4 ms·

>The template is simple: Write generic advice that sounds nice, and is never controversial. Make sure it's super vague so you don't have to take any accountabil

>The template is simple: Write generic advice that sounds nice, and is never controversial. Make sure it's super vague so you don't have to take any accountability for it, you can move the goalposts of what you're saying In technical terms, what you are suggesting is that the article is making a claim which is unfalsifiable. But actually it is falsifiable. All you have to do is find a person who has diverse skills but is unsuccessful.

peteretep 8y ago
> All you have to do is find a person who has diverse skills but is unsuccessful I know many people like this, but I suspect the No True Scotsman fallacy would get invoked.
- Aeolun 8y ago
  They’re clearly not skilled enough at their diverse skills. It’d be a bit like me trying to sell myself as a master of multiple instruments.
  - peteretep 8y ago
    >> I suspect the No True Scotsman fallacy would get invoked > They’re clearly not skilled enough at their diverse skills One of my skills is accurate predictions, it turns out.
EForEndeavour 8y ago
Finding a single counterexample works in mathematics to disprove a theorem, but not in this situation. It is silly to claim that having diverse skills guarantees success. The article doesn't even claim that; it explicitly mentions increasing the odds of success. To "disprove" this claim, you'd need to design and run a study that looks for a statistical relationship between success and skill diversity, both of which you'd have to quantify somehow.
- Amygaz 8y ago
  It doesn’t guarantee it, it doubles the probability, and it is stackable. So there is a metric to measure (somehow). Now, the author is probably just bullshittng things out of his fingers, an assumption I make based on the lack of any evidence being provided. Nonetheless, since stackability and doubling at each turn mean you can trend toward 100% very quickly, then you can look at people you see as very successful, no matter what is your favorite measure of success, and observe for yourself. Now I like “social impact” as a measure of success, but it’s a lot easier to go with “f’ing rich people” because data is being compiled every year by different business magazines. So when you take the list of Billionaires, you can realize that only one thing, sometimes two, where involved. Now if someone would like to apply a statistical analysis to this, I think it would favor The null hypothesis, which is: there is no relation between the number of skills stacked and the amount of money in ones’ bank account
  - solveit 8y ago
    >Now, the author is probably just bullshittng things out of his fingers, an assumption I make based on the lack of any evidence being provided. Also based on the author talking about "doubling probability". What does that even mean?

peteretep 8y ago

> All you have to do is find a person who has diverse skills but is unsuccessful I know many people like this, but I suspect the No True Scotsman fallacy would get invoked.

Aeolun 8y ago
They’re clearly not skilled enough at their diverse skills. It’d be a bit like me trying to sell myself as a master of multiple instruments.
- peteretep 8y ago
  >> I suspect the No True Scotsman fallacy would get invoked > They’re clearly not skilled enough at their diverse skills One of my skills is accurate predictions, it turns out.

EForEndeavour 8y ago

Finding a single counterexample works in mathematics to disprove a theorem, but not in this situation. It is silly to claim that having diverse skills guarantees success. The article doesn't even claim that; it explicitly mentions increasing the odds of success. To "disprove" this claim, you'd need to design and run a study that looks for a statistical relationship between success and skill diversity, both of which you'd have to quantify somehow.

Amygaz 8y ago
It doesn’t guarantee it, it doubles the probability, and it is stackable. So there is a metric to measure (somehow). Now, the author is probably just bullshittng things out of his fingers, an assumption I make based on the lack of any evidence being provided. Nonetheless, since stackability and doubling at each turn mean you can trend toward 100% very quickly, then you can look at people you see as very successful, no matter what is your favorite measure of success, and observe for yourself. Now I like “social impact” as a measure of success, but it’s a lot easier to go with “f’ing rich people” because data is being compiled every year by different business magazines. So when you take the list of Billionaires, you can realize that only one thing, sometimes two, where involved. Now if someone would like to apply a statistical analysis to this, I think it would favor The null hypothesis, which is: there is no relation between the number of skills stacked and the amount of money in ones’ bank account
- solveit 8y ago
  >Now, the author is probably just bullshittng things out of his fingers, an assumption I make based on the lack of any evidence being provided. Also based on the author talking about "doubling probability". What does that even mean?