You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

Azathoth123 comments on What false beliefs have you held and why were you wrong? - Less Wrong Discussion

28 Post author: Punoxysm 16 October 2014 05:58PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (364)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: shminux 17 October 2014 07:26:22PM *  13 points [-]

All of the above, but the root cause is limited aptitude. I know you don't believe that, but you probably will the day you hit your own limit.

Music is a good example. You can aspire to play the hardest and most exquisite music pieces with the best, and compose new masterpieces, but without the talent you will not progress much farther than "twinkle twinkle little star" (i'm exaggerating a bit).

Or sports. Not everyone who wants to makes it to the major leagues.

In math and sciences I have frequently observed a really motivated person learning something with extreme effort, doing the exercises, then coming to the next session with half the newly learned skills gone, and having to start nearly from scratch. As a result, the effort which is linear for many is exponential for them. Or worse.

I was in a similar situation. A couple of grad courses were easy, some harder, and one or two nearly impossible for me. I was able to do well enough on them, but it was hell. There would be no way for me to get to the level where I could do research in the area. Yet some other students just kept going, mastering the new material at the same rate as the old. (And others were forced to drop the course or the program long before.)

Think of, say, a high jumper. You can see one barely clearing 2.20 on the technique alone, with no hope of going higher, And you can see someone else doing the same height in a much more sloppy way, clearly able to do a lot better with a better technique. Brains are not much different from muscles. The limits are there, if not clearly visible.

Re your question (d), I have never tried to put enough time myself to test it, but I have tutored an aspired programmer who gave up after realizing he cannot think in the way required (see also 99.5% of programming job candidates fail the FizzBuzz test, though this seems a stretch).

Comment author: Azathoth123 18 October 2014 12:31:47AM 11 points [-]

(see also 99.5% of programming job candidates fail the FizzBuzz test, though this seems a stretch).

This is misleading. Bad programmers spend more time interviewing before being hired, thus the pool of job interview candidates is biased towards bad programmers.

Comment author: [deleted] 19 October 2014 12:38:37PM *  3 points [-]

Even if a bad programmer did 200 times as many interviews as a good programmer, that would mean that about half the programmers can't do FizzBuzz, which is still unsettling.

Comment author: Viliam_Bur 20 October 2014 11:53:27AM *  3 points [-]

If your idea of a "bad programmer" is someone who studied programming, but had unimpressive results, then yes, the idea that half the programmers can't do FizzBuzz is unsettling.

However, the set of "bad programmers" also includes crazy people who believe they understand programming without any good reasons; overconfident people who used Excel for a few months and now believe they know everything there is about using computers; etc. It is not so difficult to believe that these people are as numerous as the real programmers.

In other words, instead of a less skilled programmer, imagine a non-programmer with an extreme case of Dunning–Kruger effect.

By the way, I wonder how much this effect is culture-dependent. There seems to be something in the American culture that supports overconfidence, at least in job interviews.

Comment author: [deleted] 22 October 2014 11:34:49AM 3 points [-]

By “programmer” in this context I meant ‘someone who applies for a programming job and makes it to the interview stage’. Which unless they outright lied on their CV means they probably have some kind of certification. In another article I read that more than half of comp sci graduates can't do FizzBuzz.

In a halfway decent world, granting a comp sci degree to someone who can't do FizzBuzz would be punishable as fraud.

Comment author: therufs 19 October 2014 06:25:37PM 4 points [-]

It isn't cited + it seems awfully high -> the number is probably exaggerated at some level of intentionality