No, Frank, that's not the sense in which I meant "geek gene." I quite literally am saying that it is hard to believe that some people are "born" to code -- I see no evidence that predisposition to programming is genetic. Charles Knutson's anecdote is a good case in point. His anecdote of how he came to program starts at age 13. Thirteen years is an enormous amount of time to engage in a lot of basic learning--that's not a "blank slate." The point about neural plasticity that Nick is describing tends to be reserved for expertise. While it does seem to be true that one cannot learn to speak a foreign language as a native if one starts too late, it also seems to be true that most people are capable of learning the basics of other languages at any age. If we consider the "Camel" paper, what is being described there is not programming expertise as much as basic introductory computing. While it may be that one cannot become an expert programmer if one starts too late (though, again, we have no evidence for that), it may be that anyone can learn some programming expertise at any age. Walter's point that subitizing is a poor example is well taken. There are other basic skills and number concepts associated with learning math and having a "disposition" toward math. The question about which I was wondering aloud is what the similar basic skills and concepts are for computing. Mark ________________________________
From: Frank Wales [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Mon 7/2/2007 11:14 AM To: Guzdial, Mark Cc: Lindsay Marshall; Peter Gutmann; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; discuss@ppig.org Subject: Re: PPIG discuss: Programmer education argument-starter of the week Oh, by the way... A while ago, Mark Guzdial wrote: >[...] If we're agreed that there is no "geek gene," I don't agree with that contention at all, in the sense that I believe that some people have a knack for technology that others don't, that that knack is as much a part of their make up as their height or gender, and that picking up geeky stuff (including programming) is noticeably easier for those with that knack than for those without it. I'm perfectly happy to offer myself as a data point in favour of my claim, since I have a pretty good idea of how I got to be a programmer, and it wasn't because of the concerted efforts of others (including teachers and parents and friends) to push me in this direction. (I realize that one data point doesn't make a trend, even for vociferous values of 'data point', but it's a start.) Rather than being some post-modern development, I think 'geekiness' is apparent throughout history, and has a clear social value, especially since the inventions of the division of labour and written language. It just so happens that our headlong hurtle into a shiny, robot-cluttered future has changed the social evolutionary pressure on us to favour our geeky side more than ever, with a consequent, and strangely satisfying, increase in the whining from the non-geek contingent. (I also happen to think that most of the advances of civilization have been down to geekiness prevailing over brute force and ignorance, but then I would think that.) So I would be, frankly, astonished if it could be shown that *everyone* is equally trainable in programming to a professional standard, any more than it could be shown that everyone could learn to be a professional golfer or a professional artist or a professional mathematician or a professional teacher. Now, where's that shiny robot waiter with my gadget cocktail? -- Frank Wales [EMAIL PROTECTED]
