3 ms·

Think about an extreme case: a hypothetical person who was born an autistic savant who is a musical genius. They sold out concert halls at age 9-10, playing th

Think about an extreme case: a hypothetical person who was born an autistic savant who is a musical genius. They sold out concert halls at age 9-10, playing the hardest classical music ever written. To what degree did they “earn” their skills and their genius? At a certain point you must agree that people are born with brains that are wired better, and they had no control over that. Effort should be rewarded, but luck should not. Determining how much of someone’s success was luck vs hard work is not at all easy to determine. Through hard work and discipline, you did the best with the hardware you were given. But don’t think for a second that you wired your own brain. Edit: and just to clarify, I think some fuzzy new metric on a standardized test will probably never summarize whether someone “earned” their score or lucked into it. My comment here is mostly a reminder to be humble.

sokoloff 7y ago
When it comes time to enroll in college, I want that savant to go to the best music secondary school that they want to attend. I don't care whether they were "born with it" or "earned it", but I do care that they demonstrate outstanding ability. Not "outstanding ability, after considering factors X, Y, and Z", but simply "outstanding ability".
- lazyasciiart 7y ago
  And if the savant kid happened to only see a musical instrument for the first time at 10 years old, so that when they took their music entrance exams at 11 years old their performance was very good but not quite at the same level as the other kids who had been learning for 10 years, you would just want to assess all of them on performance at that moment, and choose the kids that had been playing longer because your objective assessment is that they are better musicians.
  - sokoloff 7y ago
    What if they first touched an instrument at age 25? Well, that person wouldn't get into a top music school at age 18. It's true that I value demonstrated objective competence rather than subjective predicted future competence.
- XMPPwocky 7y ago
  What is "the best school" here? It must be "the school that will best develop their particular talents", right? Presumably you want them to go to that school so they can produce the best music possible with their abilities, for the benefit of society. The other option I see is that you might want them to go to that school because they have "earned it", but this is silly, especially considering a case where they haven't done anything, and are just naturally talented! You now have two problems- first, one school might be excellent at training good musicians but not so great at training savants. Second... Suppose you have one spot in a magical "savant school", which is able to develop somebody's skills better than anywhere else in the world. You'd want to assign the student who would benefit most to this spot- the one who has greatest potential. This is NOT the student who currently writes the best music- this is the one who will write the best music after attending the school. You don't care about ability now- you care about ability later. Predicting the latter from the former alone has an obvious flaw- training and practice improve ability. Because of this, it's a good idea to consider measures of how much training somebody has had, in addition to their current ability, for admissions decisions. Unfortunately, quantifying that is hard- so other metrics are used as proxies. In considering admission to an Olympic swimmer training program, for example, perhaps one might consider how early somebody learned to swim, or how often they visited a swimming pool. No?
  - sokoloff 7y ago
    The best music school here is the one that they wish to attend. They (and those who advise them) are in a far better position to evaluate the variety of factors that influence that decision than I am, as someone whose only musical instrument ability is a CD player or iPod. Some music savants want to attend a music school that the composer or musician they most admire attended, others the one that is closest to home.
    - XMPPwocky 7y ago
      Iiiinteresting. Seriously. I don't understand why one would want a talented student to get preferential admission to a school because, for example, he liked the design of the campus. I only get the argument that a talented student should get admitted to a school that'll best develop those talents. The link between "you're talented" and "...so you should get to go to any school you want!" is one I don't get. Why doesn't that lead to absurdities like a school which specifically excels at teaching "low-talent" students, churning out competent (if unexceptional) composers, still admitting talented students preferentially?
whatshisface 7y ago
In your autistic savant musician example, they are probably practicing obsessively every second they can manage, and may actually have earned their success. Does their hard work not count because their biology "made them do it?" I guess that's a question that cuts right to the heart of free will and applies to all of us in the end.
- mgkimsal 7y ago
  what if they aren't practicing every second? what if it simply comes out 100% effortlessly? how do you define "earn"? only X hours of obsessive practice? does their skill not count because they didn't put in years of 'hard work'?
  - codernyc16 7y ago
    > what if it simply comes out 100% effortlessly? What magical world do you live in? Have you ever acquired any skill in your life?
    - mgkimsal 7y ago
      Did you see the reference to 'autistic savant' up above? That was the example referenced. And even if someone does work/practice some, if the effort is minimal relative to other people ('normal' people, or what not), does it diminish the ability because they didn't "work hard" for it? personally, I'm no savant, but as a child I really didn't have to work hard at anything in school. I was pushed up a grade, and was still at the top of that class, and bored, for years. i put in basically no effort in to any schooling for years, and was still, generally, way ahead of many other students who, looking back now, were struggling (this was in the day when students could be 'held back' to repeat a grade - I don't think that's done much today?). i have learned plenty of skills, and some took years, and it's never ending. but some came - essentially - effortlessly (or appeared effortless relative to peers' efforts).
      - codernyc16 7y ago
strken 7y ago
If you stop rewarding "luck", where luck means inherent ability, then all the "lucky" people will voluntarily exile themselves into careers that are actually fun and which they can put maximum effort into, and stop working 8 to 6 designing hydroelectric power systems or writing biannual rice production forecasts or gently explaining how to write status update emails to software engineers. Plus, to what extent is the capacity for hard work based on luck? If long hours give you clinical depression because you got 50 bad genes and experienced neglect as a child and lived in a house with lead paint, do you get sent to live in a slum with the rest of the "lazy" people?

