I really wish people wouldn&#x27;t link to ten-year-old drafts without checking on current research. The article Atwood links to makes some totally bombastic claims - here&#x27;s the retraction and clarification of them:<p><a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.eis.mdx.ac.uk&#x2F;staffpages&#x2F;r_bornat&#x2F;papers&#x2F;camel_hump_retraction.pdf" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.eis.mdx.ac.uk&#x2F;staffpages&#x2F;r_bornat&#x2F;papers&#x2F;camel_hu...</a><p>While a consistent mental model for things like assignment is a good sign, not initially having it doesn&#x27;t mean you can&#x27;t learn how to code. Lately, researchers have found that certain pedagogical techniques (especially pair programming) are pretty effective at overcoming these deficiencies.<p>I wish I could understand why so many programmers are eager to assume their skills are due to something &#x27;innate&#x27;.