4 ms·

Interesting that you focus only on actors and PhD students. What you describe is true of just about any field. The superstars are, by definition, rare. Sometime

Interesting that you focus only on actors and PhD students. What you describe is true of just about any field. The superstars are, by definition, rare. Sometimes they get their due to incredible skills, sometimes by luck, most often by both. It's also often the case that superstars not necessarily the best. This is true for superstar programmers, lawyers, basketball players, managers, machinists, and just about everyone. It's difficult to rank anyone for almost anything, the best aren't always chosen, and people often win for talents unrelated to their core competency. To sum it up... life isn't fair.

nabla9 9y ago
You are either overgeneralizing or focusing in the wrong aspects of superstars. Functioning job market is antidote for subjectivity. Basketball players and many other sports have selection process and auctions and player markets. Multiple teams can evaluate the candidates and there is binding contracts where money is exchanged. (sports is US collages may be a form of abusing cheap labor though)
- speedplane 9y ago
  Every selection process or auction contains subjectivity. Ball players are not just judged on their stats, but on their pedigree, coaches, and endorsements, the compilation of which are subjective. Fine art, which is often sold at open auctions, is completely subjective. Brands, connections, styles, and attitude are all attributes that are bought and sold, and are almost entirely subjective. Attempting to remove subjectivity from the job application or valuation process is a worthy goal, but has not historically been terribly successful.
  - nabla9 9y ago
    The mechanism I described does not arise from the subjectivity alone.
TheCoelacanth 9y ago
The difference is that in some fields there is a huge gap between the superstars and everyone else. Someone who almost became a star actor probably has a second job as a waiter. Someone who almost became a tenured professor is probably making peanuts as an adjunct. Someone who almost because a superstar programmer is probably still making six figures.

nabla9 9y ago

You are either overgeneralizing or focusing in the wrong aspects of superstars. Functioning job market is antidote for subjectivity. Basketball players and many other sports have selection process and auctions and player markets. Multiple teams can evaluate the candidates and there is binding contracts where money is exchanged. (sports is US collages may be a form of abusing cheap labor though)

speedplane 9y ago
Every selection process or auction contains subjectivity. Ball players are not just judged on their stats, but on their pedigree, coaches, and endorsements, the compilation of which are subjective. Fine art, which is often sold at open auctions, is completely subjective. Brands, connections, styles, and attitude are all attributes that are bought and sold, and are almost entirely subjective. Attempting to remove subjectivity from the job application or valuation process is a worthy goal, but has not historically been terribly successful.
- nabla9 9y ago
  The mechanism I described does not arise from the subjectivity alone.

TheCoelacanth 9y ago

The difference is that in some fields there is a huge gap between the superstars and everyone else. Someone who almost became a star actor probably has a second job as a waiter. Someone who almost became a tenured professor is probably making peanuts as an adjunct. Someone who almost because a superstar programmer is probably still making six figures.