sokoloff 7y ago

When it comes time to enroll in college, I want that savant to go to the best music secondary school that they want to attend. I don't care whether they were "born with it" or "earned it", but I do care that they demonstrate outstanding ability. Not "outstanding ability, after considering factors X, Y, and Z", but simply "outstanding ability".

lazyasciiart 7y ago
And if the savant kid happened to only see a musical instrument for the first time at 10 years old, so that when they took their music entrance exams at 11 years old their performance was very good but not quite at the same level as the other kids who had been learning for 10 years, you would just want to assess all of them on performance at that moment, and choose the kids that had been playing longer because your objective assessment is that they are better musicians.
- sokoloff 7y ago
  What if they first touched an instrument at age 25? Well, that person wouldn't get into a top music school at age 18. It's true that I value demonstrated objective competence rather than subjective predicted future competence.
XMPPwocky 7y ago
What is "the best school" here? It must be "the school that will best develop their particular talents", right? Presumably you want them to go to that school so they can produce the best music possible with their abilities, for the benefit of society. The other option I see is that you might want them to go to that school because they have "earned it", but this is silly, especially considering a case where they haven't done anything, and are just naturally talented! You now have two problems- first, one school might be excellent at training good musicians but not so great at training savants. Second... Suppose you have one spot in a magical "savant school", which is able to develop somebody's skills better than anywhere else in the world. You'd want to assign the student who would benefit most to this spot- the one who has greatest potential. This is NOT the student who currently writes the best music- this is the one who will write the best music after attending the school. You don't care about ability now- you care about ability later. Predicting the latter from the former alone has an obvious flaw- training and practice improve ability. Because of this, it's a good idea to consider measures of how much training somebody has had, in addition to their current ability, for admissions decisions. Unfortunately, quantifying that is hard- so other metrics are used as proxies. In considering admission to an Olympic swimmer training program, for example, perhaps one might consider how early somebody learned to swim, or how often they visited a swimming pool. No?
- sokoloff 7y ago
  The best music school here is the one that they wish to attend. They (and those who advise them) are in a far better position to evaluate the variety of factors that influence that decision than I am, as someone whose only musical instrument ability is a CD player or iPod. Some music savants want to attend a music school that the composer or musician they most admire attended, others the one that is closest to home.
  - XMPPwocky 7y ago
    Iiiinteresting. Seriously. I don't understand why one would want a talented student to get preferential admission to a school because, for example, he liked the design of the campus. I only get the argument that a talented student should get admitted to a school that'll best develop those talents. The link between "you're talented" and "...so you should get to go to any school you want!" is one I don't get. Why doesn't that lead to absurdities like a school which specifically excels at teaching "low-talent" students, churning out competent (if unexceptional) composers, still admitting talented students preferentially?

whatshisface 7y ago

In your autistic savant musician example, they are probably practicing obsessively every second they can manage, and may actually have earned their success. Does their hard work not count because their biology "made them do it?" I guess that's a question that cuts right to the heart of free will and applies to all of us in the end.

mgkimsal 7y ago
what if they aren't practicing every second? what if it simply comes out 100% effortlessly? how do you define "earn"? only X hours of obsessive practice? does their skill not count because they didn't put in years of 'hard work'?
- codernyc16 7y ago
  > what if it simply comes out 100% effortlessly? What magical world do you live in? Have you ever acquired any skill in your life?
  - mgkimsal 7y ago
    Did you see the reference to 'autistic savant' up above? That was the example referenced. And even if someone does work/practice some, if the effort is minimal relative to other people ('normal' people, or what not), does it diminish the ability because they didn't "work hard" for it? personally, I'm no savant, but as a child I really didn't have to work hard at anything in school. I was pushed up a grade, and was still at the top of that class, and bored, for years. i put in basically no effort in to any schooling for years, and was still, generally, way ahead of many other students who, looking back now, were struggling (this was in the day when students could be 'held back' to repeat a grade - I don't think that's done much today?). i have learned plenty of skills, and some took years, and it's never ending. but some came - essentially - effortlessly (or appeared effortless relative to peers' efforts).
    - codernyc16 7y ago

strken 7y ago

If you stop rewarding "luck", where luck means inherent ability, then all the "lucky" people will voluntarily exile themselves into careers that are actually fun and which they can put maximum effort into, and stop working 8 to 6 designing hydroelectric power systems or writing biannual rice production forecasts or gently explaining how to write status update emails to software engineers. Plus, to what extent is the capacity for hard work based on luck? If long hours give you clinical depression because you got 50 bad genes and experienced neglect as a child and lived in a house with lead paint, do you get sent to live in a slum with the rest of the "lazy" people?