4 ms·

The article is making a great point without needing to define those terms. And obviously if you have the talent for X then the harder you work at X the more lik

The article is making a great point without needing to define those terms. And obviously if you have the talent for X then the harder you work at X the more likely you are at being successful doing X. That’s kinda obviously true. The point of the article is that most people refuse to acknowledge that some people are better at abstract thinking than others. And not acknowledging this leads to bad decisions when it comes to how we educate people. It is an obvious true fact that most people refuse to acknowledge. So kudos to the author for stating something that should be obviously true to most people but clearly isn’t.

cassepipe 5y ago
I am always very wary of obvious. If you say it's obvious, you say it needs not be explained which I already have a problem with. What is obvious, obviously varies across places and cultures. Most statements are oversimplifications of issues for purposes of communication. What gets thrown away in that process is generally quite political. How you say something, how you present information has an effect on the way an information is perceived is what living in a society that has had newspaper, radio, TV and now online information should have taught us. Now you say "obviously if you have the talent for X then the harder you work at X the more likely you are at being successful doing X". I don't agree with this statement. It is just describing one possible path, an ideal cycle of work and reward, not all possible paths. It is absolutely possible to be good at something but not interested in it for example. Although what about all the people that had no particular talent for a domain but through work learnt to be reasonably good (which I suspect is the common fate) should have we quit because we had no "natural talent" ?
- mbrodersen 5y ago
  You are reading more into my comment that what is there. I said that you are more likely to be successful doing X if you have talent for it and work hard on it. Likely does not imply what you suggest.

cassepipe 5y ago

I am always very wary of obvious. If you say it's obvious, you say it needs not be explained which I already have a problem with. What is obvious, obviously varies across places and cultures. Most statements are oversimplifications of issues for purposes of communication. What gets thrown away in that process is generally quite political. How you say something, how you present information has an effect on the way an information is perceived is what living in a society that has had newspaper, radio, TV and now online information should have taught us. Now you say "obviously if you have the talent for X then the harder you work at X the more likely you are at being successful doing X". I don't agree with this statement. It is just describing one possible path, an ideal cycle of work and reward, not all possible paths. It is absolutely possible to be good at something but not interested in it for example. Although what about all the people that had no particular talent for a domain but through work learnt to be reasonably good (which I suspect is the common fate) should have we quit because we had no "natural talent" ?

mbrodersen 5y ago
You are reading more into my comment that what is there. I said that you are more likely to be successful doing X if you have talent for it and work hard on it. Likely does not imply what you suggest.