3 ms·
To me, the most interesting part of the original paper is how the best leverage from a population's talent is not achieved by funding the most successful so far
by TuringTest 5y ago
To me, the most interesting part of the original paper is how the best leverage from a population's talent is not achieved by funding the most successful so far, but by distributing a small amount of funds equally to all participants. Past performance is no guarantee of future results.
The people on this website should be best placed to understand why such strategy works.
- throwaway202104 5y agoTo me as well, that was the most interesting part of the article. Almost sounds like communism :) but really it's more like the advice to not judge a book by it's cover. Giving everybody a chance is much more effective than funneling funds into a small "elite". As far as individuals and people are concerned at least. Having said that, the model used in the research is way too simplified to draw conclusions from. "Talent" in it is just a change in the likelihood of a randomly good event or bad event. There is no activity, no searching for opportunities and no competition. They could substitute "talent" for electrical conductivity and events for being struck by lightning and the results would be exactly the same.