already know all the important stuff, and extra work is wasted effort that can only really make me look bad if I don't accomplish something. I need to limit how often I'm challenged so that I can demonstrate my mastery of this topic."
It sounds like xTrashCat is probably a Growth Mindset individual relative to his profession. Most folks are Fixed Mindset relative to their profession, which is sad really. Even more sad, corporate hierarchies are usually built by implicitly rewarding Fixed Mindset behaviors. So, if you want to get really good at your profession, you either have to give up management aspirations (in most companies), or you have to find a company (or start one) that, through something akin to the founder effect, developed a culture that highly values and rewards growth mindset thinking. Having been in this field for close to 20 years now, I'll say good luck to you, because I've only worked for growth-mindset folks for a single 5 year span.... it was the best time of my career so far... but it's fleeting.
I can tell you that when I was working for a growth-mindset oriented company, one thing that was very different was how management behaved. Management was almost scared of the engineering folks -- they considered their role to be "obstacle removers", and they knew that they were going to be judged during performance appraisal time by the BOTTOM of the pyramid (they had an upside down hierarchy -- you as an individual were judged not by your boss, but by a collection of your customers -- your boss just did the paperwork, and sort of coached you on how to relate to your customers better). It was weird compared to the other 15 years of my career so far, but I must say, it was amazing how much we got done.... highly collaborative... highly passionate... highly motivating... a little stressful sometimes I guess.... but I'd go back in a heartbeat if I could. I used to have dreams about code back then -- I'd wake up in the middle of the night and try to scribble down notes for an algorithm or something we were stuck on. I learned more in that 5 years than I've learned in the other 15. Every day was like an adventure, and I couldn't wait to get to work, believe it or not.
In the mean time xTrashCat, you can try to encourage growth-mindset behaviors by using small rewards when someone makes an effort (regardless of whether they actually accomplish anything -- you want the risk taking behavior to increase, you don't really care about the outcome at this point). As a junior engineer, you only have informal relational authority, so you have to be creative -- you need to transition from "that young punk who thinks he knows everything" to "that young guy who is so excited all the time that I'm excited to be working with him, and I like the funny little things he does to encourage us to try stuff". If you can make that transition, there's a chance that you can "bloom where you're planted" and create a little bubble of growth-mindset folks to work with... which is the best I've been able to achieve in any kind of sustained manner.
It's really simple to explain actually. As you mentioned, there are some tasks that people aren't good at. I think you're referring to the obvious, no-brainer tasks that work well with machines (crushing cars, welding fenders on perfectly, or soldering 2000 resistors on a PCB without making a mistake).
However, simply extend your argument (people aren't good at doing some tasks) a little further. People aren't necessarily good at doing all kinds of things -- cleaning the house, cooking, changing bed sheets on a regular basis, ironing, taking shirts to the dry cleaner and picking them up, washing all the other clothes on a schedule, vacuuming the floor on a regular basis, steam cleaning the rugs from time to time, etc.
These are rather mundane tasks that people aren't necessarily very good at, or rather, it's sort of a waste of human potential to spend lots of time doing those things. They're of high urgency but very very low importance. Tasks like that almost beg for anthropomorphized automatons (or an underclass of people, which doesn't sound very nice at all.)
People should be freed up to focus on high importance tasks, with varying degrees of urgency, and that's what the robotic visionaries intend. I'm not saying I think they'll be successful, or that I necessarily agree, but that's their logic, and it has a certain appeal to it.
Clippy, on the other hand, was a complete and utter waste of human talent.
Jeez, over half these posts are so pretentious it makes me nauseous.
I've been an IT development director for a Fortune 100 company for almost 15 years now. What school an entry level programmer went to is almost completely meaningless to me and most of my peers. I've had this discussion before with many of my peers, and most of them feel the same way as I do. The HR folks seem to pay more attention to "what school this gal went to" than the people who actually make the hiring decisions.
When I'm hiring an entry level developer, I'm looking for a few things. 1) Do they have the minimum requirements for the job -- do they know the language or tools I'm hiring for, did they get _some_ kind of accredited bachelors degree? I'll even consider an Associates degree in some cases, if everything else checks out. 2) Do they interview well -- are they aware of their strengths and weaknesses? Are they curious? 3) Do they seem to fit in? What will the team dynamics be if I add this person to the mix? 4) Do I see evidence that they enjoy the profession they've chosen? Would they be writing code even if nobody paid them to do it? Are they confident in what they know, and eager to learn more? 5) Does their resume look professional? Careless mistakes on a resume are a no go in my book. To me that demonstrates a real lack of follow through and commitment. Even if everything else went well, but their resume was junk, I probably wouldn't make an offer. It's like: "I have only one work product to judge you on, and you didn't care enough to spell check it? Get out of here and quit wasting our time."
