4 ms·

the difference between quitters and polymaths is outcomes the weirdo learning weird stuff becomes eccentric and interesting the moment they make it the only a

the difference between quitters and polymaths is outcomes the weirdo learning weird stuff becomes eccentric and interesting the moment they make it the only advice there is, is most will judge you by results success earned or unearned can change the loser into a late bloomer

interstice 3y ago
To some degree, however there is a difference between specialising in weird stuff and being generally curious about all stuff. The part about connections resonates, increasingly it feels like everything is facets of a whole rather than completely disparate subjects. I feel there is something to be gained from being able to view things in that way.
AndrewKemendo 3y ago
Agreed and it goes the other way too though You will lose your vaunted place as “successful” if your great results were done through inequity
- justinclift 3y ago
  > done through inequity What's an example of that? Am trying to picture what you're meaning, and it's not clear (to me).
  - AndrewKemendo 3y ago
    Like when Bill Cosby rightfully lost his place in society Looks like people are really triggered by the idea of equity
    - justinclift 3y ago
      Is Bill Cosby an example of inequity? I don't personally know much about the guy, but wasn't his problem the drugging of people and then taking advantage of them? If that's correct, then that doesn't seem like a behaviour pattern that contributed to his success somehow. (?)
      - AndrewKemendo 3y ago
        If the structures and systems that you put into place are used for inequitable purposes, then the entire system is inequitable as it does not compensate the victims at the benefit of the existing beneficiaries For example the Catholic Church and everyone associated with it is complicit and benefits from child sex abuse. Sex abuse benefits priests, and the staff and congregation support the priests. So the existence of the Catholic church, so long as they are passively or ignorantly complicit in victimizing congregants is inequitable and therefore everything that they do inherits the complicity Same with Cosby, he built a structure of abuse that allowed him to continue his rise to fame. Anything he did concurrently should be rightly torched and destroyed as it was misappropriated - the viewers etc did not know about that and would not have supported it had they known it
        justinclift 3y ago
        > Same with Cosby, he built a structure of abuse that allowed him to continue his rise to fame. That doesn't really seem to make sense. Wasn't he just an actor? The abuse stuff seems incidental (or enabled) by that.
        AndrewKemendo 3y ago
        No, Bill Cosby was the executive producer, and leader for the entirety of all of his properties so any structures that set up would be implicated any of it. This is one of those cases where it maps directly one to one because personality was the marketing factor, much like with other name brand celebrities. If the benefits that you have received monetarily are a function of a personality portrayal and expectation of behavioral coherence from the audience then this is misappropriated value. The only argument you can make is one that is cynical, and assumes that we shouldn’t trust anybody for anything ever, and therefore all externalities have been priced into the exchange between the consumer and the producer.
        justinclift 3y ago
        > Bill Cosby was the executive producer ... Ahhh. That makes more sense then. Now I see where you're coming from. :)

interstice 3y ago

To some degree, however there is a difference between specialising in weird stuff and being generally curious about all stuff. The part about connections resonates, increasingly it feels like everything is facets of a whole rather than completely disparate subjects. I feel there is something to be gained from being able to view things in that way.

AndrewKemendo 3y ago

Agreed and it goes the other way too though You will lose your vaunted place as “successful” if your great results were done through inequity

justinclift 3y ago
> done through inequity What's an example of that? Am trying to picture what you're meaning, and it's not clear (to me).
- AndrewKemendo 3y ago
  Like when Bill Cosby rightfully lost his place in society Looks like people are really triggered by the idea of equity
  - justinclift 3y ago
    Is Bill Cosby an example of inequity? I don't personally know much about the guy, but wasn't his problem the drugging of people and then taking advantage of them? If that's correct, then that doesn't seem like a behaviour pattern that contributed to his success somehow. (?)
    - AndrewKemendo 3y ago
      If the structures and systems that you put into place are used for inequitable purposes, then the entire system is inequitable as it does not compensate the victims at the benefit of the existing beneficiaries For example the Catholic Church and everyone associated with it is complicit and benefits from child sex abuse. Sex abuse benefits priests, and the staff and congregation support the priests. So the existence of the Catholic church, so long as they are passively or ignorantly complicit in victimizing congregants is inequitable and therefore everything that they do inherits the complicity Same with Cosby, he built a structure of abuse that allowed him to continue his rise to fame. Anything he did concurrently should be rightly torched and destroyed as it was misappropriated - the viewers etc did not know about that and would not have supported it had they known it
      - justinclift 3y ago
        > Same with Cosby, he built a structure of abuse that allowed him to continue his rise to fame. That doesn't really seem to make sense. Wasn't he just an actor? The abuse stuff seems incidental (or enabled) by that.
        AndrewKemendo 3y ago
        No, Bill Cosby was the executive producer, and leader for the entirety of all of his properties so any structures that set up would be implicated any of it. This is one of those cases where it maps directly one to one because personality was the marketing factor, much like with other name brand celebrities. If the benefits that you have received monetarily are a function of a personality portrayal and expectation of behavioral coherence from the audience then this is misappropriated value. The only argument you can make is one that is cynical, and assumes that we shouldn’t trust anybody for anything ever, and therefore all externalities have been priced into the exchange between the consumer and the producer.
        justinclift 3y ago
        > Bill Cosby was the executive producer ... Ahhh. That makes more sense then. Now I see where you're coming from. :)