4 ms·

This is the opposite of how you should want any knowledge worker to think. If you believe that there’s some innate ability that makes people 10x better at a ski

This is the opposite of how you should want any knowledge worker to think. If you believe that there’s some innate ability that makes people 10x better at a skill than you rather than hours of practice and study then you are much less likely to acquire that skill or learn those skills efficiently. You need to have a growth mindset to be an effective knowledge worker not a fixed mindset. This is discussed in the book Make It Stick on learning science, in chapter 7 they discuss how your own views on whether skill is innate vs the result of practice affects your own ability to learn and grow.

fighterpilot 5y ago
There is an innate ability that drives it to a large extent: inherited intelligence. Recognizing this might not be helpful to the individual's motivation but that doesn't make it untrue. Not everyone can be a 10x (or 100x) Ramanujan-level genius, you really need to win the genetic lottery, in addition to working very hard, for elite level cognitive performance in STEM domains.
- cutemonster 5y ago
  Are (were) you a fighterpilot for real? (I think then one needs to do cognitive intelligence tests?)
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
ryandrake 5y ago
As your sports coach always said "You don't need talent to practice!" I'm not a huge believer of some mystical "innate ability" that people sometimes use to explain talent. Imagine a great concert pianist who plays flawlessly. After the concert, someone says, "Oh, you were born with such a wonderful gift of talent!" If I were that pianist, I'd be kind of offended--it totally ignores the decades of daily practice it took to get that good. Or a chess grandmaster. You're such a natural! Oh yea? STFU, this took years of grinding!
- ferrumfist 5y ago
  Talent is used as a label by someone who doesn't understand the practice involved in the given craft. No one wakes up and paints a masterpiece. It takes years and years of hard work and studying to get to a point before you can even get close to masterpiece level.
  - yibg 5y ago
    But conversely, most people will never produce a masterpiece regardless of how long they spend at it.
- qez 5y ago
  The capacity to practice is itself partially innate. Take a person with ADHD - they will naturally have a harder time practicing piano. I myself was unable to practice piano as a child, but for different reasons.
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > Take a person with ADHD - they will naturally have a harder time practicing piano. Or easier. Depending on how the hyperfocus-or-none dice roll for piano...
- yibg 5y ago
  The 2 aren’t mutually exclusive. You need talent and hard work to be “the best” in any given field. It doesn’t matter how hard I practice, I’m not going to be a world class sprinter or a world famous singer, my body isn’t built for it. For some reason when it comes to physical limitations we accept it. But we reject it when it comes to mental capabilities. There are naturally smarter people, at least in specific areas.
  - cutemonster 5y ago
    People understand things they can see, like, someone is short, then, how good s/he can get at basketball is a bit limited (right). Or, someone having a body shape good for running, but won't lift much weights. But mental capabilities are invisible, and then it's harder for many people to see that there are different and personal limits.
VMtest 5y ago
Couldn't agree more, thanks for this perspective!
baobabKoodaa 5y ago
> This is the opposite of how you should want any knowledge worker to think. Some of us don't choose our beliefs based on what is most convenient or most beneficial to us. Instead, we try to see the world for what it is, truthfully (or as close to a true representation of the world as it's possible to get, anyway). If having a realistic worldview hinders my ability to learn, then so be it. Not everything is about maximizing productivity.
- gopher_space 5y ago
  One thing I've learned in programming as well as life is that Sources of Truth are deeply tied to individual perspectives.
- faizshah 5y ago
  If you read the book the researchers argue that worldview is neither factual nor is it helpful.
  - baobabKoodaa 5y ago
    > factual Nope. Just because it says so in a book doesn't make it true. When you make a statement of the form "X does not exist", a single counter-example is sufficient to prove you wrong. Lucky for me, many such counter-examples exist, and many have even been discussed in this thread. I'll add one to the list: tourist (Gennady Korotkevich). He's a competitive coder that's several orders of magnitude (e.g. 1000x) better at coding competitions than the average competitor. And the average competitor is a few orders of magnitude better than the average professional programmer who doesn't have algorithm experience. All of this is measurable (at most we can quibble about whether the skill differences are 100x or 10000x or infinite). If you don't believe me, please go and take a simulated Codeforces competition right now and see how long it will take you to solve some set of problems that tourist solved in under 2 hours (or if you will be able to solve them at all - I certainly won't be able to solve the hardest Codeforces div1 problems no matter how much time I put in). I have a feeling this mountain of empirical evidence was insufficient to change your mind about this. I would appreciate if you could take the time to explain why? Why is this evidence not enough?
quickthrower2 5y ago
You can be both. I can get better at programming and enjoy beating my personal best but acknowledge some people may be genetically disposed to be better at it even when not trying. Same reason there is a gaggle of personal trainers at the park near me every morning but none of those working out are thinking they’ll compete in the Olympics

fighterpilot 5y ago

There is an innate ability that drives it to a large extent: inherited intelligence. Recognizing this might not be helpful to the individual's motivation but that doesn't make it untrue. Not everyone can be a 10x (or 100x) Ramanujan-level genius, you really need to win the genetic lottery, in addition to working very hard, for elite level cognitive performance in STEM domains.

