[spookylukey]

> There is some innate affinity for computer programming which you must be born with, and cannot be taught.

This being a falsehood is a matter of considerable debate, and it's impossible to prove (There are certainly some people with very low ability for computer programming, to the point of effectively useless. How would you prove this was entirely nurture and not nature?). This is a not a good candidate for a "list of falsehoods" article.

[beisner]

Nobody will argue that there are certain things you must be born with in order to learn to program. If you are born without a brain - literally without the brain organ - you likely will not end up a successful programmer. This is an absurd reduction, but the point is that there is a necessarily a set of physiological properties one must possess to program. The question is then whether a small group of people possess them, or whether a much larger group do. I err on the side of the latter; while there are definitely aspects of programming today that are pretty inaccessible (I’m looking at you, arcane Unix shell conventions and invocations), the fundamental practice of reducing abstract tasks into fundamental steps is a skill that I believe most humans have the ability to learn.

[mannykannot]

From a purely logical point of view, it might not belong on a falsehoods list, but it would sit very well on a "useless notions" list, right before "anyone can be taught to program".