3 ms·

There's really no reason to be so negative in the opening of your comment, it would read much differently without it and probably wouldn't be flagged. That sai

by edanm 6y ago

There's really no reason to be so negative in the opening of your comment, it would read much differently without it and probably wouldn't be flagged. That said, you're probably wrong in the same way that saying "anyone can be a great basketball player even if they're short, here's [insert example player who was short], if he can do it anyone can". That's wrong in a few ways: 1. It's only talking about whether someone "can" be a great player, not how hard it is (much much harder for someone short). 2. It ignores the fact that there are probably other genetic advantages that a short player has, and that "make up" for the height, but are still rare in combination. 3. Even with that, I highly doubt someone can be the greatest basketball player of all time while being relatively short. It's just not possible today. The situation with piano is the same, except it seems that, unlike in basketball, there's actually something to be done about this. What's the downside?

tpoacher 6y ago
we could totally mandate official ball size tiers and lower baskets that are slamdunkable by anyone.
- edanm 6y ago
  Well yes, I suppose that's true. Wait actually, we do do that - for kids, there are lower baskets, and smaller balls! This makes it easier for kids to learn, because they have smaller hands, and we want them to actually learn! In any case though, the main difference is that at some point, if you want a competition that is between people, you have to pick an actual size that people compete on, and whatever you choose, different genetic characteristics will give some people benefits over others. Piano playing, on the other hand, is a solo activity - so there is no reason why people shouldn't have individualized instruments, even for "competitions" (except for practical purposes).
jimbob45 6y ago
I’m mad because the individual is being deceptively discouraging in a way that is less informative and more harmful. Consider the greatest programmer of all time. Is it fair to say that greater hand size confers faster typing ability which allows the greatest ever programmer to program faster? Sure. If two programmers are of equal ability apart from their typing speed, then the faster typist must surely be considered the better programmer. In reality, does that mean you can’t be the greatest programmer of all time if you don’t have a footlong hand span? Absolutely not. That’s silly and serves only to discourage those with small hands from entering the profession. Theoretically, the greatest pianist ever has 88 tentacles protruding from their chin to be able to perfectly hit any key at any time. It’s frankly ridiculous that most non-tentacled individuals even bother trying to be the greatest pianist ever. The fact remains that being the greatest pianist ever comes down to hard work and innovation, not hand size or wrist constitution. Saying that hand size might limit someone only serves to misleadingly discourage newcomers from entering the hobby.
- Closi 6y ago
  The difference is that the greatest programmer could type slowly, while the greatest pianist couldn’t. The better comparison is probably between programmers and composers, and pianists and stenographers.
- edanm 6y ago
  > I’m mad because the individual is being deceptively discouraging in a way that is less informative and more harmful. I mean, I guess that's a valid interpretation of GP's comment, but that's not how I would've read it. It might make more sense to not assume bad intent, or even if you do assume it, to inform. In any case that kind of communication is heavily discouraged here, so if you want to get your message across, using it is less than optimal. Having said that, I also kind of disagree with the rest of your comment. You write: > Consider the greatest programmer of all time. Is it fair to say that greater hand size confers faster typing ability which allows the greatest ever programmer to program faster? Sure. I'm a programmer. I've played piano on-and-off most of my life, strictly as a hobby. I also have relatively small hands for a man. Your comparison is wrong and uninformative. Is there a chance that there's a tiny difference in programming when it comes to hand size? Maybe, possibly, there is, but I highly doubt it, and even if there is, it's tiny. Some extremely competent programmer don't even touch-type, which slows you down way more. Just ask a few programmers whether hand size matters for programming, I assume most will give you blank stares. In piano playing, there is a big difference, and everybody knows it. Just look through the thread here. Not every piano player agrees with the proposal, mostly for practical reasons IMO - but not many really deny that there is a difference. I'm not sure why you didn't take me up on the basketball analogy, because I think it's a much closer situation to hand size in playing piano. > The fact remains that being the greatest pianist ever comes down to hard work and innovation, not hand size or wrist constitution. I mean, it comes down to both hard work and genetics. (Hard work itself is partially genetic as well, actually.) This is true with literally everything - some people are just genetically more gifted in the ways that are relevant to becoming world-class at {specific-hobby}. > Saying that hand size might limit someone only serves to misleadingly discourage newcomers from entering the hobby. I highly disagree with your premise here. I mean, sure, I totally wouldn't want anyone discouraged from playing piano if their hand size is small, and I get why you'd be upset if you think that that is the message being sent here. But I think the problem is this whole "best in the world" thing. Most people are, obviously, not going to be "best in the world" at anything, and if they are, it'll probably be only in one very specific field. If that is your standard for entering a hobby/profession, you'll probably never get started with anything. The amount of hobbyist pianists is vastly larger than professional pianists, and almost all of them would never dream of "going pro", let alone being best in the world. Nor would they consider the idea that they won't be best in the world as demotivational. It's a hobby, they do it for fun. Even if professions being best in the world is not usually the bar you have to reach, e.g. you really don't have to be best in the world to get a job programming. Competitive areas are obviously different here, which is why the analogy between piano competitions and basketball is relevant in my mind, though obviously there are lots of not-best-in-the-world-but-still-pro piano players around.

