3 ms·

> Two months of hard work, from sunrise to sunset, ... Kind of illustrates the writer's point, in my opinion :) I do not really agree with the entire thesis[1

by rue 17y ago

> Two months of hard work, from sunrise to sunset, ... Kind of illustrates the writer's point, in my opinion :) I do not really agree with the entire thesis[1], the idea is not novel and the article itself is rather awkward, but there is some truth to the assertion. [1] Should it be that difficult to have a house and a car etc.?

idoh 17y ago
Rocky and Karate Kid aren't good examples because both stories are about underdog characters who's will and determination overcome their lack of skill.
- rue 17y ago
  And the point was that, in real life, will and determination usually do not overcome lack of skill. Sure, we could argue about whether that assertion is correct but these comments demonstrate that at least half of the equation seems to hold.
  - idoh 17y ago
    I agree with your assertion, FWIW. I'm just pointing out that the article incorrectly interpreted Rocky and Karate Kid. The article says that Karate Kid is misleading because it shows people achieving expert skill in two months time. The author is incorrect because Karate Kid (and Rocky) didn't succeed based on their skills, so it's not relevant.
  - torial 17y ago
    How often is "usually"? Is it 20% of the time? 60%? 80%? 90%? Did you see this New Yorker article on how the underdog can win? http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/05/11/090511fa_fact_gladwell http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/05/11/090511fa_fact_... An interesting quote from that article: What happened, Arreguín-Toft wondered, when the underdogs likewise acknowledged their weakness and chose an unconventional strategy? He went back and re-analyzed his data. In those cases, David’s winning percentage went from 28.5 to 63.6. When underdogs choose not to play by Goliath’s rules, they win, Arreguín-Toft concluded, even when everything we think we know about power says they shouldn’t.
    - rue 17y ago
      I only had time to read pages 1-4, please correct if I missed something crucial: Being presumed weaker does not mean that you actually are. Expectations are orthogonal to actual power/skill/knowledge/etc. There is a point to be made about choosing the correct strategy or tactic: for example, a less-skilled karateka could opt to just shoot the opponent and win the fight. It does not make them better at karate than the dead guy, though. We often have options such as that: programming is hard? Make your living doing something else. So on, but that is only a strategy for avoiding the things that we find difficult.
    - wisty 17y ago
      The underdog can "usually" win if they try an unusual (but effective) strategy. Karate kid didn't use a dirty trick (actually, the other guy did), he fought in a very standard style. The last second of the fight (when he surprised his opponent with his ability to kick with just one leg) may count a bit, but he wouldn't get that far.
warfangle 17y ago
Should it be /necessary/ to own a house and a car? :) What is the value in having a car? Transportation. That transportation is so expensive that in much of the US it's cheaper and more convenient to own a half ton piece of steel and burn 7300 gallons of petroleum products a year than to rely on something community-based (public transport, anyone?) - does that say something about us as a nation? That we have naturally (or, as some would point out, unnaturally) drifted towards the methods of least efficiency in our society, for transport at least? What is the value in having a house? Is it the land? I suppose land is important. What happens when your land loses value drastically, though? Turn it into farmland? Process it for trace elements? Is it the house? The way they're built these days, they won't last another twenty years. Our lives are transient. Shouldn't our abodes and methods of transportation be more permanent, built to outlast us and benefit future generations? True: success takes hard work, dedication, and more hard work. That people are worried, in a modern society, about obtaining access to the very things which are necessary to /do/ that hard work (a safe home; healthy food; transportation to loved ones and places of work; knowledge) makes me sad. Lack of motivation and general ennui among the populace is not the cause of problems, but a symptom of them. One cause, as outlined (with poor examples, nonetheless) is bubble-wrapping everything for future generations. Somehow I doubt this is the primary - or even a tertiary - cause. What are the true causes behind it?
- rue 17y ago
  It should be necessary to be able to have a place to call home and some way of getting to places, but overall "house and car" and of course ownership thereof are mere details based on current socioeconomic conditions. Formulated another way, a comfortable standard of living should be attainable to all with moderate effort.

by rue 17y ago

idoh 17y ago

Rocky and Karate Kid aren't good examples because both stories are about underdog characters who's will and determination overcome their lack of skill.

rue 17y ago
And the point was that, in real life, will and determination usually do not overcome lack of skill. Sure, we could argue about whether that assertion is correct but these comments demonstrate that at least half of the equation seems to hold.
- idoh 17y ago
  I agree with your assertion, FWIW. I'm just pointing out that the article incorrectly interpreted Rocky and Karate Kid. The article says that Karate Kid is misleading because it shows people achieving expert skill in two months time. The author is incorrect because Karate Kid (and Rocky) didn't succeed based on their skills, so it's not relevant.
- torial 17y ago
  How often is "usually"? Is it 20% of the time? 60%? 80%? 90%? Did you see this New Yorker article on how the underdog can win? http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/05/11/090511fa_fact_gladwell http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/05/11/090511fa_fact_... An interesting quote from that article: What happened, Arreguín-Toft wondered, when the underdogs likewise acknowledged their weakness and chose an unconventional strategy? He went back and re-analyzed his data. In those cases, David’s winning percentage went from 28.5 to 63.6. When underdogs choose not to play by Goliath’s rules, they win, Arreguín-Toft concluded, even when everything we think we know about power says they shouldn’t.
  - rue 17y ago
    I only had time to read pages 1-4, please correct if I missed something crucial: Being presumed weaker does not mean that you actually are. Expectations are orthogonal to actual power/skill/knowledge/etc. There is a point to be made about choosing the correct strategy or tactic: for example, a less-skilled karateka could opt to just shoot the opponent and win the fight. It does not make them better at karate than the dead guy, though. We often have options such as that: programming is hard? Make your living doing something else. So on, but that is only a strategy for avoiding the things that we find difficult.
  - wisty 17y ago
    The underdog can "usually" win if they try an unusual (but effective) strategy. Karate kid didn't use a dirty trick (actually, the other guy did), he fought in a very standard style. The last second of the fight (when he surprised his opponent with his ability to kick with just one leg) may count a bit, but he wouldn't get that far.

warfangle 17y ago

Should it be /necessary/ to own a house and a car? :) What is the value in having a car? Transportation. That transportation is so expensive that in much of the US it's cheaper and more convenient to own a half ton piece of steel and burn 7300 gallons of petroleum products a year than to rely on something community-based (public transport, anyone?) - does that say something about us as a nation? That we have naturally (or, as some would point out, unnaturally) drifted towards the methods of least efficiency in our society, for transport at least? What is the value in having a house? Is it the land? I suppose land is important. What happens when your land loses value drastically, though? Turn it into farmland? Process it for trace elements? Is it the house? The way they're built these days, they won't last another twenty years. Our lives are transient. Shouldn't our abodes and methods of transportation be more permanent, built to outlast us and benefit future generations? True: success takes hard work, dedication, and more hard work. That people are worried, in a modern society, about obtaining access to the very things which are necessary to /do/ that hard work (a safe home; healthy food; transportation to loved ones and places of work; knowledge) makes me sad. Lack of motivation and general ennui among the populace is not the cause of problems, but a symptom of them. One cause, as outlined (with poor examples, nonetheless) is bubble-wrapping everything for future generations. Somehow I doubt this is the primary - or even a tertiary - cause. What are the true causes behind it?

rue 17y ago
It should be necessary to be able to have a place to call home and some way of getting to places, but overall "house and car" and of course ownership thereof are mere details based on current socioeconomic conditions. Formulated another way, a comfortable standard of living should be attainable to all with moderate effort.