2 ms·

> 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 observa

> 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

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.