3 ms·

I don't understand what point you're trying to make here. It seems like nitpicking on points that no one was making in the first place. If people are intereste

I don't understand what point you're trying to make here. It seems like nitpicking on points that no one was making in the first place. If people are interested in something and can start practicing early, you can see big differences in skill early on that affect who is found in the occupation later and how successful they are. Professional musicians and programmers are both examples of this. Surgeons aren't. What are you disputing about this thesis?

lapcat 4y ago
1) Starting early is no guarantee of anything. You see big differences in skills from different kids who start at the same age. 2) To become a virtuoso, you do have to practice obsessively, many hours a day every day. (I remember Steve Vai saying he practiced 10+ hours a day.) Again, this is a necessary but not a sufficient condition to achieve virtuosity. 3) Do virtuoso musicians have start young? I don't know. Kids have the most free time and the fewest responsibilities and other distractions. (It probably helps to start before you're old enough to date.) Few adults have the time or inclination to practice to the obsessive level required. 4) Most "teenage hackers" do not practice obsessively at the level of virtuoso musicians. 5) Most professional programmers are not virtuosos. 6) The music industry is not like the tech industry. And anyway, most of the money is made by songwriting, not by virtuoso performances. The analogy between tech and music (or between tech and sports for that matter) is not a good or useful one. The music industry is practically speaking a bad career choice. Only a lucky few do well. There's a reason it's filled with people who have no life except for music.
- civilized 4y ago
  Okay. It seems to me that you've provided a list of differences between tech and music and on this basis say it's a bad analogy. But analogies are by definition a partial resemblance. The point of an analogy is to make a comparison on a relevant dimension. The relevant dimension here is what my GP post tried to explain. Phrases like "no guarantee" also seem beside the point. Nothing is a guarantee of anything in this context. We're talking about factors that influence things.

lapcat 4y ago

1) Starting early is no guarantee of anything. You see big differences in skills from different kids who start at the same age. 2) To become a virtuoso, you do have to practice obsessively, many hours a day every day. (I remember Steve Vai saying he practiced 10+ hours a day.) Again, this is a necessary but not a sufficient condition to achieve virtuosity. 3) Do virtuoso musicians have start young? I don't know. Kids have the most free time and the fewest responsibilities and other distractions. (It probably helps to start before you're old enough to date.) Few adults have the time or inclination to practice to the obsessive level required. 4) Most "teenage hackers" do not practice obsessively at the level of virtuoso musicians. 5) Most professional programmers are not virtuosos. 6) The music industry is not like the tech industry. And anyway, most of the money is made by songwriting, not by virtuoso performances. The analogy between tech and music (or between tech and sports for that matter) is not a good or useful one. The music industry is practically speaking a bad career choice. Only a lucky few do well. There's a reason it's filled with people who have no life except for music.

civilized 4y ago
Okay. It seems to me that you've provided a list of differences between tech and music and on this basis say it's a bad analogy. But analogies are by definition a partial resemblance. The point of an analogy is to make a comparison on a relevant dimension. The relevant dimension here is what my GP post tried to explain. Phrases like "no guarantee" also seem beside the point. Nothing is a guarantee of anything in this context. We're talking about factors that influence things.