by edanm 6y ago

tpoacher 6y ago

we could totally mandate official ball size tiers and lower baskets that are slamdunkable by anyone.

edanm 6y ago
Well yes, I suppose that's true. Wait actually, we do do that - for kids, there are lower baskets, and smaller balls! This makes it easier for kids to learn, because they have smaller hands, and we want them to actually learn! In any case though, the main difference is that at some point, if you want a competition that is between people, you have to pick an actual size that people compete on, and whatever you choose, different genetic characteristics will give some people benefits over others. Piano playing, on the other hand, is a solo activity - so there is no reason why people shouldn't have individualized instruments, even for "competitions" (except for practical purposes).

jimbob45 6y ago

I’m mad because the individual is being deceptively discouraging in a way that is less informative and more harmful. Consider the greatest programmer of all time. Is it fair to say that greater hand size confers faster typing ability which allows the greatest ever programmer to program faster? Sure. If two programmers are of equal ability apart from their typing speed, then the faster typist must surely be considered the better programmer. In reality, does that mean you can’t be the greatest programmer of all time if you don’t have a footlong hand span? Absolutely not. That’s silly and serves only to discourage those with small hands from entering the profession. Theoretically, the greatest pianist ever has 88 tentacles protruding from their chin to be able to perfectly hit any key at any time. It’s frankly ridiculous that most non-tentacled individuals even bother trying to be the greatest pianist ever. The fact remains that being the greatest pianist ever comes down to hard work and innovation, not hand size or wrist constitution. Saying that hand size might limit someone only serves to misleadingly discourage newcomers from entering the hobby.

Closi 6y ago
The difference is that the greatest programmer could type slowly, while the greatest pianist couldn’t. The better comparison is probably between programmers and composers, and pianists and stenographers.
edanm 6y ago
> I’m mad because the individual is being deceptively discouraging in a way that is less informative and more harmful. I mean, I guess that's a valid interpretation of GP's comment, but that's not how I would've read it. It might make more sense to not assume bad intent, or even if you do assume it, to inform. In any case that kind of communication is heavily discouraged here, so if you want to get your message across, using it is less than optimal. Having said that, I also kind of disagree with the rest of your comment. You write: > Consider the greatest programmer of all time. Is it fair to say that greater hand size confers faster typing ability which allows the greatest ever programmer to program faster? Sure. I'm a programmer. I've played piano on-and-off most of my life, strictly as a hobby. I also have relatively small hands for a man. Your comparison is wrong and uninformative. Is there a chance that there's a tiny difference in programming when it comes to hand size? Maybe, possibly, there is, but I highly doubt it, and even if there is, it's tiny. Some extremely competent programmer don't even touch-type, which slows you down way more. Just ask a few programmers whether hand size matters for programming, I assume most will give you blank stares. In piano playing, there is a big difference, and everybody knows it. Just look through the thread here. Not every piano player agrees with the proposal, mostly for practical reasons IMO - but not many really deny that there is a difference. I'm not sure why you didn't take me up on the basketball analogy, because I think it's a much closer situation to hand size in playing piano. > The fact remains that being the greatest pianist ever comes down to hard work and innovation, not hand size or wrist constitution. I mean, it comes down to both hard work and genetics. (Hard work itself is partially genetic as well, actually.) This is true with literally everything - some people are just genetically more gifted in the ways that are relevant to becoming world-class at {specific-hobby}. > Saying that hand size might limit someone only serves to misleadingly discourage newcomers from entering the hobby. I highly disagree with your premise here. I mean, sure, I totally wouldn't want anyone discouraged from playing piano if their hand size is small, and I get why you'd be upset if you think that that is the message being sent here. But I think the problem is this whole "best in the world" thing. Most people are, obviously, not going to be "best in the world" at anything, and if they are, it'll probably be only in one very specific field. If that is your standard for entering a hobby/profession, you'll probably never get started with anything. The amount of hobbyist pianists is vastly larger than professional pianists, and almost all of them would never dream of "going pro", let alone being best in the world. Nor would they consider the idea that they won't be best in the world as demotivational. It's a hobby, they do it for fun. Even if professions being best in the world is not usually the bar you have to reach, e.g. you really don't have to be best in the world to get a job programming. Competitive areas are obviously different here, which is why the analogy between piano competitions and basketball is relevant in my mind, though obviously there are lots of not-best-in-the-world-but-still-pro piano players around.