3 ms·

The examples illustrate that relative outcomes seem to follow that kind of law. How do we know that the outcomes are strongly tied to some sort of potential, an

The examples illustrate that relative outcomes seem to follow that kind of law. How do we know that the outcomes are strongly tied to some sort of potential, and not just self-perpetuating? You get picked for the team because you're a little bit better than number 2, you feel motivated, you get more training... down the road you are a lot better. Sports especially is filled with these kinds of stories.

somenameforme 4y ago
In general it's pretty difficult to prove a negative. How do you know you don't have a friendly little goblin named Rakinichu, made of dark matter, floating just above your shoulder? You can't really prove that you don't, so the onus is on me to prove that you do. That said, in this specific case, I think there's even reasonably strong evidence against your hypothesis. For instance Einstein's "miracle year" would come while he was working as a low level inspector at a patent office. And he was working there because he applied to numerous universities, but none were interested in taking him on board! Even in the chess world, "prodigies" are a dime a dozen and Magnus was a relatively late bloomer among his peers. Magnus received his International Master title (the second highest title in chess, prior to Grandmaster) at a later age than Sergey Karjakin, a fellow prodigy, received his Grandmaster title. He also achieved victory coming from a country that had relatively little chess culture. Grandmasters coming from countries with greater chess culture would have had access to greater resources, minds, coaching, and opportunities.
- lordnacho 4y ago
  > In general it's pretty difficult to prove a negative. But this isn't a negative, you're proposing that there's some sort of strong connection between observable potentials and eventual outcomes, am I right? So now we need the evidence. Sports is a great place to look btw. The history of recruiting busts in the sports world simply incredible. People they guessed wrong on: Tom Brady, Ravel Morrison, Johnny Manziel, Carlos Bacca, just to give you a false positive and a false negative in two different sports. It just seems to me that is really isn't all that obvious who might be really good, and so we should spread our bets rather than concentrate on a few promising geniuses. > For instance Einstein... So how does this say anything about skill? Couldn't he just be a low-probability ticket that won? There were other people looking at similar ideas at the time. > Even in the chess world... Thing is chess is international now, Magnus could be Norwegian but very cheaply access chess culture from other countries. Maybe in an earlier era this argument made sense. But just like in football, it's international now and people aren't surprised by regional styles.
  - somenameforme 4y ago
    No, that is not what I am arguing. I am arguing that people's skill distributions follow a power law, with outliers at nearly any level. To quote the earliest post in this chain, that indeed some people are "off the charts." And this inherent difference in these individuals plays a large role in their ultimate outcomes. And no, I don't think we should "bet" on anybody, whether focused or scattered. The point of Magnus, Einstein, and many others is that the fact that they ultimately were these "off the charts" individuals was in no way whatsoever clear. And in any case, for people that are "off the charts" - they aren't going to have difficulty excelling in a capitalist economic system, nearly regardless of their humbleness of their beginnings. I would even be inclined to argue that acknowledging somebody as "genius" and plying them with money is more likely to lead to distorted rather than enhanced development. Just because somebody may be several sigmas from the mean cognitively, doesn't mean that they're immune to the trappings any human may succumb to: ego, vice, hedonism, entitlement, laziness, and so on. --- As for your response, I find it uncompelling. You're trying to argue that there's some childhood butterfly effect that drives outcomes, while hand-waving away major factors that would imperil development (from an environmental POV). Similarly, the 'dart-throw theory' doesn't hold as it wasn't only Einstein's initial ideas that were exceptional - but rather a persisted trend throughout his entire career. He published more than 450 papers over his 50 year career, with countless revolutionary discoveries. For some context, that's an academic output rate of publishing 0.75 papers per month, for his entire life until his death bed. It's not like he made one great discovery and then coasted on his laurels while reminiscing about the past. His "miracle year", for instance, while working at a patent office, involved the publication of 4 distinct (and ground-breaking) papers! All without any real access to academic resources, or even peers to really bounce ideas off of.

somenameforme 4y ago

In general it's pretty difficult to prove a negative. How do you know you don't have a friendly little goblin named Rakinichu, made of dark matter, floating just above your shoulder? You can't really prove that you don't, so the onus is on me to prove that you do. That said, in this specific case, I think there's even reasonably strong evidence against your hypothesis. For instance Einstein's "miracle year" would come while he was working as a low level inspector at a patent office. And he was working there because he applied to numerous universities, but none were interested in taking him on board! Even in the chess world, "prodigies" are a dime a dozen and Magnus was a relatively late bloomer among his peers. Magnus received his International Master title (the second highest title in chess, prior to Grandmaster) at a later age than Sergey Karjakin, a fellow prodigy, received his Grandmaster title. He also achieved victory coming from a country that had relatively little chess culture. Grandmasters coming from countries with greater chess culture would have had access to greater resources, minds, coaching, and opportunities.

lordnacho 4y ago
> In general it's pretty difficult to prove a negative. But this isn't a negative, you're proposing that there's some sort of strong connection between observable potentials and eventual outcomes, am I right? So now we need the evidence. Sports is a great place to look btw. The history of recruiting busts in the sports world simply incredible. People they guessed wrong on: Tom Brady, Ravel Morrison, Johnny Manziel, Carlos Bacca, just to give you a false positive and a false negative in two different sports. It just seems to me that is really isn't all that obvious who might be really good, and so we should spread our bets rather than concentrate on a few promising geniuses. > For instance Einstein... So how does this say anything about skill? Couldn't he just be a low-probability ticket that won? There were other people looking at similar ideas at the time. > Even in the chess world... Thing is chess is international now, Magnus could be Norwegian but very cheaply access chess culture from other countries. Maybe in an earlier era this argument made sense. But just like in football, it's international now and people aren't surprised by regional styles.
- somenameforme 4y ago
  No, that is not what I am arguing. I am arguing that people's skill distributions follow a power law, with outliers at nearly any level. To quote the earliest post in this chain, that indeed some people are "off the charts." And this inherent difference in these individuals plays a large role in their ultimate outcomes. And no, I don't think we should "bet" on anybody, whether focused or scattered. The point of Magnus, Einstein, and many others is that the fact that they ultimately were these "off the charts" individuals was in no way whatsoever clear. And in any case, for people that are "off the charts" - they aren't going to have difficulty excelling in a capitalist economic system, nearly regardless of their humbleness of their beginnings. I would even be inclined to argue that acknowledging somebody as "genius" and plying them with money is more likely to lead to distorted rather than enhanced development. Just because somebody may be several sigmas from the mean cognitively, doesn't mean that they're immune to the trappings any human may succumb to: ego, vice, hedonism, entitlement, laziness, and so on. --- As for your response, I find it uncompelling. You're trying to argue that there's some childhood butterfly effect that drives outcomes, while hand-waving away major factors that would imperil development (from an environmental POV). Similarly, the 'dart-throw theory' doesn't hold as it wasn't only Einstein's initial ideas that were exceptional - but rather a persisted trend throughout his entire career. He published more than 450 papers over his 50 year career, with countless revolutionary discoveries. For some context, that's an academic output rate of publishing 0.75 papers per month, for his entire life until his death bed. It's not like he made one great discovery and then coasted on his laurels while reminiscing about the past. His "miracle year", for instance, while working at a patent office, involved the publication of 4 distinct (and ground-breaking) papers! All without any real access to academic resources, or even peers to really bounce ideas off of.