3 ms·

The below example is stunning. I feel sick to recognize the second paragraph (especially in academic writing), and I feel strong relief that the first paragraph

The below example is stunning. I feel sick to recognize the second paragraph (especially in academic writing), and I feel strong relief that the first paragraph can exist. > Here is a well-known verse from Ecclesiastes: > I returned and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all. > Here it is in modern English: > Objective considerations of contemporary phenomena compel the conclusion that success or failure in competitive activities exhibits no tendency to be commensurate with innate capacity, but that a considerable element of the unpredictable must invariably be taken into account.

dTal 10y ago
As a counterpoint, I didn't quite understand the point of the first paragraph, until I read the second. And the second paragraph, while less poetic, is clearer in meaning in that it makes a concrete statement that can be evaluated, which in this case is good because it's clearly wrong. Success or failure in competitive activities exhibits a strong correlation with innate ability, otherwise what would innate ability even mean? I don't see how I could make an argument like that on the first paragraph; it's too waffly and vague and grand.
- saint_fiasco 10y ago
  I disagree about the point of the first paragraph. Orwell made a bad translation (which was Orwell's point) "Competitive activities" sounds like it refers to artificial, structured activities made for the purpose of measuring ability, so just like you say the correlation should be strong. In those activities, people work hard to make sure the competitors don't cheat, that the rules are fair, and so on. However, the first paragraph is not about artificial competitions but about natural, chaotic situations. It's about victory in a chaotic battle or acquiring wealth back when capitalism hadn't been invented yet. Basically it means "life is unfair, sometimes".
- waiquoo 10y ago
  I think you have a naive understanding of the theme in these paragraphs. Competitive situations do NOT have a strong correlation with innate ability. Outside factors will often have as much or more influence than innate ability (practice beats talent, as the saying goes). I suppose it depends on which 'competitive situation' we are talking about. That is the point of this comparison, though, saying 'competitive situation' leaves things overly vague. To take a concrete example, 9/10 startups fail (or something like that, I'm sure someone has the correct ratio). Does that mean that 9/10 founders are innately unfit to found a company? It seems much more likely that success is a combination of getting the right people working on the right project at the right time in the right place and being noticed by the right people. Even the well educated, connected, entrepreneurial founder might fail because of any one of those (or other) factors. The first paragraph explains this concept succinctly and beautifully. The fact that the second does not convey this meaning while technically containing the same information, is the point of this article.

dTal 10y ago

As a counterpoint, I didn't quite understand the point of the first paragraph, until I read the second. And the second paragraph, while less poetic, is clearer in meaning in that it makes a concrete statement that can be evaluated, which in this case is good because it's clearly wrong. Success or failure in competitive activities exhibits a strong correlation with innate ability, otherwise what would innate ability even mean? I don't see how I could make an argument like that on the first paragraph; it's too waffly and vague and grand.

saint_fiasco 10y ago
I disagree about the point of the first paragraph. Orwell made a bad translation (which was Orwell's point) "Competitive activities" sounds like it refers to artificial, structured activities made for the purpose of measuring ability, so just like you say the correlation should be strong. In those activities, people work hard to make sure the competitors don't cheat, that the rules are fair, and so on. However, the first paragraph is not about artificial competitions but about natural, chaotic situations. It's about victory in a chaotic battle or acquiring wealth back when capitalism hadn't been invented yet. Basically it means "life is unfair, sometimes".
waiquoo 10y ago
I think you have a naive understanding of the theme in these paragraphs. Competitive situations do NOT have a strong correlation with innate ability. Outside factors will often have as much or more influence than innate ability (practice beats talent, as the saying goes). I suppose it depends on which 'competitive situation' we are talking about. That is the point of this comparison, though, saying 'competitive situation' leaves things overly vague. To take a concrete example, 9/10 startups fail (or something like that, I'm sure someone has the correct ratio). Does that mean that 9/10 founders are innately unfit to found a company? It seems much more likely that success is a combination of getting the right people working on the right project at the right time in the right place and being noticed by the right people. Even the well educated, connected, entrepreneurial founder might fail because of any one of those (or other) factors. The first paragraph explains this concept succinctly and beautifully. The fact that the second does not convey this meaning while technically containing the same information, is the point of this article.