6 ms·

This is what people should take away from this, not that there might always be someone out there better than you no matter what. In the end, you can only contro

by eachro 9y ago

This is what people should take away from this, not that there might always be someone out there better than you no matter what. In the end, you can only control your own circumstances so do your best, prepare/train for whatever it is you're doing and whatever happens happens.

projektir 9y ago
We should take away from this exactly what is true, not what is motivational. Our whole problem lately is that we've been doing the opposite. These things are bigger than you and me and the person next door and there are far more important things than motivating some random person to train more. That is, frankly, peanuts compared to what is at stake. You are pushing a highly individualistic philosophy that not everyone even agrees on. We live in societies and we have governments beholden to us and it's very important how these things function, much more important than what you individually do. If these systems and structures do not properly serve us because we overestimate personal agency and underestimate circumstance, that's a major problem. The investigation to find what is true (why are people creative?) with figuring out how to improve the station of some person (why am I not creative?) is a conflict of interest, do not mix these unless you like believing in things that are just plain wrong.
- eachro 9y ago
  "We should take away from this exactly what is true, not what is motivational. Our whole problem lately is that we've been doing the opposite. These things are bigger than you and me and the person next door and there are far more important things than motivating some random person to train more. That is, frankly, peanuts compared to what is at stake." Ooh, interesting. Can you elaborate more on what you thing the "whole problem" is? What things are you talking about? What is at stake? Let me say what my actual opinion on all this is, since you seem to be assuming a lot of intent("You are pushing...") from my 2 sentence original post. Many people ask: "why is X more creative than me?", "why is X better than me at Y?" and often the goal is not really to better understand anything about the nature of creativity but to give some justification for their perceived deficiencies. In these cases, this kind of thinking is unproductive because the explanation(something something brain connections blah blah blah) is out of their control! Exactly what you're saying with this being a "conflict of interest." And to these people I say, IF you care about being more creative, IF you care about being the best in your field: control what you control, and whatever happens happens.
  - projektir 9y ago
    > What things are you talking about? What is at stake? "Poor people deserve to be poor" and "we shouldn't help drug addicts, its their fault" are the classic ones. The problem can be summarized as total responsibility assignment (i.e., the idea that a person is fully responsible for their state) I'm assuming it because it's a very common problem. Discussions about nature vs nurture very often get redirected into moralism. Like this example here: > the goal is not really to better understand anything about the nature of creativity but to give some justification for their perceived deficiencies You're saying this as if these things are not related. If people repeatedly get the message that the only thing stopping them from being a great mathematician is hard work, that message better be correct, or there will be social consequences. It's actually completely reasonable to question the message, and it's very problematic that in the current climate any attempt at questioning it results in a moralistic response akin to "you're just looking for excuses". This is the very kind of thinking I'm arguing against here. > this kind of thinking is unproductive The truth is never unproductive.
    - eachro 9y ago
      I'm not really sure why you seem to be so antagonized by my statements. I am not making any moral judgement on people. I am not saying anything about this nurture/nature debate. All I'm saying is that in the end you can only control what you can control, so you do your best there and the results are what they are. I have not insinuated anything about the certainty of success, only that there is uncertainty. > The truth is never unproductive. Yes understanding creativity is important. I am not against the truth. But you perfectly well that I am talking about productivity with respect to these concrete goals of becoming more creative/getting better at X/etc. The "truth" that you discover from studies like this are probabilistic. X% of the study participants showed Y or we observed some correlation of Z with creativity, etc. There is no certainty that these findings apply to a specific individual. Maybe, maybe not. You can make these statements about social structures, (possible) differences in the connections of brains of creative people(as suggested in the linked paper), etc, etc. But what is actionable out of this "truth" if you are trying to become a great mathematician? There are two responses to this. What can we do as a society? And what can I do as an individual who is toiling on this path towards a higher goal? You're concerned about the former. That is fair. I am talking about the latter. >It's actually completely reasonable to question the message, and it's very problematic that in the current climate any attempt at questioning it results in a moralistic response akin to "you're just looking for excuses". This is the very kind of thinking I'm arguing against here. I have no way of proving this, but I would bet any amount of money that pieces like this and its like have this exact effect that you are against. I hypothesize that a majority of people reading this will walk away with the conclusion that more creative people have these innate differences in brain connectivity and then go on to surmise that the odds are stacked against them so why bother trying. And THAT is more damaging than any motivational message. After typing all this up, I now agree with your original thesis: "We should take away from this exactly what is true, not what is motivational." In light of that, I stick to my message that you should still control the things you control in your pursuits of w/e goal it is you're pursuing b/c it is unrealistic to imagine that people will walk away from these pieces with just this "truth" - they will naturally form opinions about it and later on inform their actions with this "truth."