If I get a strong vibe on four or five of these things, then I'll probably shoot them an offer. If not, probably not. Work is not like school. The guy with the highest grades or best school doesn't always get the best position. You might get hired just because you seem to fit in, and you are otherwise minimally qualified. Getting hired in the real world is a bit more like dating than succeeding in the ivory towers of academia, and I'm sure that grates on many professors out there.
I totally agree with jj. At my own company, also a Fortune 500 company, our security folks are just out of touch with the idea that you have to balance risk and reward in business.
Risk has to be assessed in terms of frequency and severity. If something is very unlikely, but will probably be catastrophic if it happens, then a certain amount of security precautions should be taken. (Usually the reasonable goal is just to survive those situations, going beyond that is often too expensive in my experience.) If something is highly likely but your best guess is that it will result in only modest damage, then again, certain precautions should be taken (these should generally be (key word) _gradually_ worked on until they're eliminated).
At my own company, security folks seem to think that it's ok to throw around "Our company brand is at risk!!" as an excuse for any asinine, expensive, over engineered, overly cautious concept they want to try out. We frequently have to remind them that we can have "the most secure nothing in the world" if we spend our entire budget on security concerns.
Nevertheless, info security is a real issue, and for certain industries it's higher priority than others. So my advise for the original poster is, like a few others here have posted: stop, think about these issues from your boss' perspective, and make sure you're not overreacting. If you still feel very concerned, and you truly believe that the company is taking unreasonable risks and being unethical, then stand up and be counted. Yes, you're risking your career, but if you're right, and you're in info security, then that's exactly what you were hired for -- to make a stink when people cheat, take shortcuts, or otherwise risk the company's brand unnecessarily. The key thing is to make sure you've looked at the situation with some sense of perspective before risking your career unnecessarily (and again, even for your own personal career risk, it's all about frequency and severity!)
Slashdot Mirror
... and 87.6 percent of all statistics, along with everything you said in your post, has been pulled straight out of someone's ass.
Citation for world literacy rate:
"World Statistics." CIA World Fact Book. Central Intelligence Agency, 16 Sep 2012. Web. 16 Sep 2012. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/xx.html
I guess the stat I gave must be from the other 12.4%.
I post on Slashdot quite a bit.
Congratulations. I guess that makes you a very worldly person.
..and I'll go so far as to say that - insofar as reading entails comprehension rather than mere annunciation - even Slashdot has a dearth of those who can read. You are a case in point.
Nice lawyerese... I guess you were destined to mince words at birth.
Considering how you purport to be a frequent contributor to Slashdot, perhaps you might find these links to be enlightening. I'm sure the community would appreciate your attention to them:
"Signal-to-noise ratio." Wikipedia. Wikipedia, 13 Sep 2012. Web. 16 Sep 2012. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signal-to-noise_ratio.
"Troll (Internet)." Wikipedia. Wikipedia, 15 Sep 2012. Web. 16 Sep 2012. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet).
"I'm trying to say that you severely underestimate the number of people who "spring forth from the womb" who will never be competent programmers no matter how hard they try."
That's simply an opinion with no evidence to support it, unlike the work of countless psychologists who've studied learning theory (like Dr. Carol Dweck), which basically refutes everything you're saying.
I take the idiom "have what it takes" to mean "have the ability to do something". Further, I don't think "ability" means the same thing as "inclination". To put a finer point on it, you probably have the ability to be a homosexual, but probably don't have (statistically speaking... obviously we don't know each other) the inclination to be one. So, you "have what it takes" to be a homosexual (you have the proper equipment), just not the inclination.... presumably.
The world is jam packed with those who can barely read or cannot read at all. Many of them will never be able to do it.
Jam packed? The world literacy rate is 82%. In developed nations it's well above 95%. In the United States it's 99%. Is your assertion that it's impossible to teach an illiterate person to program?
I've been a professional developer (making my living from it) for 20+ years. My ego isn't tied into the need to believe I'm special. I started coding video games as a teen, enjoyed the challenge of it, took classes in college, and got a job in my field. There's nothing special about that.
It sounds like you don't get out that much outside of the circles where people are like you.
Oh, I had no idea I was in the presence of the the Secretary of State, sorry Madam Secretary.
I think you're being a bit pedantic. If the oil change analogy bothers you, substitute any other mundane car care task, like changing the windshield wiper fluids, or filling the car with gas -- the point is, there's nothing magical about the work itself -- it's simply a hierarchy of mundane tasks coupled with experience. An oil change can be turned into two smaller tasks for example.
Are you trying to assert that there exist children who spring forth from the womb knowing how to change brakes on cars? The guy who gets paid to change the brakes on other's cars most likely started by changing his own brakes, or learning from his/her parents. At what magic point, in your opinion, does someone transition from being an amateur to being a professional? It is my assertion that there is no magic point -- for mechanics, programmers, architects, physicists, authors, or any other kind of knowledge worker.
