> 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 interpret

> 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.