[deltaonefour]

Many have it.

Much less people have the aptitude for quantum physics which is way harder. Programming is so easy that even as a teenager you have sufficient background to learn it.

I assure you that as a teenager, it's very unlikely you had any aptitude for quantum physics or any of the hard mathematics required to understand general relativity.

[MockObject]

That's funny, because I loved quantum physics and general relativity so much that I majored in physics, not computer science. I didn't find QM very hard, either. Having done both, I wouldn't say one is harder, only that QM requires more prerequisite knowledge, and I didn't have that as a teen.

I find doing advanced math relaxing and meditative during commutes. That's aptitude. It's probably much the same aptitude as finding programming enjoyable, but software is a much better career, so most of us end up there than in physics anymore.

Not many people have this aptitude, though. Most people would name hundreds of activities they'd rather do than either of them.

[deltaonefour]

Ok. then you're an exception.

But let me put it this way. Much much much much much More people have done programming since they were teens but much less have done QM. You will find tons of examples of programmers and relatively few people who know QM or advanced mathematics.

That's the dichotomy I'm talking about. Programming is easy. QM requiring pre-requisite knowledge is part of what makes it so much harder.

[notch656a]

Much much much more people have shot a deer than have shoot a lawn mower. That doesn't tell you anything about which is easier to shoot.

[deltaonefour]

It does. You have 20 minutes to mow the lawn or shoot a deer, starting now. Which task can you actually accomplish? Far more people will be able to mow the lawn.

You analogy is bad. But I get your point.

Let's put it this way. Something that is commonly done is LIKELY to be far more easier than something that is not commonly done. Full circle back to our other point on probable causes.

[Scea91]

Pointless debate when you do not define the level. Anyone can be surgeon, if you define 'surgery' as being able to 'remove mole'. Many programmers just remove moles. Some do coronary bypass surgeries.

[deltaonefour]

Then let's define the level. Whatever the level is for an Average programmer, my claim is anyone Normal can achieve that level.

[notch656a]

Claiming that if everyone programs the normal average person will achieve the average is claiming nothing. You're simply saying average is average. A lot of words without saying anything at all.

[deltaonefour]

No I'm saying the average level of adequate programming for a software engineering job. The average for the job is higher than the average skill level for the population.

This is obvious. Your diving into technicalities of language, which is unnecessary.

My claim is that most of the population can achieve the average skill level held by an average developer.

[notch656a]

Would it be easier or harder for the average person to reach the bar of 'average software engineer', since 'average person' is a less-selective barrier. Your selectivity theory yields the unintuitive result that it's actually easier to meet the bar of 'adequate for average software engineer' when starting from general population than starting from a selective group of software-engineer material. Or maybe, just maybe, it's possible to hold every cohort to an objective standard.

[deltaonefour]

Harder than what? Harder then a smarter person? Then Yes.

I also wouldn't call it a "selectivity theory." It's more common sense. You select a group of people with a record of great past performance they are more likely going to have an easier time. It's actually your ideas about selectivity are counter-intuitive.