by eachro 9y ago

projektir 9y ago

We should take away from this exactly what is true, not what is motivational. Our whole problem lately is that we've been doing the opposite. These things are bigger than you and me and the person next door and there are far more important things than motivating some random person to train more. That is, frankly, peanuts compared to what is at stake. You are pushing a highly individualistic philosophy that not everyone even agrees on. We live in societies and we have governments beholden to us and it's very important how these things function, much more important than what you individually do. If these systems and structures do not properly serve us because we overestimate personal agency and underestimate circumstance, that's a major problem. The investigation to find what is true (why are people creative?) with figuring out how to improve the station of some person (why am I not creative?) is a conflict of interest, do not mix these unless you like believing in things that are just plain wrong.

eachro 9y ago
"We should take away from this exactly what is true, not what is motivational. Our whole problem lately is that we've been doing the opposite. These things are bigger than you and me and the person next door and there are far more important things than motivating some random person to train more. That is, frankly, peanuts compared to what is at stake." Ooh, interesting. Can you elaborate more on what you thing the "whole problem" is? What things are you talking about? What is at stake? Let me say what my actual opinion on all this is, since you seem to be assuming a lot of intent("You are pushing...") from my 2 sentence original post. Many people ask: "why is X more creative than me?", "why is X better than me at Y?" and often the goal is not really to better understand anything about the nature of creativity but to give some justification for their perceived deficiencies. In these cases, this kind of thinking is unproductive because the explanation(something something brain connections blah blah blah) is out of their control! Exactly what you're saying with this being a "conflict of interest." And to these people I say, IF you care about being more creative, IF you care about being the best in your field: control what you control, and whatever happens happens.
- projektir 9y ago
  > What things are you talking about? What is at stake? "Poor people deserve to be poor" and "we shouldn't help drug addicts, its their fault" are the classic ones. The problem can be summarized as total responsibility assignment (i.e., the idea that a person is fully responsible for their state) I'm assuming it because it's a very common problem. Discussions about nature vs nurture very often get redirected into moralism. Like this example here: > the goal is not really to better understand anything about the nature of creativity but to give some justification for their perceived deficiencies You're saying this as if these things are not related. If people repeatedly get the message that the only thing stopping them from being a great mathematician is hard work, that message better be correct, or there will be social consequences. It's actually completely reasonable to question the message, and it's very problematic that in the current climate any attempt at questioning it results in a moralistic response akin to "you're just looking for excuses". This is the very kind of thinking I'm arguing against here. > this kind of thinking is unproductive The truth is never unproductive.
  - eachro 9y ago
    I'm not really sure why you seem to be so antagonized by my statements. I am not making any moral judgement on people. I am not saying anything about this nurture/nature debate. All I'm saying is that in the end you can only control what you can control, so you do your best there and the results are what they are. I have not insinuated anything about the certainty of success, only that there is uncertainty. > The truth is never unproductive. Yes understanding creativity is important. I am not against the truth. But you perfectly well that I am talking about productivity with respect to these concrete goals of becoming more creative/getting better at X/etc. The "truth" that you discover from studies like this are probabilistic. X% of the study participants showed Y or we observed some correlation of Z with creativity, etc. There is no certainty that these findings apply to a specific individual. Maybe, maybe not. You can make these statements about social structures, (possible) differences in the connections of brains of creative people(as suggested in the linked paper), etc, etc. But what is actionable out of this "truth" if you are trying to become a great mathematician? There are two responses to this. What can we do as a society? And what can I do as an individual who is toiling on this path towards a higher goal? You're concerned about the former. That is fair. I am talking about the latter. >It's actually completely reasonable to question the message, and it's very problematic that in the current climate any attempt at questioning it results in a moralistic response akin to "you're just looking for excuses". This is the very kind of thinking I'm arguing against here. I have no way of proving this, but I would bet any amount of money that pieces like this and its like have this exact effect that you are against. I hypothesize that a majority of people reading this will walk away with the conclusion that more creative people have these innate differences in brain connectivity and then go on to surmise that the odds are stacked against them so why bother trying. And THAT is more damaging than any motivational message. After typing all this up, I now agree with your original thesis: "We should take away from this exactly what is true, not what is motivational." In light of that, I stick to my message that you should still control the things you control in your pursuits of w/e goal it is you're pursuing b/c it is unrealistic to imagine that people will walk away from these pieces with just this "truth" - they will naturally form opinions about it and later on inform their actions with this "truth."