5 ms·

I think you might have to consider how "simply better" is actually circumstances beyond their control. Their height cannot happen without nutrition. Their sport

I think you might have to consider how "simply better" is actually circumstances beyond their control. Their height cannot happen without nutrition. Their sports proficiency cannot happen without early exposure, which often requires parental resources(money for equipment, time to commute to games...) . The ability to get an education is heavily dependent on health, parental investment, lack of childhood trauma, et al. (For example, the burden to get a BS/MS from Stanford increases if your parents commit a hate crime against you for being gay.) If anything this is a group of comparatively highly successful people and discussing nuances between their success. But statistically much of that is opportunity and luck.

ldjkfkdsjnv 4y ago
Sure, there are all sorts of life circumstances that could stop them. Luck is involved. But the degree of raw talent was shockingly high.
- CptFribble 4y ago
  The point being made here is that "raw talent" is frequently the removal of barriers via socioeconomic factors. The best predictor of whether a child will graduate college is whether their parents also graduated college. Most "naturally talented" people are "simply" people allowed to reach full human potential due to circumstances of birth, where "less talented" people frequently could have reached similar potential, but for: - lower socioeconomic status - less- or un-educated parents who don't know what opportunities to put their children into for maximum growth - parents who themselves experienced significant trauma as children and didn't have the opportunity to process it due to lack of money or access to mental healthcare, and then subsequently inflict similar trauma on their own children The lower socioeconomic status one in particular contains a host of other potential potential-limiters: - less money for healthy food (or enough food at all) means less growth potential and worse overall health for the rest of your life - if your parents don't have money for the equipment, you likely won't be allowed to participate in sports (happened to my wife) which means your brain will miss critical early wiring opportunities with the sport-specific mechanical tasks, which will result in lower potential skill ceiling later in life - no money for travel means less exposure to world cultures, and unless living a in large city less exposure to foreign languages, and exposure to foreign languages as an infant is critical for later foreign language success due to pruning of connections for unused phonemes during early development. There are many, many more things that go into the development of "raw talent" I haven't even touched on beyond "just" parent socioeconomic status, like poor people being more likely to have to live near major roadways and its influence on the rate of asthma in children. The takeaway here is that very often people with "raw talent" weren't born that way, they were simply allowed to grow.
  - ldjkfkdsjnv 4y ago
    This is all victimhood garbage
    - skinnymuch 4y ago
      If the person you responded to founded and runs a $10B company with a net worth of $3B, would it still be victimhood garbage? That’s even more successful than the Stanford example!
    - wittycardio 4y ago
      You have provided no proof or explanation of any of your statements. The only thing you've done is gushed over the abilities (and height !!) of some anonymous people. Great you have a crush that's very nice but it doesn't really replace actual arguments or analysis.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
- PuppyTailWags 4y ago
  I'm not pointing out they may not be talented, I'm pointing out that you are making a fundamental misattribution error by assuming that talent has a direct and causal factor to success and therefore observing success is equivalent to observing talent. Success is at best a weak indicator for talent having been fostered, which is a very different and vitally important distinction. The reason why this is important is because we do not live in a society with equal resource distribution.
masterof0 4y ago
I agree, people only see the "success" and not what made it possible. That's why I find the "that person is simply better" argument nonsensical. Better at what? Rich guys what went to an expensive school , with other rich guys , then use their network of other rich guys to fund/use/advertise their product, which funny enough, most of the time get acquired into a bigger company that just dilutes the product into their ecosystem.
- BizarroLand 4y ago
  It's like pottery. If 2 equal bits of clay are made by two different potters, one who has experience and years of artistry behind their hands and the other is thrown together by a teenager who has no interest in even finishing the job, even though the starting materials were exactly the same the end result couldn't be any more different. One becomes a glazed vase with intricate artwork that would stand in any museum, and the other becomes an unglazed ashtray for a parent that doesn't even smoke, destined to be thrown away or smashed in a fit of rage. These people are definitely a cut above, but only because their families and social circles started with good clay and spent decades perfecting the vase.

ldjkfkdsjnv 4y ago

Sure, there are all sorts of life circumstances that could stop them. Luck is involved. But the degree of raw talent was shockingly high.

CptFribble 4y ago
The point being made here is that "raw talent" is frequently the removal of barriers via socioeconomic factors. The best predictor of whether a child will graduate college is whether their parents also graduated college. Most "naturally talented" people are "simply" people allowed to reach full human potential due to circumstances of birth, where "less talented" people frequently could have reached similar potential, but for: - lower socioeconomic status - less- or un-educated parents who don't know what opportunities to put their children into for maximum growth - parents who themselves experienced significant trauma as children and didn't have the opportunity to process it due to lack of money or access to mental healthcare, and then subsequently inflict similar trauma on their own children The lower socioeconomic status one in particular contains a host of other potential potential-limiters: - less money for healthy food (or enough food at all) means less growth potential and worse overall health for the rest of your life - if your parents don't have money for the equipment, you likely won't be allowed to participate in sports (happened to my wife) which means your brain will miss critical early wiring opportunities with the sport-specific mechanical tasks, which will result in lower potential skill ceiling later in life - no money for travel means less exposure to world cultures, and unless living a in large city less exposure to foreign languages, and exposure to foreign languages as an infant is critical for later foreign language success due to pruning of connections for unused phonemes during early development. There are many, many more things that go into the development of "raw talent" I haven't even touched on beyond "just" parent socioeconomic status, like poor people being more likely to have to live near major roadways and its influence on the rate of asthma in children. The takeaway here is that very often people with "raw talent" weren't born that way, they were simply allowed to grow.
- ldjkfkdsjnv 4y ago
  This is all victimhood garbage
  - skinnymuch 4y ago
    If the person you responded to founded and runs a $10B company with a net worth of $3B, would it still be victimhood garbage? That’s even more successful than the Stanford example!
  - wittycardio 4y ago
    You have provided no proof or explanation of any of your statements. The only thing you've done is gushed over the abilities (and height !!) of some anonymous people. Great you have a crush that's very nice but it doesn't really replace actual arguments or analysis.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
PuppyTailWags 4y ago
I'm not pointing out they may not be talented, I'm pointing out that you are making a fundamental misattribution error by assuming that talent has a direct and causal factor to success and therefore observing success is equivalent to observing talent. Success is at best a weak indicator for talent having been fostered, which is a very different and vitally important distinction. The reason why this is important is because we do not live in a society with equal resource distribution.

masterof0 4y ago

I agree, people only see the "success" and not what made it possible. That's why I find the "that person is simply better" argument nonsensical. Better at what? Rich guys what went to an expensive school , with other rich guys , then use their network of other rich guys to fund/use/advertise their product, which funny enough, most of the time get acquired into a bigger company that just dilutes the product into their ecosystem.

BizarroLand 4y ago
It's like pottery. If 2 equal bits of clay are made by two different potters, one who has experience and years of artistry behind their hands and the other is thrown together by a teenager who has no interest in even finishing the job, even though the starting materials were exactly the same the end result couldn't be any more different. One becomes a glazed vase with intricate artwork that would stand in any museum, and the other becomes an unglazed ashtray for a parent that doesn't even smoke, destined to be thrown away or smashed in a fit of rage. These people are definitely a cut above, but only because their families and social circles started with good clay and spent decades perfecting the vase.