I believe, with the obvious exclusion of illness (mental or physical), almost anyone can do almost anything with enough training, time, passion for the endeavor, and a proper feedback loop. The only real unknown is how long it will take for a particular individual in a particular context.
I do _not_ believe that some people are "destined" for particular life roles. That kind of thinking inevitably leads to the subjugation of others (a la "Proles", "Outer Party", and "Inner Party" - Orwell's 1984). There is such a significant overlap in our individual abilities (although not our individual desires) that we should rightly consider ourselves all effectively equal in ability, but simply different in inclination.
I think it depends on where you put the magnifying glass.... what does "has what it takes" really mean, and when am I officially "a mechanic?"
Probably almost everybody "has what it takes" to learn how to change the oil in their car. At a certain fundamental level, they're "a mechanic". If you can break down a complex task like "change the air conditioning compressor" into a smaller set of steps as simple as changing your oil, then again, almost everybody "has what it takes" to change the air conditioning compressor on their car, and now, in a much more general way, they're "a mechanic" (maybe they qualify for "shade tree mechanic" now).
It's all related to learning theory, and it's also why striking teachers in Chicago rightly say that everybody has an opinion about education, but very few people are actually trained at it (and by extension, qualified to evaluate how well it's being done in a given context).
Dr. Carol Dweck spent much of her career answering the question "Why do some kids seem to excel at school, and others seem to struggle?" Using various controls she developed her somewhat famous "Mindset Theory".
At a fairly early age we all start bifurcating into either "fixed mindsets" or "growth mindsets" about various things in life (sports, academics, musical prowess, etc.) That is to say, we frame the world up into a set of interrelated closely held beliefs that subconsiously tell us either: everyone is essentially born a certain way and can only change a little around the edges, or anyone can be anything with perseverance and the truth. The more you practice behaviors related to one or the other of these mindsets, the more it reenforces your beliefs, until eventually it becomes a core part of your personality and becomes difficult to change.
People who say "it takes a certain kind of person to be a __________" are either revealing that they have a fixed mindset about ___________, or they're just stating something like: "in practical terms" some people grow faster than others when learning ___________.
Of course, neither fixed nor growth mindsets are good or bad per se, but they do produce certain predictable results. A fixed mindset toward a domain ("I'm not good at math."), will produce plateaued and unchanging ability in that domain. A growth mindset toward a domain ("I'm not good at math right now, but I can be if I choose to pursue it"), will produce continued growth so long as the learner remains interested in the domain, and finds someone who is good at the subject and is truthful with the student on his/her progress.
Oh yeah, quick follow on... it's also possible that xTrashCat is actually fixed mindset, and he's stroking his own ego (as many have commented) -- a fixed mindset behavior.
If that's the case, then guess what xTrashCat, you're well on your way to becoming exactly like you accuse your coworkers of being. You see, fixed mindset behaviors cause us to stop trying new things -- our thinking switches from "I gotta learn this new thing, never know when it might come in handy." to "I already know all the important stuff, and extra work is wasted effort that can only really make me look bad if I don't accomplish something. I need to limit how often I'm challenged so that I can demonstrate my mastery of this topic."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mindset_(book)
It sounds like xTrashCat is probably a Growth Mindset individual relative to his profession. Most folks are Fixed Mindset relative to their profession, which is sad really. Even more sad, corporate hierarchies are usually built by implicitly rewarding Fixed Mindset behaviors. So, if you want to get really good at your profession, you either have to give up management aspirations (in most companies), or you have to find a company (or start one) that, through something akin to the founder effect, developed a culture that highly values and rewards growth mindset thinking. Having been in this field for close to 20 years now, I'll say good luck to you, because I've only worked for growth-mindset folks for a single 5 year span.... it was the best time of my career so far... but it's fleeting.
I can tell you that when I was working for a growth-mindset oriented company, one thing that was very different was how management behaved. Management was almost scared of the engineering folks -- they considered their role to be "obstacle removers", and they knew that they were going to be judged during performance appraisal time by the BOTTOM of the pyramid (they had an upside down hierarchy -- you as an individual were judged not by your boss, but by a collection of your customers -- your boss just did the paperwork, and sort of coached you on how to relate to your customers better). It was weird compared to the other 15 years of my career so far, but I must say, it was amazing how much we got done.... highly collaborative... highly passionate... highly motivating... a little stressful sometimes I guess.... but I'd go back in a heartbeat if I could. I used to have dreams about code back then -- I'd wake up in the middle of the night and try to scribble down notes for an algorithm or something we were stuck on. I learned more in that 5 years than I've learned in the other 15. Every day was like an adventure, and I couldn't wait to get to work, believe it or not.
