4 ms·

At the same time, the market doesn't value things well. Professional athletes, who do nothing to change the world (the world is the same no matter who does it o

At the same time, the market doesn't value things well. Professional athletes, who do nothing to change the world (the world is the same no matter who does it or what they do), are valued N times as much as teachers, doctors, police, scientists, etc. who do change the world. Also, popularity is a signal that there is real value in what you are doing.

giraffe_lady 4y ago
> Also, popularity is a signal that there is real value in what you are doing. Now apply that to your first paragraph?
monero-xmr 4y ago
Value is subjective. I value a bottle of water far more when I’m dying of thirst. Professional athletes make money because their talent is valued and it’s rare. You have a fundamentally flawed understanding of price, value, and economics in general. Some teachers are indeed paid more - some extremely well - if they have rare skills that are highly valued. Top tier teachers get jobs at universities, private schools, and as tutors. I have never met them but I was told top-tier acting instructors are paid very high rates by Hollywood actors. Highly talented teachers don’t work at public schools because those jobs are generally pretty terrible.
- lelanthran 4y ago
  > Professional athletes make money because their talent is valued and it’s rare. Incorrect. Profession athletes are performers, no more, no less. Talent scarcity has little to do with it. They get paid in direct proportion to the number of eyeballs they can capture. No different to any other type of performer (musicians, actors, he'll, even clowns).
  - monero-xmr 4y ago
    This is absurdly illogical. If I can convince 10 people to pay me $1 million each, I will earn far more than someone being watched by 10 million people paid nothing by each. If this statement doesn’t make sense to you, perhaps you shouldn’t make business and investment decisions.
    - lelanthran 4y ago
      > If I can convince 10 people to pay me $1 million each, I will earn far more than someone being watched by 10 million people paid nothing by each. What does that have to do with capturing eyeballs? Sports fans are the product. Advertisers are the consumers. The more product a game can attract, the more valuable that game is to the consumers (i.e. the advertisers). It's no different to "free" online services (google, facebook, tumbler, youtube, whatever) - the visitors are the product, the advertisers are the consumers. I'm more curious about why you find it illogical. Are you a sports supporter by any chance? You realise that it's possible to like something even as you realise that you are the product, right? Being delusional about your place in the market is pointless. > If this statement doesn’t make sense to you, perhaps you shouldn’t make business and investment decisions. Right.
  - MichaelZuo 4y ago
    And why do some 'capture eyeballs' more effectively than others?
    - lelanthran 4y ago
      > And why do some 'capture eyeballs' more effectively than others? Who cares? It doesn't matter. There's a lot more dexterity, agility, speed and intelligence required to compete at the top levels of Starcraft than in football, but football pays more because football captures more eyeballs, not individual football players.
      - MichaelZuo 4y ago
        > It doesn't matter. According to who?
        lelanthran 4y ago
        Okay, you know what - let's pretend that skill and talent does matter in terms of revenue. We now need to explain why those sports that require just as much skill and talent (sometimes more) as the major money-making sports do, have less revenue. You really want to go down the path of saying that a sport that relies more on brute-force strength (football) than other sports requires more "skill" and "talent" than (for example) sports that require insanely fast reflexes (ping pong) or sports that require a very high degree of precision (golf). Right, so lets pretend that brute-force strength is a skill and talent - now how are we going to explain sports that require more brute-force strength being less popular than football. Athletic skill and talent have almost nothing to do with the revenue of the money-making machine. Like I said above, athletes are entertainers. They get paid for entertainment.
        MichaelZuo 4y ago
        If you are unsure about which comment your addressing, my previous one was: > > It doesn't matter. > According to who?
- wolverine876 4y ago
  > Value is subjective. It can be and is measured objectively, and certainly we can reason about it: Saving lives is more valuable than scoring goals. > You have a fundamentally flawed People can disagree with you without being wrong or flawed or whatever. Maybe you are missing something. The way to knowledge is curiosity about people who disagree with you - otherwise, you are stuck in a cage of your own making.
neilyio 4y ago
I encourage you to be more open-minded when evaluating the impact of others on the world. The millions of children, teenagers, and adults who find inspiration in likes of Kobe Bryant, Serena Williams, Michael Phelps, Lionel Messi etc. might disagree with you. Many of us learn to be better from their ambition, discipline, leadership, etc. These qualities become imprinted on young people who look up to these figures. In nearly every country, there are young people who see professional athletes as their greatest role models. Can you seriously say that creates no value for the world? As an aside, elite athletes have refined the art of practice and study for their entire lives. I've learned more about the process of learning from interactions with them than anywhere else. If you don't think there's something to learn from this entire category of intelligence, you're missing out.
- wolverine876 4y ago
  > The millions of children, teenagers, and adults who find inspiration in likes of Kobe Bryant, Serena Williams, Michael Phelps, Lionel Messi etc. might disagree with you. Many of us learn to be better from their ambition, discipline, leadership, etc. If those individuals didn't exist, other athletes would fill the roles just as well. Also, it's questionable how inspiring or positive they are. The behavior of many athletes is horrible. > elite athletes have refined the art of practice and study for their entire lives. I've learned more about the process of learning from interactions with them than anywhere else. What about experts in other fields - such as teachers, nurses, coders, etc. Nothing special about athletes.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

giraffe_lady 4y ago

> Also, popularity is a signal that there is real value in what you are doing. Now apply that to your first paragraph?

