Like everyone else, I read Paul Graham's latest on "Great Hackers", and like everyone else I found a few things to like and a few things to scratch my head about.Some of the assertions are just silly, e.g.:Great hackers also generally insist on using open source software. Not just because it's better, but because it gives them more control. Good hackers insist on control.And "great hackers" also build their own computers and grow their own food for the same reason? The kind of thoroughness and detail-orientation that Paul Graham talks about can turn into debilitating perfectionism if not checked by discipline or natural boundaries. Open source software suits "hackers" because other "hackers" have already tweaked it to match their collective sensibilities;the availability or mutability of the source code is a secondary consideration.In spite of any ancillary silliness, the notional (and I would say misnamed) category of "hacker" is interesting. There are some tasks that require a certain quality versus quantity; my favorite allegory on productivity is the Baby Project Allegory:Under suitable conditions and with a little help from a man, a woman can produce a baby in nine months, give or take a few days. Applying an additional woman to the project will not complete it in 4.5 months, and any number of men on their own will never complete the project.Cultivating extraordinary individuals is an interesting problem, and I have my own thoughts on the matter. Over almost a decade spent on graduate studies and an academic job, I taught something over a thousand people calculus and its variants. That makes for an interesting sample, presuming that I can control for any effects of my teaching style. I believe that I was responsible for elevating the performance of some students from, e.g., B- to B+ or even from C- to B, but I don't believe that I ever "made" an A student. (That said, I have recognized and then shamed or otherwise motivated A students into performing at the right level.) I don't consider this statement controversial, but I've been accused of pessimism and defeatism. In another context, the analogous statement is unobjectionable and unassailable: Supermodels are born, not made.There is an intangible spark that represents the kind of intelligence and acuity that pay compound interest when applied to a certain flavor of mental endeavor, but it defies resumes, standardized tests, or essay questions. (In fact, people who are both very bright and undisciplined will have results that are negatively correlated with their capabilities.) The best I have to offer is that I know it when I see it.
Previous Topic
