6 ms·

I can see from your profile that you run a program where people can learn programming languages and frameworks. So you clearly agree that some things can be lea

I can see from your profile that you run a program where people can learn programming languages and frameworks. So you clearly agree that some things can be learned by most people who put their mind to it. Doubtless, it takes a real desire to learn, and, sure, a degree of natural aptitude, but those who have those qualifiers will generally succeed at it. I think we agree that this is fundamentally not the case with NBA, Julliard, Hollywood A-list, in which success is far more dependent on endowed traits. My observation is simply that the skills needed to succeed as content creator are more learnable by more people than pro sport, pro music or Hollywood stardom. The main qualifier for being a successful content creator is having something unique/interesting/valuable to say. And yes, confidence, presentation, production, audience engagement all matter. But all these can be developed or learned with enough dedication. And no, not 100% of the time. But it's true enough that it's worth a try if you're inspired. Please remember, the claim I'm refuting is that you can do all of these things absolutely right, and still only have a 1/10 chance of success. That's clearly untrue. In the online media world, people with unique/interesting/valuable things to say break through eventually. For what it's worth, my personal network doesn't conform to the stereotype you presume. Yes it includes highly successful people (including pro sportspeople). It includes people who have great natural ability but lack the confidence or desire to excel. And it includes people from extremely modest backgrounds, including refugees who came to Australia with nothing, but who are building businesses and profiles as creators, learning the required skills as they go, and making great progress.

AlchemistCamp 6y ago
> So you clearly agree that some things can be learned by most people who put their mind to it. Absolutely! I think people can learn almost anything. Barring true disabilities, I believe anyone can learn to program, translate a foreign language, play a violin, play basketball, swim or most other things. But I don't think most people have even a chance of becoming the best. What you refer to as "endowed traits" affect everything from our life span to our appearance to our level of happiness, personality traits and ability to learn different skills. They affect every possible kind of skill we could choose to pursue and even what kinds of things we're inclined to pursue. I also don't agree than the skills needed to succeed as an athlete or musician are "less learnable" than others. On the contrary, I think they're extremely well defined and that we have millennia of collective knowledge in how to train them, thus making them extremely learnable. The perspective I was coming from is the difference between an economic tournament, where wage differences are based more upon the relative differences of individuals rather than upon their marginal productivity. This is crucial because while almost anyone can learn to play the piano or to repair a house, very, very few people have even the possibility of being one of the top few people in the world at either. The difference is that people doing the latter are paid based on their marginal productivity and those doing the former are paid based on their approximate ranking among all other pianists in the world and in their city. As a result, repairing houses is a modest career opportunity open to a large number of people with sufficient absolute skill regardless of their relative ranking in the world. Being a pianist, on the other hand, is a fantastic career for an extremely small number of people at the top and an unsustainable one for nearly everyone else. Some teach on the side and pursue their dreams for years. The question is, "Is YouTube an economic game where rewards are based primarily on marginal productivity or are they based more on relative comparisons between participants?"
- tomhoward 6y ago
  > But I don't think most people have even a chance of becoming the best. Yep sure - it took me to step away from the discussion for a while to realise that's what people thought I was arguing. I wasn't. My contention was that if you're already producing good quality content (as per the original commenter's comment), assuming it's interesting/unique/valuable, if you persist doing it regularly you'll be able to grow an audience, and probably get it big enough to make some sponsorship income or build your personal brand to further your career (promote your business etc). And most importantly, it won't be purely random "bad luck" that stands in your way. People seemed to think I was claiming that any randomly selected person – even one starting out with well-below-average video production and presentation skills and little interesting to say – could become as big as PewDiePie if they just stick at it long enough. That's not what I meant. I think we're in agreement :)

AlchemistCamp 6y ago

> So you clearly agree that some things can be learned by most people who put their mind to it. Absolutely! I think people can learn almost anything. Barring true disabilities, I believe anyone can learn to program, translate a foreign language, play a violin, play basketball, swim or most other things. But I don't think most people have even a chance of becoming the best. What you refer to as "endowed traits" affect everything from our life span to our appearance to our level of happiness, personality traits and ability to learn different skills. They affect every possible kind of skill we could choose to pursue and even what kinds of things we're inclined to pursue. I also don't agree than the skills needed to succeed as an athlete or musician are "less learnable" than others. On the contrary, I think they're extremely well defined and that we have millennia of collective knowledge in how to train them, thus making them extremely learnable. The perspective I was coming from is the difference between an economic tournament, where wage differences are based more upon the relative differences of individuals rather than upon their marginal productivity. This is crucial because while almost anyone can learn to play the piano or to repair a house, very, very few people have even the possibility of being one of the top few people in the world at either. The difference is that people doing the latter are paid based on their marginal productivity and those doing the former are paid based on their approximate ranking among all other pianists in the world and in their city. As a result, repairing houses is a modest career opportunity open to a large number of people with sufficient absolute skill regardless of their relative ranking in the world. Being a pianist, on the other hand, is a fantastic career for an extremely small number of people at the top and an unsustainable one for nearly everyone else. Some teach on the side and pursue their dreams for years. The question is, "Is YouTube an economic game where rewards are based primarily on marginal productivity or are they based more on relative comparisons between participants?"

tomhoward 6y ago
> But I don't think most people have even a chance of becoming the best. Yep sure - it took me to step away from the discussion for a while to realise that's what people thought I was arguing. I wasn't. My contention was that if you're already producing good quality content (as per the original commenter's comment), assuming it's interesting/unique/valuable, if you persist doing it regularly you'll be able to grow an audience, and probably get it big enough to make some sponsorship income or build your personal brand to further your career (promote your business etc). And most importantly, it won't be purely random "bad luck" that stands in your way. People seemed to think I was claiming that any randomly selected person – even one starting out with well-below-average video production and presentation skills and little interesting to say – could become as big as PewDiePie if they just stick at it long enough. That's not what I meant. I think we're in agreement :)