This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
the first one is a non-factor in a global economy. Second one is less and less important as time moves forward, most everyone with an ounce of ambition studies english at one point or another and as American culture permeates your own, english becomes more common, and lets be honest here, the "excellent" qualifier is only important/needed/required if your career involves your language skills.
That just leaves "formal degree" "competent but not great programmer in languages X,Y,Z" in your diagram. With something like programming, formal degrees are less important than in other disciplines, for sure is a requirement for the code monkeys in the IT room, but for the rock stars? I would think projects done and repositories would be the deciding factor which leaves only "competent but not great programmer in languages X,Y,Z" on your upper level as relevant.
Now, you can add an arbitrary qualifiers and make yourself the best in the world in a artificial niche of "Northamerican with excellent english with a degree who is compentent in X,Y,Z language; with deep knowledge of areas X,Y,Z that are not typically things that programmers are into and experience solving problems in these domains with code etc, etc." but at the end of the day the only important thing (at least for a programmer in this example) would be the proficiency in the language and ability to parse tasks in it. Everything else isn't needed to be considered the best in the world programmer.
If we went with your logic "Best in the world" would be a useless category. Usain Bolt? nah I'm the fastest 15 year old chinese-canadian yiddish knowing conservative bald person in the world. Of course it's not as hard as it sounds that way; the normal way, the way most people associate with the term and most companies appreciate and would pay big bucks for is another story.
You would think wrong -- indeed you would be missing the entire point. None of the first few circles in the Venn diagram are all that important at all (as you point out, although you are quite mistaken about location/fluency not mattering) -- the important things are the "not typical programmer things". (ie. the opposite of what you will find in the code monkey room) Degrees are helpful here, or hands-on experience, depending on the specific nature of the thing -- but these are concrete skills, not identity groups.
Companies will not pay big bucks for being a bald chinese canadian -- they will however pay big bucks for somebody who writes acceptable code and already knows everything about their particular business niche. Because there are a lot of niches, and not many programmers who even realize that there's more to their job than "proficiency in the language and ability to parse tasks."
for best in the world, yeah I don't think those matter, there are Indians barely understandable in english employed in language critical roles right now.
While this may be true in some circumstances, that doesn't mean that programmer is the best in the world in the metrics normally asociated with the moniker of "best in the world" regardless of how much he earns. They would be seen more as adequately skilled with some aditional skills, not "best in the world".
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link