3 ms·

> Today's environment is extremely competitive and the margin for error is lower. The margin for error is enormous, compared to previous generations. The proba

> Today's environment is extremely competitive and the margin for error is lower. The margin for error is enormous, compared to previous generations. The probability that a mistake in life will lead you to die of starvation or cold is smaller than ever. What I think is happening is that global communication is leading to increased status neurosis. Before, you could compare your kids to the neighbors'. Now you can compare them with everyone's kids, filtered through the lens of social media.

riffraff 11y ago
> What I think is happening is that global communication is leading to increased status neurosis. A thousand times this. There is also a growing body of research[0] that shows that social media make you feel worse cause you are exposed to a selection of what's good in other people's life. I suspect the same often applies to TV. [0] which I have not read further than the news reports, so might be total bullshit, caveat emptor, but I am inclined to believe it based on my anecdotal experience.
- agumonkey 11y ago
  And the information era triggers an addiction to know more all the time which is knowing nothing. Schooling, parenting ... sometimes I even wonder how could my parent let me play outside without a cellphone, when in fact, all previous generations did fine.
- TeMPOraL 11y ago
  It's all global media. Even colorful lifestyle magazines. Those celebrities you read about are carefully selected top N of 7 billion people. The chance of meeting any single person like that in one's neighbourhood is practically zero for a normal human being, yet you treat them as next-door neighbours in terms of comparing yourself to them, because media hijacks the availability heuristic. That effect is a reason why I start to think mass media is doing more harm than good to humans (a lot of ways in which general population turns batshit insane can be attributed to availability heuristic).
seiji 11y ago
Margin of error: go to Stanford, make the right connections, become a billionaire in 8 years versus go to a state school and work for the billionaires while making 1/5000th to 1/150000th as much as they do, yet you're doing all the work that makes them richer.
- TelmoMenezes 11y ago
  > go to Stanford, make the right connections, become a billionaire in 8 years In my scenario I was implicitly alluding to the real planet Earth.
  - seiji 11y ago
    We're talking hopes and dreams and aspirations and delusions here. How many billionaires has Stanford generated versus the entire state of Ohio in the past 20 years?
- forgetsusername 11y ago
  >become a billionaire in 8 years versus go to a state school and work for the billionaires If the only thing that matters in life is how much money you make, this might be relevant. Otherwise, working for those billionaires as a college grad isn't that bad.
  - seiji 11y ago
    Lead, follow, or get out of the way. Nothing wrong with having no ambition, but step to the right so better people can pass you by.
    - peoplelovelines 11y ago
      Gross. What a shallow and pathetic way of viewing the world and the people around you.
- cthalupa 11y ago
  Stanford has 27 billionaire alumni. At any given time, there are ~15,000 students studying at Stanford. Getting the top 10 schools for creating billionaires, it accounts for 206 total. (Though this number also includes Cambridge, and I'm not sure if the 11 billionaire alumni from there are part of the same 500ish US billionaires) Out of the 500ish billionaires in the US, nearly 100 of them have no degree at all. So, these top schools produce about double the amount of billionaires that zero degrees do, and roughly the same number as the rest of the schools combined. This is such a relatively small sample size and there are so many factors in play here that it would be silly to draw any sort of strong conclusion from this, but even going with shoddy science on this and playing fast and loose, we can see that while, yes, you do gain an advantage in the 'become a billionaire' game, it's still a ridiculously insignificant chance, and the population of billionaires without a degree or with a degree from a school not known for producing billionaires is still higher. All of this to say: There ain't no easy path to billionairehood besides being born one, and getting in to Stanford or any other school does not increase your chances of becoming one to a statistically significant number.
FLUX-YOU 11y ago
He's not really talking about mortal survival but social/career success, the consequences of error meaning you don't get to climb as high.
BurningFrog 11y ago
> Before, you could compare your kids to the neighbors'. Now you can compare them with everyone's kids, filtered through the lens of social media. This is also a big factor in the "impossible beauty standards" syndrome. Being the prettiest girl in the village was tough but humanly possible. Competing against photoshopped versions of the most attractive women on the planet is not.

riffraff 11y ago

> What I think is happening is that global communication is leading to increased status neurosis. A thousand times this. There is also a growing body of research[0] that shows that social media make you feel worse cause you are exposed to a selection of what's good in other people's life. I suspect the same often applies to TV. [0] which I have not read further than the news reports, so might be total bullshit, caveat emptor, but I am inclined to believe it based on my anecdotal experience.

agumonkey 11y ago
And the information era triggers an addiction to know more all the time which is knowing nothing. Schooling, parenting ... sometimes I even wonder how could my parent let me play outside without a cellphone, when in fact, all previous generations did fine.
TeMPOraL 11y ago
It's all global media. Even colorful lifestyle magazines. Those celebrities you read about are carefully selected top N of 7 billion people. The chance of meeting any single person like that in one's neighbourhood is practically zero for a normal human being, yet you treat them as next-door neighbours in terms of comparing yourself to them, because media hijacks the availability heuristic. That effect is a reason why I start to think mass media is doing more harm than good to humans (a lot of ways in which general population turns batshit insane can be attributed to availability heuristic).

seiji 11y ago

Margin of error: go to Stanford, make the right connections, become a billionaire in 8 years versus go to a state school and work for the billionaires while making 1/5000th to 1/150000th as much as they do, yet you're doing all the work that makes them richer.

TelmoMenezes 11y ago
> go to Stanford, make the right connections, become a billionaire in 8 years In my scenario I was implicitly alluding to the real planet Earth.
- seiji 11y ago
  We're talking hopes and dreams and aspirations and delusions here. How many billionaires has Stanford generated versus the entire state of Ohio in the past 20 years?
forgetsusername 11y ago
>become a billionaire in 8 years versus go to a state school and work for the billionaires If the only thing that matters in life is how much money you make, this might be relevant. Otherwise, working for those billionaires as a college grad isn't that bad.
- seiji 11y ago
  Lead, follow, or get out of the way. Nothing wrong with having no ambition, but step to the right so better people can pass you by.
  - peoplelovelines 11y ago
    Gross. What a shallow and pathetic way of viewing the world and the people around you.
cthalupa 11y ago
Stanford has 27 billionaire alumni. At any given time, there are ~15,000 students studying at Stanford. Getting the top 10 schools for creating billionaires, it accounts for 206 total. (Though this number also includes Cambridge, and I'm not sure if the 11 billionaire alumni from there are part of the same 500ish US billionaires) Out of the 500ish billionaires in the US, nearly 100 of them have no degree at all. So, these top schools produce about double the amount of billionaires that zero degrees do, and roughly the same number as the rest of the schools combined. This is such a relatively small sample size and there are so many factors in play here that it would be silly to draw any sort of strong conclusion from this, but even going with shoddy science on this and playing fast and loose, we can see that while, yes, you do gain an advantage in the 'become a billionaire' game, it's still a ridiculously insignificant chance, and the population of billionaires without a degree or with a degree from a school not known for producing billionaires is still higher. All of this to say: There ain't no easy path to billionairehood besides being born one, and getting in to Stanford or any other school does not increase your chances of becoming one to a statistically significant number.

FLUX-YOU 11y ago

He's not really talking about mortal survival but social/career success, the consequences of error meaning you don't get to climb as high.

BurningFrog 11y ago

> Before, you could compare your kids to the neighbors'. Now you can compare them with everyone's kids, filtered through the lens of social media. This is also a big factor in the "impossible beauty standards" syndrome. Being the prettiest girl in the village was tough but humanly possible. Competing against photoshopped versions of the most attractive women on the planet is not.