cutemonster 5y ago
Are (were) you a fighterpilot for real? (I think then one needs to do cognitive intelligence tests?)

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

ryandrake 5y ago

As your sports coach always said "You don't need talent to practice!" I'm not a huge believer of some mystical "innate ability" that people sometimes use to explain talent. Imagine a great concert pianist who plays flawlessly. After the concert, someone says, "Oh, you were born with such a wonderful gift of talent!" If I were that pianist, I'd be kind of offended--it totally ignores the decades of daily practice it took to get that good. Or a chess grandmaster. You're such a natural! Oh yea? STFU, this took years of grinding!

ferrumfist 5y ago
Talent is used as a label by someone who doesn't understand the practice involved in the given craft. No one wakes up and paints a masterpiece. It takes years and years of hard work and studying to get to a point before you can even get close to masterpiece level.
- yibg 5y ago
  But conversely, most people will never produce a masterpiece regardless of how long they spend at it.
qez 5y ago
The capacity to practice is itself partially innate. Take a person with ADHD - they will naturally have a harder time practicing piano. I myself was unable to practice piano as a child, but for different reasons.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > Take a person with ADHD - they will naturally have a harder time practicing piano. Or easier. Depending on how the hyperfocus-or-none dice roll for piano...
yibg 5y ago
The 2 aren’t mutually exclusive. You need talent and hard work to be “the best” in any given field. It doesn’t matter how hard I practice, I’m not going to be a world class sprinter or a world famous singer, my body isn’t built for it. For some reason when it comes to physical limitations we accept it. But we reject it when it comes to mental capabilities. There are naturally smarter people, at least in specific areas.
- cutemonster 5y ago
  People understand things they can see, like, someone is short, then, how good s/he can get at basketball is a bit limited (right). Or, someone having a body shape good for running, but won't lift much weights. But mental capabilities are invisible, and then it's harder for many people to see that there are different and personal limits.

VMtest 5y ago

Couldn't agree more, thanks for this perspective!

baobabKoodaa 5y ago

> This is the opposite of how you should want any knowledge worker to think. Some of us don't choose our beliefs based on what is most convenient or most beneficial to us. Instead, we try to see the world for what it is, truthfully (or as close to a true representation of the world as it's possible to get, anyway). If having a realistic worldview hinders my ability to learn, then so be it. Not everything is about maximizing productivity.

gopher_space 5y ago
One thing I've learned in programming as well as life is that Sources of Truth are deeply tied to individual perspectives.
faizshah 5y ago
If you read the book the researchers argue that worldview is neither factual nor is it helpful.
- baobabKoodaa 5y ago
  > factual Nope. Just because it says so in a book doesn't make it true. When you make a statement of the form "X does not exist", a single counter-example is sufficient to prove you wrong. Lucky for me, many such counter-examples exist, and many have even been discussed in this thread. I'll add one to the list: tourist (Gennady Korotkevich). He's a competitive coder that's several orders of magnitude (e.g. 1000x) better at coding competitions than the average competitor. And the average competitor is a few orders of magnitude better than the average professional programmer who doesn't have algorithm experience. All of this is measurable (at most we can quibble about whether the skill differences are 100x or 10000x or infinite). If you don't believe me, please go and take a simulated Codeforces competition right now and see how long it will take you to solve some set of problems that tourist solved in under 2 hours (or if you will be able to solve them at all - I certainly won't be able to solve the hardest Codeforces div1 problems no matter how much time I put in). I have a feeling this mountain of empirical evidence was insufficient to change your mind about this. I would appreciate if you could take the time to explain why? Why is this evidence not enough?

quickthrower2 5y ago

You can be both. I can get better at programming and enjoy beating my personal best but acknowledge some people may be genetically disposed to be better at it even when not trying. Same reason there is a gaggle of personal trainers at the park near me every morning but none of those working out are thinking they’ll compete in the Olympics