monero-xmr 4y ago

Value is subjective. I value a bottle of water far more when I’m dying of thirst. Professional athletes make money because their talent is valued and it’s rare. You have a fundamentally flawed understanding of price, value, and economics in general. Some teachers are indeed paid more - some extremely well - if they have rare skills that are highly valued. Top tier teachers get jobs at universities, private schools, and as tutors. I have never met them but I was told top-tier acting instructors are paid very high rates by Hollywood actors. Highly talented teachers don’t work at public schools because those jobs are generally pretty terrible.

lelanthran 4y ago
> Professional athletes make money because their talent is valued and it’s rare. Incorrect. Profession athletes are performers, no more, no less. Talent scarcity has little to do with it. They get paid in direct proportion to the number of eyeballs they can capture. No different to any other type of performer (musicians, actors, he'll, even clowns).
- monero-xmr 4y ago
  This is absurdly illogical. If I can convince 10 people to pay me $1 million each, I will earn far more than someone being watched by 10 million people paid nothing by each. If this statement doesn’t make sense to you, perhaps you shouldn’t make business and investment decisions.
  - lelanthran 4y ago
    > If I can convince 10 people to pay me $1 million each, I will earn far more than someone being watched by 10 million people paid nothing by each. What does that have to do with capturing eyeballs? Sports fans are the product. Advertisers are the consumers. The more product a game can attract, the more valuable that game is to the consumers (i.e. the advertisers). It's no different to "free" online services (google, facebook, tumbler, youtube, whatever) - the visitors are the product, the advertisers are the consumers. I'm more curious about why you find it illogical. Are you a sports supporter by any chance? You realise that it's possible to like something even as you realise that you are the product, right? Being delusional about your place in the market is pointless. > If this statement doesn’t make sense to you, perhaps you shouldn’t make business and investment decisions. Right.
- MichaelZuo 4y ago
  And why do some 'capture eyeballs' more effectively than others?
  - lelanthran 4y ago
    > And why do some 'capture eyeballs' more effectively than others? Who cares? It doesn't matter. There's a lot more dexterity, agility, speed and intelligence required to compete at the top levels of Starcraft than in football, but football pays more because football captures more eyeballs, not individual football players.
    - MichaelZuo 4y ago
      > It doesn't matter. According to who?
      - lelanthran 4y ago
        Okay, you know what - let's pretend that skill and talent does matter in terms of revenue. We now need to explain why those sports that require just as much skill and talent (sometimes more) as the major money-making sports do, have less revenue. You really want to go down the path of saying that a sport that relies more on brute-force strength (football) than other sports requires more "skill" and "talent" than (for example) sports that require insanely fast reflexes (ping pong) or sports that require a very high degree of precision (golf). Right, so lets pretend that brute-force strength is a skill and talent - now how are we going to explain sports that require more brute-force strength being less popular than football. Athletic skill and talent have almost nothing to do with the revenue of the money-making machine. Like I said above, athletes are entertainers. They get paid for entertainment.
        MichaelZuo 4y ago
        If you are unsure about which comment your addressing, my previous one was: > > It doesn't matter. > According to who?
wolverine876 4y ago
> Value is subjective. It can be and is measured objectively, and certainly we can reason about it: Saving lives is more valuable than scoring goals. > You have a fundamentally flawed People can disagree with you without being wrong or flawed or whatever. Maybe you are missing something. The way to knowledge is curiosity about people who disagree with you - otherwise, you are stuck in a cage of your own making.

neilyio 4y ago

I encourage you to be more open-minded when evaluating the impact of others on the world. The millions of children, teenagers, and adults who find inspiration in likes of Kobe Bryant, Serena Williams, Michael Phelps, Lionel Messi etc. might disagree with you. Many of us learn to be better from their ambition, discipline, leadership, etc. These qualities become imprinted on young people who look up to these figures. In nearly every country, there are young people who see professional athletes as their greatest role models. Can you seriously say that creates no value for the world? As an aside, elite athletes have refined the art of practice and study for their entire lives. I've learned more about the process of learning from interactions with them than anywhere else. If you don't think there's something to learn from this entire category of intelligence, you're missing out.

wolverine876 4y ago
> The millions of children, teenagers, and adults who find inspiration in likes of Kobe Bryant, Serena Williams, Michael Phelps, Lionel Messi etc. might disagree with you. Many of us learn to be better from their ambition, discipline, leadership, etc. If those individuals didn't exist, other athletes would fill the roles just as well. Also, it's questionable how inspiring or positive they are. The behavior of many athletes is horrible. > elite athletes have refined the art of practice and study for their entire lives. I've learned more about the process of learning from interactions with them than anywhere else. What about experts in other fields - such as teachers, nurses, coders, etc. Nothing special about athletes.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]