In the mean time xTrashCat, you can try to encourage growth-mindset behaviors by using small rewards when someone makes an effort (regardless of whether they actually accomplish anything -- you want the risk taking behavior to increase, you don't really care about the outcome at this point). As a junior engineer, you only have informal relational authority, so you have to be creative -- you need to transition from "that young punk who thinks he knows everything" to "that young guy who is so excited all the time that I'm excited to be working with him, and I like the funny little things he does to encourage us to try stuff". If you can make that transition, there's a chance that you can "bloom where you're planted" and create a little bubble of growth-mindset folks to work with... which is the best I've been able to achieve in any kind of sustained manner.
mosb1000,
It's really simple to explain actually. As you mentioned, there are some tasks that people aren't good at. I think you're referring to the obvious, no-brainer tasks that work well with machines (crushing cars, welding fenders on perfectly, or soldering 2000 resistors on a PCB without making a mistake).
However, simply extend your argument (people aren't good at doing some tasks) a little further. People aren't necessarily good at doing all kinds of things -- cleaning the house, cooking, changing bed sheets on a regular basis, ironing, taking shirts to the dry cleaner and picking them up, washing all the other clothes on a schedule, vacuuming the floor on a regular basis, steam cleaning the rugs from time to time, etc.
These are rather mundane tasks that people aren't necessarily very good at, or rather, it's sort of a waste of human potential to spend lots of time doing those things. They're of high urgency but very very low importance. Tasks like that almost beg for anthropomorphized automatons (or an underclass of people, which doesn't sound very nice at all.)
People should be freed up to focus on high importance tasks, with varying degrees of urgency, and that's what the robotic visionaries intend. I'm not saying I think they'll be successful, or that I necessarily agree, but that's their logic, and it has a certain appeal to it.
Clippy, on the other hand, was a complete and utter waste of human talent.
Jeez, over half these posts are so pretentious it makes me nauseous.
I've been an IT development director for a Fortune 100 company for almost 15 years now. What school an entry level programmer went to is almost completely meaningless to me and most of my peers. I've had this discussion before with many of my peers, and most of them feel the same way as I do. The HR folks seem to pay more attention to "what school this gal went to" than the people who actually make the hiring decisions.
When I'm hiring an entry level developer, I'm looking for a few things. 1) Do they have the minimum requirements for the job -- do they know the language or tools I'm hiring for, did they get _some_ kind of accredited bachelors degree? I'll even consider an Associates degree in some cases, if everything else checks out.
2) Do they interview well -- are they aware of their strengths and weaknesses? Are they curious? 3) Do they seem to fit in? What will the team dynamics be if I add this person to the mix? 4) Do I see evidence that they enjoy the profession they've chosen? Would they be writing code even if nobody paid them to do it? Are they confident in what they know, and eager to learn more? 5) Does their resume look professional? Careless mistakes on a resume are a no go in my book. To me that demonstrates a real lack of follow through and commitment. Even if everything else went well, but their resume was junk, I probably wouldn't make an offer. It's like: "I have only one work product to judge you on, and you didn't care enough to spell check it? Get out of here and quit wasting our time."
If I get a strong vibe on four or five of these things, then I'll probably shoot them an offer. If not, probably not. Work is not like school. The guy with the highest grades or best school doesn't always get the best position. You might get hired just because you seem to fit in, and you are otherwise minimally qualified. Getting hired in the real world is a bit more like dating than succeeding in the ivory towers of academia, and I'm sure that grates on many professors out there.
I totally agree with jj. At my own company, also a Fortune 500 company, our security folks are just out of touch with the idea that you have to balance risk and reward in business. Risk has to be assessed in terms of frequency and severity. If something is very unlikely, but will probably be catastrophic if it happens, then a certain amount of security precautions should be taken. (Usually the reasonable goal is just to survive those situations, going beyond that is often too expensive in my experience.) If something is highly likely but your best guess is that it will result in only modest damage, then again, certain precautions should be taken (these should generally be (key word) _gradually_ worked on until they're eliminated). At my own company, security folks seem to think that it's ok to throw around "Our company brand is at risk!!" as an excuse for any asinine, expensive, over engineered, overly cautious concept they want to try out. We frequently have to remind them that we can have "the most secure nothing in the world" if we spend our entire budget on security concerns. Nevertheless, info security is a real issue, and for certain industries it's higher priority than others. So my advise for the original poster is, like a few others here have posted: stop, think about these issues from your boss' perspective, and make sure you're not overreacting. If you still feel very concerned, and you truly believe that the company is taking unreasonable risks and being unethical, then stand up and be counted. Yes, you're risking your career, but if you're right, and you're in info security, then that's exactly what you were hired for -- to make a stink when people cheat, take shortcuts, or otherwise risk the company's brand unnecessarily. The key thing is to make sure you've looked at the situation with some sense of perspective before risking your career unnecessarily (and again, even for your own personal career risk, it's all about frequency and severity!)