NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/comp/lang/c/17071

Internet Message Format | 1992-11-24 | 3.8 KB

Xref: sparky comp.lang.c:17071 comp.software-eng:4489
Path: sparky!uunet!gistdev!flint
From: [e-mail] (Flint Pellett)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c,comp.software-eng
Subject: Re: Will we keep ignoring this productivity issue?
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 23 Nov 92 19:10:09 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Followup-To: comp.lang.c
Organization: Global Information Systems Technology Inc., Savoy, IL
Lines: 55

[e-mail] (Ralph Johnson) writes:

>[e-mail] (Geoff Miller) writes:

>Sure, some people that you teach become much better than others.
>But *everybody* who has skills learned them.  *Somebody* taught
>Miles Davis to improvise, even if that somebody was himself (which
>it probably was, in part, but he could probably tell you the many
>people who helped).  The claim that the main reason why some people
>do better than others is because some people are geniuses and other
>people are not is sheer mysticism.  I bet Miles Davis is not a
>genius on any standardized test.

When I was in college, I was very much in the behaviorist camp, I just
couldn't follow the people who said that genetics played a big part.
Now I'm not.  I used to think that, while some people might learn more
quickly, that everyone could learn the same stuff.  I just don't think
that anymore- or at least, I cannot accept the claim that they will be
able to learn it in the same ways.

Why my change of heart?  One big factor was acquiring a step-son when
he was a year and a half old, and observing over a number of years the
rather massive differences between him and my other children, despite
an identical environment.  The other is from observing a lot of
programmers who have worked for me.  You can teach someone about
logic, you can teach them the tools, etc., but you cannot teach them
to be logical and structured if their mind operates in an emotional
and unstructured manner.  I've conducted a lot of design reviews, and
one thing I notice is that some people, when asked why they think some
approach is the best, tend to respond with phrases like "I feel", "I
think", etc.  (emotional or intuitive responses) and others will
respond with things like "my test program", "my analysis of the
input", etc.  (logical or analytical responses.)  BOTH types of input
are important to getting a good design done (IMO), but trying to train
people who tend toward one or the other of those methods to operate in
the other is unlikely to be successful.

Individual differences do make a big difference in how well a person
is going to be able to perform, it is not "sheer mysticism."  Let me
give a very simple but obvious example.  Take two people, one of them
a "normal" person, another has a hormonal imbalance that causes him
to experience periods of severe depression as much as 1 week every
month, followed by periods of severe agitation and anger.  Who do you
think is going to get more programs done?  If you can concede that
one, then you should be able to see the fact that there is a whole
range of such conditions within humanity, not some simple black and
white division.  Attention span is another area I doubt you'll ever be
able to train for.  (I've been known to sit down at a terminal and
start in on something and other than trips to the bathroom, not stop
until 18 hours later.  I know other people who basically cannot stay
focused on anything for more than an hour at a time.)
--
Flint Pellett, Global Information Systems Technology, Inc.
100 Trade Centre Drive, Suite 301, Champaign, IL  61820     [phone]
uunet!gistdev!flint or [e-mail]