9 ms·

Yes. Every factor is overrated, except genetics which is greatly underrated. Our culture demands that we do not accept "biological determinism" and so everythi

by blfr 10y ago

Yes. Every factor is overrated, except genetics which is greatly underrated. Our culture demands that we do not accept "biological determinism" and so everything else needs to be (rhetorically) stretched to cover for it. That's how we get papers and thinkpieces on grit, stereotype threat, etc. These will be found to have minimal impact if the findings are replicated at all and so new factors will need to be invented. Anecdotes from the OP aren't particularly damning but you can already see the authors angling to be the ones who feed the next cycle.

AlgorithmicTime 10y ago
I would expect grit to be largely the result of heritable factors, so I wouldn't say grit is overrated.
emodendroket 10y ago
I don't know why you're so confident this is settled. Clearly, at the extreme, someone who receives no education at all is going to be extremely hobbled in a modern society no matter how intelligent he is. At the other extreme, the best education in the world won't turn someone suffering from severe intellectual disability into a genius. But there is a large range between these and it is not really so clear, to me, that the balance is tipped so heavily in favor of genetics.
- chongli 10y ago
  It's easier to see what's going on if you look at sports. Thousands of basketball players have received the best training, nutrition, and coaching that money can buy yet there is still a huge gap between top players like Curry or James and the rest of the field. We can talk about grit, perseverance, determination, etc. until we're blue in the face but all else being equal, talent will be the deciding factor.
  - CuriouslyC 10y ago
    Here's the thing about pro sports. There are less than 500 people who play professional basketball. The distribution of basketball playing skill is logarithmic, so there might be 5,000 people with 90% of the skill of pro players, 50,000 people with 80% of the skill, etc. As a result, even if the total difference in skill resulting from talent is small, because the number of people who play basketball is so large and the number of pro players is so small, the pro ranks are going to be filled with only the most talented people. Does that mean just because you're not naturally talented that you can't become a phenomenal basketball player? No, unless you're really short/unathletic, with enough hard work and intelligence you can probably achieve the 90% of pro skill level, which is still really freaking good. Unfortunately, most people are more motivated by the desire to be pro than the love of playing basketball, so when they are eclipsed by more talented people (a good sign you aren't going to be able to go pro) they give up and do something else. The good news is that in most areas of life, all that matters is how good you are, and there isn't some artificially cutoff goodness below which your skill is pointless and wasted. For this reason the professional sports analogy is usually unnecessarily demotivating.
    - cousin_it 10y ago
      (deleted)
      - emodendroket 10y ago
        Intelligence may be necessary for many career paths, but I doubt very much that is sufficient for any of them.
        deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
      - brianwawok 10y ago
        I can name several off the top of my head....
    - dagw 10y ago
  - hackuser 10y ago
    > We can talk about grit, perseverance, determination, etc. until we're blue in the face but all else being equal, talent will be the deciding factor. In fairness, both are equally necessary. Talent without conscientiousness goes no further than conscientiousness without talent.
- hackuser 10y ago
  > someone who receives no education at all is going to be extremely hobbled in a modern society no matter how intelligent he is. At the other extreme, the best education in the world won't turn someone suffering from severe intellectual disability into a genius And that assumes that "intelligent" depends on something you are born with, and that your biology and genetic makeup don't change over time.
  - emodendroket 10y ago
    Yeah, effects like the upward trend of IQs over time do call that into question. But I think it is likely reasonable to say there is some innate level of intelligence that is inborn, even if we aren't able to measure it well right now.
maxerickson 10y ago
Peer influence as a major component of environment barely even gets acknowledged.
CuriouslyC 10y ago
The view that genetics control destiny results in weak people that don't respond well to adversity. If you look at people from fairly normal environments that became highly successful, they basically all discount the value of talent fairly highly. On the other hand, if you look at people who significantly underachieve, belief in talent and destiny are extremely common. Is this belief sufficient for great success? Of course not, you probably still need to be above average, talent wise, and be lucky. It is almost certainly necessary, however.
- akavi 10y ago
  Is it discounting talent that results in success? Or is it success results in discounting talent? Or a third (overlapping) possibility: Maybe believing in hard work results in "success", but only for a fraction of people. Is the expected value of the belief necessarily positive? Ie, take a simplified hypothetical universe where "success" is a binary possibility, with "utility" of 1, and where "hard work" is something that requires a utility investment of -0.1. Even if only those who choose "hard work" become successful regardless of talent or resources, if P("success"|"hard work" && $some_level_of_talent && $some_level_of_prior_resources) < 0.1, then it's still can be suboptimal to pursue "hard work" for the subset of the population with $some_level_of_talent and $some_level_of_prior_resources.
  - themartorana 10y ago
    I think this comment is good at pointing out (if not directly) that there's an assumption often made - success may or may not be correlated with hard work, but failure is very often assumed to be the result of a lack of hard work. In fact I'd argue the hardest working people you'll ever meet are blue-collar, and often struggle continuously in life. "Grit" has nothing to do with it. Edit: I am not saying @akavi holds this belief. Don't know if that was clear.
- trishume 10y ago
  It seems to me like that you could have the causality of that correlation reversed. People that don't have "talent" may consistently underperform those who do despite working hard and trying their best, causing them to realize that "talent" is an important factor.
hyperpape 10y ago
Genetics and psychological traits are not competing explanations of behavior or success. The reason is that genetics matter by causing people to have certain psychological traits[0] that cause them to behave in certain ways! To put the point more concretely, it's as if you asked which is more important for basketball success: genetics or height. [0] As well as some non-psychological traits. It seems to be helpful to be attractive, tall, etc. Precisely, psychological traits are a subset of the ways that genetics matter. But in either case, the two explanations are not competing.

