3 ms·

My attention span is making me re-read your comment to decipher whether I agree or disagree. Jury is still out on this one :) Anyways, over a decade back, I

My attention span is making me re-read your comment to decipher whether I agree or disagree. Jury is still out on this one :) Anyways, over a decade back, I was watching a recording of a musical artist from either the 70s or 80s, and was surprised at the quality of the presentation (audio, music, harmony within the team) and was thinking on the same lines - good vs good enough, and how this team working in the 70s made musical magic. I think the constraints those days made the masters really practice practice practice so that they could be great at the spur of the moment. A lot of people today may be more expert in synthesizing music so they can take a second's worth of snippet here, 5 seconds of snippets there, and eventually make something good, but it is all editing and they may not be able to do that live, but the old timey greats had to perform live, and for that they had to be great. I am not saying no one does live music nowadays, quite the contrary, just saying that a lot of great music comes from people who never do live music, and that is because they can afford the luxury of 'editing' (which is kinda similar to divided attention span). Similarly, for the baker once the bread has gone bad there is nothing they can do but to start over, and that would be the incentive to get everything right.

Terr_ 3y ago
I think my underlying thesis probably renders to something like: The idea that people in the past had personalities that valued the pursuit of perfection more-highly than now is often assumed, but seldom is good evidence given to support it. In many cases it may be explained by survivorship-bias or by applying inaccurate modern assumptions about the relative costs of different materials/labor and the prestige/rarity of events. > Anyways, over a decade back, I was watching a recording of a musical artist from either the 70s or 80s, and was surprised at the quality Example "humans weren't fundamentally different" hypothesis: When it is more expensive to make multiple attempts, people invest more effort into making sure they do very good attempts, in order to avoid the downside risk. This does not mean they would not have gladly chosen an average-result if dramatically lower production costs were possible. Therefore the difference does not stem from a change in mentality, but from economic factors. ___________ It's kind of like looking at airplanes of the 1950s, with beds and champagne and caviar, and ruefully comparing them to the ones of the 2020s. Is it because airlines became greedier? Did the average passenger (in the same income-bracket) lose their desire for fine things? Nah: It's probably because once you remember to adjust for inflation, those 1950s passengers were paying $7,300 per flight instead of today's $600. [0] https://www.eastcoastdaily.in/2021/01/02/1950s-when-airplanes-had-beds-with-champagne-and-caviar-air-travel-looked-like-a-train-journey.html https://www.eastcoastdaily.in/2021/01/02/1950s-when-airplane...
- sgath92 3y ago
  > The idea that people in the past had personalities that valued the pursuit of perfection more-highly than now is often assumed, but seldom is good evidence given to support it. I think its not hard to show that people have come to prioritize the low cost of goods/services at the cost of quality as a way of artificially propping up lifestyle habits as available disposable income goes down. An appliance like a refrigerator or clothes washer had to be good in 1960 not just because of its cost (which in today's money accounting for inflation is huge) but because consumers had the ability to financially demand it. But if household disposable incomes go down (for a myriad of reasons), to where even two adult fulltime earners can barely tread water, a "good" appliance is unthinkably cost prohibitive in the short term. A cheap one that will barely outlast the warranty is their solution. And when it fails (and it will) you go buy another and it goes to a landfill. Its like the typical exmaple of the poor person who buys shitty work boots that only last a few months because they can't drop a couple hundred up front for ones that will last decade(s). In the US (can't speak for elsewhere), your 1950s stereotypical middleclass sitcom style family lifestyle died around 1970. Its been kept going ever since by the combos of decreasing quality wherever possible while using debt to wallpaper over the lack of micro-economic sustainability (hence the huge % of the population who has no real savings, little or no retirement investments, and will loose their home if they get a bad medical diagnosis).
  - throwaway2037 3y ago
    hence the huge % of the population who has no real savings, little or no retirement investments, and will loose their home if they get a bad medical diagnosis Was this not also true in earlier generations? Also, most people from highly developed countries with sound social safety net (G7 and close friends) do not have such a doom-and-gloom outlook. I assume your view comes from the US. where even two adult fulltime earners can barely tread water This is certainly not true in the vast majority of G7 and close friends -- only US.

Terr_ 3y ago

I think my underlying thesis probably renders to something like: The idea that people in the past had personalities that valued the pursuit of perfection more-highly than now is often assumed, but seldom is good evidence given to support it. In many cases it may be explained by survivorship-bias or by applying inaccurate modern assumptions about the relative costs of different materials/labor and the prestige/rarity of events. > Anyways, over a decade back, I was watching a recording of a musical artist from either the 70s or 80s, and was surprised at the quality Example "humans weren't fundamentally different" hypothesis: When it is more expensive to make multiple attempts, people invest more effort into making sure they do very good attempts, in order to avoid the downside risk. This does not mean they would not have gladly chosen an average-result if dramatically lower production costs were possible. Therefore the difference does not stem from a change in mentality, but from economic factors. ___________ It's kind of like looking at airplanes of the 1950s, with beds and champagne and caviar, and ruefully comparing them to the ones of the 2020s. Is it because airlines became greedier? Did the average passenger (in the same income-bracket) lose their desire for fine things? Nah: It's probably because once you remember to adjust for inflation, those 1950s passengers were paying $7,300 per flight instead of today's $600. [0] https://www.eastcoastdaily.in/2021/01/02/1950s-when-airplanes-had-beds-with-champagne-and-caviar-air-travel-looked-like-a-train-journey.html https://www.eastcoastdaily.in/2021/01/02/1950s-when-airplane...

sgath92 3y ago
> The idea that people in the past had personalities that valued the pursuit of perfection more-highly than now is often assumed, but seldom is good evidence given to support it. I think its not hard to show that people have come to prioritize the low cost of goods/services at the cost of quality as a way of artificially propping up lifestyle habits as available disposable income goes down. An appliance like a refrigerator or clothes washer had to be good in 1960 not just because of its cost (which in today's money accounting for inflation is huge) but because consumers had the ability to financially demand it. But if household disposable incomes go down (for a myriad of reasons), to where even two adult fulltime earners can barely tread water, a "good" appliance is unthinkably cost prohibitive in the short term. A cheap one that will barely outlast the warranty is their solution. And when it fails (and it will) you go buy another and it goes to a landfill. Its like the typical exmaple of the poor person who buys shitty work boots that only last a few months because they can't drop a couple hundred up front for ones that will last decade(s). In the US (can't speak for elsewhere), your 1950s stereotypical middleclass sitcom style family lifestyle died around 1970. Its been kept going ever since by the combos of decreasing quality wherever possible while using debt to wallpaper over the lack of micro-economic sustainability (hence the huge % of the population who has no real savings, little or no retirement investments, and will loose their home if they get a bad medical diagnosis).
- throwaway2037 3y ago
  hence the huge % of the population who has no real savings, little or no retirement investments, and will loose their home if they get a bad medical diagnosis Was this not also true in earlier generations? Also, most people from highly developed countries with sound social safety net (G7 and close friends) do not have such a doom-and-gloom outlook. I assume your view comes from the US. where even two adult fulltime earners can barely tread water This is certainly not true in the vast majority of G7 and close friends -- only US.