3 ms·
You should detract from the author's point, because it only works if you are largely ignorant of how things like this actually happens. It is essentially always
by njepa 7y ago
You should detract from the author's point, because it only works if you are largely ignorant of how things like this actually happens. It is essentially always not generics, but specifics. Specific people doing specific things in specific places with specific technology and culture. Without knowing much of the "extreme climbing community" I would bet that it is a rather specific group of people and largely non-existent outside of that.
The author is largely trying to sell exceptionalism. That everything will be fine with generic improvements. Yet, of course that isn't true. Both state of technology and the economy is probably better than ever yet deliver less and less value. Chances are people like Alex Honnold did it despite of the policies of this economist.
> And now, the technology of the internet. Each new idea in rock climbing is accessible quickly all over the world. Without that large group of interested people, this communal knowledge would not have advanced so far. [The Article]
> After a year, he dropped out of Berkeley and spent time living at home and driving around California to go climbing. "I'd wound up with my mom's old minivan, and that was my base," he said. "I'd use it to drive to Joshua Tree to climb or I'd drive to LA to see my girlfriend. My orbit was tiny and really cheap. I destroyed that van fairly quickly; it died on me one day, and for the next year I lived just on my bicycle and in a tent." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Honnold https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Honnold
- tomxor 7y ago> The author is largely trying to sell exceptionalism. That everything will be fine with generic improvements. [...] Specific people doing specific things in specific places with specific technology and culture. On second thought I think you are correct, it should detract. And it's important my example only be seen within the context of the entire climbing culture, not as an alternative to the authors causal choice. Many things, individual pieces of technology, social environment and cultural inertia have brought the culture to where it is today - it cannot be attributed to any single thing or event. I think there is something about human psychology that makes people commonly gravitate towards this type of thinking, like in a myth or fairytale... some sensitive dependence, a key event that changed it all! or a single piece of technology to change it all etc etc. It makes for exciting stories and makes it easy to explain things (wrongly), but it's rarely the truth.
- marnett 7y ago> I think there is something about human psychology that makes people commonly gravitate towards this type of thinking Chronology and narrative are definitely natural ways that humans frame the world - one of the many instinctive faults in our cognition. Such a simple view of the “infinite now” is easily hijacked in marketing, politics, etc.
- abakker 7y agoThere are obviously both factors at work though. Exceptionalism does happen, and it is not purely driven by technology. Outside of climbing, take guitar as an example. The amount of excellent players out there on youtube is amazing. Certainly music and the instruments have been available and mass marketed since the 70s at least, but guitars haven't gotten easier to play. Now though, there are a lot of players that have grown up now watching how others play. Not just figuring it out by ear but seeing videos of great players and studying them. It's never been easier to observe great musicians, and so you see plenty of instrumentalists that have progressed very far, building on the shoulders of those who figured those techniques out and wrote those songs. I don't think the author intended the piece to be "an explanation" so much as an observation. I think that is fine, and there isn't much point in generalizing this observation a human tendency towards sloppy thinking.
- njepa 7y agoI just don't think the authors observation is very good. He is essentially saying that "a rising tide lifts all boats". But in reality it is the boats that are important more so than the tide. The invention of the sampler created a huge amount of value. But mainly by a handful of companies and music scenes. If you wasn't for Chicago, New York, Los Angeles, London, Bristol or wherever else the change would have been marginal. Just like climbing wouldn't necessarily improve without places like Yosemite. You can even go further and say that it isn't just specific groups that make progress, but that they define progress itself. There isn't much as such saying that free soloing in Yosemite is what progress is. Or even that climbing is worth progressing. There also can't be many who believe that technology haven't made e.g. trains significantly better in past decades. Yet, China now have much more advanced trains than the US which is arguably better at technology. That is presumably because China is building boats rather than praising the tide.