by blfr 10y ago

AlgorithmicTime 10y ago

I would expect grit to be largely the result of heritable factors, so I wouldn't say grit is overrated.

emodendroket 10y ago

I don't know why you're so confident this is settled. Clearly, at the extreme, someone who receives no education at all is going to be extremely hobbled in a modern society no matter how intelligent he is. At the other extreme, the best education in the world won't turn someone suffering from severe intellectual disability into a genius. But there is a large range between these and it is not really so clear, to me, that the balance is tipped so heavily in favor of genetics.

chongli 10y ago
It's easier to see what's going on if you look at sports. Thousands of basketball players have received the best training, nutrition, and coaching that money can buy yet there is still a huge gap between top players like Curry or James and the rest of the field. We can talk about grit, perseverance, determination, etc. until we're blue in the face but all else being equal, talent will be the deciding factor.
- CuriouslyC 10y ago
  Here's the thing about pro sports. There are less than 500 people who play professional basketball. The distribution of basketball playing skill is logarithmic, so there might be 5,000 people with 90% of the skill of pro players, 50,000 people with 80% of the skill, etc. As a result, even if the total difference in skill resulting from talent is small, because the number of people who play basketball is so large and the number of pro players is so small, the pro ranks are going to be filled with only the most talented people. Does that mean just because you're not naturally talented that you can't become a phenomenal basketball player? No, unless you're really short/unathletic, with enough hard work and intelligence you can probably achieve the 90% of pro skill level, which is still really freaking good. Unfortunately, most people are more motivated by the desire to be pro than the love of playing basketball, so when they are eclipsed by more talented people (a good sign you aren't going to be able to go pro) they give up and do something else. The good news is that in most areas of life, all that matters is how good you are, and there isn't some artificially cutoff goodness below which your skill is pointless and wasted. For this reason the professional sports analogy is usually unnecessarily demotivating.
  - cousin_it 10y ago
    (deleted)
    - emodendroket 10y ago
      Intelligence may be necessary for many career paths, but I doubt very much that is sufficient for any of them.
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
    - brianwawok 10y ago
      I can name several off the top of my head....
  - dagw 10y ago
- hackuser 10y ago
  > We can talk about grit, perseverance, determination, etc. until we're blue in the face but all else being equal, talent will be the deciding factor. In fairness, both are equally necessary. Talent without conscientiousness goes no further than conscientiousness without talent.
hackuser 10y ago
> someone who receives no education at all is going to be extremely hobbled in a modern society no matter how intelligent he is. At the other extreme, the best education in the world won't turn someone suffering from severe intellectual disability into a genius And that assumes that "intelligent" depends on something you are born with, and that your biology and genetic makeup don't change over time.
- emodendroket 10y ago
  Yeah, effects like the upward trend of IQs over time do call that into question. But I think it is likely reasonable to say there is some innate level of intelligence that is inborn, even if we aren't able to measure it well right now.

maxerickson 10y ago

Peer influence as a major component of environment barely even gets acknowledged.

CuriouslyC 10y ago

The view that genetics control destiny results in weak people that don't respond well to adversity. If you look at people from fairly normal environments that became highly successful, they basically all discount the value of talent fairly highly. On the other hand, if you look at people who significantly underachieve, belief in talent and destiny are extremely common. Is this belief sufficient for great success? Of course not, you probably still need to be above average, talent wise, and be lucky. It is almost certainly necessary, however.

akavi 10y ago
Is it discounting talent that results in success? Or is it success results in discounting talent? Or a third (overlapping) possibility: Maybe believing in hard work results in "success", but only for a fraction of people. Is the expected value of the belief necessarily positive? Ie, take a simplified hypothetical universe where "success" is a binary possibility, with "utility" of 1, and where "hard work" is something that requires a utility investment of -0.1. Even if only those who choose "hard work" become successful regardless of talent or resources, if P("success"|"hard work" && $some_level_of_talent && $some_level_of_prior_resources) < 0.1, then it's still can be suboptimal to pursue "hard work" for the subset of the population with $some_level_of_talent and $some_level_of_prior_resources.
- themartorana 10y ago
  I think this comment is good at pointing out (if not directly) that there's an assumption often made - success may or may not be correlated with hard work, but failure is very often assumed to be the result of a lack of hard work. In fact I'd argue the hardest working people you'll ever meet are blue-collar, and often struggle continuously in life. "Grit" has nothing to do with it. Edit: I am not saying @akavi holds this belief. Don't know if that was clear.
trishume 10y ago
It seems to me like that you could have the causality of that correlation reversed. People that don't have "talent" may consistently underperform those who do despite working hard and trying their best, causing them to realize that "talent" is an important factor.

hyperpape 10y ago

Genetics and psychological traits are not competing explanations of behavior or success. The reason is that genetics matter by causing people to have certain psychological traits[0] that cause them to behave in certain ways! To put the point more concretely, it's as if you asked which is more important for basketball success: genetics or height. [0] As well as some non-psychological traits. It seems to be helpful to be attractive, tall, etc. Precisely, psychological traits are a subset of the ways that genetics matter. But in either case, the two explanations are not competing.