23 ms·

>But I think it's just the opposite: most people can become (relatively) good at most things. I think this point of view is not only blatantly false but also m

>But I think it's just the opposite: most people can become (relatively) good at most things. I think this point of view is not only blatantly false but also much more dangerous than most people realize. It sets an unrealistic standard across all disciplines, with a wide range of detrimental effects: 1. People entering majors that they are not qualified for, taking on more debt and failing later than than they otherwise would 2. Incentives for schools and colleges to inflate grades, since people are less likely to question unrealistically high graduation rates 3. 1 and 2 combining in the worst case to uncrease the number of incompetent workers across technical industries We've had decades of this sort "you can do anything if you work hard" propaganda in the west now and I fear that in addition to reducing competence across the board, it reduces the average person's ability to recognize competence, since the default assumption is that we are all endowed with the same potential, something fundamentally incompatible with human nature.

lucasmullens 5y ago
The article was mostly about things like table tennis and card games, not really careers (since I would consider getting an education "practicing regularly" which the article said it wasn't referring to). Most people who practice can become relatively good at table tennis, drawing, juggling, etc.
eru 5y ago
Your observation is perfectly compatible with the notion you quoted from the article. It's just that the 95%-ile photography major or art major etc is not gonna make money from photography or art. Nobody buys the records of a 95%-ile musician either. (Though you can probably teach music at that skill level and earn a living.) In comparison, a 95%-ile engineer can expect to make a decent living from engineering. > I think this point of view is not only blatantly false but also much more dangerous than most people realize. I partially agree about the notion being dangerous, despite probably being true. The thing is that most people never put in the conscious effort required to get to 95%-ile proficiency. Despite any exhortations to the contrary.
- chii 5y ago
  the 95%-ile is irrelevant - it's more the sector that matters. a 5%-ile doctor is still going to be able to do the work of a doctor. The reason photography or art/music require a 99%-ile is because these sectors require popularity, and the quality is subjective. Only the most popular pieces make any money - the rest are passion projects by its creators. Engineering sectors don't need it - there's an objective standard to which your work can be graded, and as long as you pass that grade, your work is valuable to someone (who's gonna be paying you for it).
  - eru 5y ago
    Maybe. Though compare also https://slatestarcodex.com/2015/07/28/non-dual-awareness/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2015/07/28/non-dual-awareness/
    - ghaff 5y ago
      I'm not sure the two are in opposition although I do think the MD example in the article in questionable. (I get the point he's making but, while you're either an MD or not an MD to a significant degree--it's a rather different situation from pro football player vs. not pro football player.) Tournament jobs is another term I've seen used which are characterized by an excess of supply at the entry level.
bombcar 5y ago
If you rewrite what was said as "most people can become top 5% at the thing" it's obviously not possible. It's more a "most people won't even try, but you should try."

lucasmullens 5y ago

The article was mostly about things like table tennis and card games, not really careers (since I would consider getting an education "practicing regularly" which the article said it wasn't referring to). Most people who practice can become relatively good at table tennis, drawing, juggling, etc.

eru 5y ago

Your observation is perfectly compatible with the notion you quoted from the article. It's just that the 95%-ile photography major or art major etc is not gonna make money from photography or art. Nobody buys the records of a 95%-ile musician either. (Though you can probably teach music at that skill level and earn a living.) In comparison, a 95%-ile engineer can expect to make a decent living from engineering. > I think this point of view is not only blatantly false but also much more dangerous than most people realize. I partially agree about the notion being dangerous, despite probably being true. The thing is that most people never put in the conscious effort required to get to 95%-ile proficiency. Despite any exhortations to the contrary.

chii 5y ago
the 95%-ile is irrelevant - it's more the sector that matters. a 5%-ile doctor is still going to be able to do the work of a doctor. The reason photography or art/music require a 99%-ile is because these sectors require popularity, and the quality is subjective. Only the most popular pieces make any money - the rest are passion projects by its creators. Engineering sectors don't need it - there's an objective standard to which your work can be graded, and as long as you pass that grade, your work is valuable to someone (who's gonna be paying you for it).
- eru 5y ago
  Maybe. Though compare also https://slatestarcodex.com/2015/07/28/non-dual-awareness/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2015/07/28/non-dual-awareness/
  - ghaff 5y ago
    I'm not sure the two are in opposition although I do think the MD example in the article in questionable. (I get the point he's making but, while you're either an MD or not an MD to a significant degree--it's a rather different situation from pro football player vs. not pro football player.) Tournament jobs is another term I've seen used which are characterized by an excess of supply at the entry level.

bombcar 5y ago

If you rewrite what was said as "most people can become top 5% at the thing" it's obviously not possible. It's more a "most people won't even try, but you should try."