Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

Orchids and Dandelions

Sunday, January 3rd, 2010

There’s a very interesting article in The Atlantic this month about research into the genetic component of success and failure. It’s very early days, but the suggestion is that genes that had previously been seen as causing weakness to disorders like depression when a person has a difficult childhood, can also be linked with much higher performance when the child grows up in favourable circumstances:

The Swedes [...] have long spoken of “dandelion” children. These dandelion children—equivalent to our “normal” or “healthy” children, with “resilient” genes—do pretty well almost anywhere, whether raised in the equivalent of a sidewalk crack or a well-tended garden. Ellis and Boyce offer that there are also “orchid” children, who will wilt if ignored or maltreated but bloom spectacularly with greenhouse care.

It would be foolish to base decisions on this before more research has been developed further. But I wondered whether this model might offer some lessons to the software industry. Many companies set out to hire the most capable, intelligent people. Perhaps those that do so would do well to bear in mind that they will have a greater proportion of “orchids”: people who are capable of great things, but need the right environment to bring it about.

Random thoughts

Saturday, October 17th, 2009

It irks me when people use the word “random” as I have in the title to this article. As any cryptologist will tell you, human thoughts are never statistically random, which is why we are so poor at picking passwords that can’t be guessed. To me, the word “haphazard” seems much better at describing the process of collecting thoughts together with no clear goal or purpose.

A little digging in the OED informed me that I am not actually correct in this pedantry. “Random” is a perfectly acceptable adjective meaning “arranged without goal or purpose”, in which form its use dates to the mid-17th century (so it isn’t a modern corruption). In point of fact, “haphazard” entered the language slightly later in the same century, and in this sense the words are synonymous.

However, I wonder if it wouldn’t be useful to enforce more of a distinction in the future, whatever the history of the language. Statistical randomness is a sense of “random” that came into use in the 19th century, but is increasingly important in modern times as we are persuaded of this fact or that fact by use of statistical analysis. If a drug is declared safe on the basis of “random” trials, you had better hope they are not merely haphazard.