3 ms·

Honestly though, I don't think he's wrong. As someone who -- in my view -- squeaked by into an elite school (probably of the second rank as described in the art

Honestly though, I don't think he's wrong. As someone who -- in my view -- squeaked by into an elite school (probably of the second rank as described in the article) despite being raised in a 'natural growth' environment, I think some people are truly at a different level of efficacy and I'm not sure what people are going to do about it. They show sustained ability to dominate fields. Yes, I'm sure this is cultural, but it's still a difference. And there are frankly different behavioral patterns, some of which I did pick up and I think led to major differences in how I view the world, despite still firmly identifying with my more modest upbringing. As a simple example, my parents and family have a much more fatalistic 'fate-guided' view of the world, whereas the people I met in university were extremely motivated to just change what they saw as wrong. Even though my parents nominally supported that attitude, they were never able to actually do it.

vjk800 2y ago
Indeed. I went to what was considered an elite university program in my country. Most of the people even there were borderline normal, although probably in the top 1% of the population in mathematical abilities, but some few people seemed to just do whatever the hell they pleased, and always succeed. I'm not sure what was it that drove those people. Were they just so genetically gifted, or was it just crazy high confidence in themselves combined with the same top 1% mathematical abilities that the rest of us had? Or did they have some behavioral models from home that allowed them to flow the way they did? Or did they just give it way more effort than I did, year after year?
- anon291 2y ago
  Yes, I truly learned a lot from them. Immediately after school, despite getting a degree in Math / Computer Science, I decided to just go for it like they did, and joined one of the Big 3 strategy consulting firms where I worked for a few months, where I learned even more about these types of people. We need to actually contend with their very real ability before we dismiss them with memes.
  - bilbo0s 2y ago
    One of the big issues is that the people making the memes, never actually met any of the people we're all talking about. It's easy to dismiss if it's not real for you. If you've been moving between say, Cambridge and Sommerville, you understand. If you haven't, you think you can do anything that top .01% of the top 1% can do. How do you convince someone that there are people out there so gifted at everything that they make MIT and Stanford alums look like village idiots? You likely can't. People reading our comments will think, "That's a myth. There are no people like that."
    - anon291 2y ago
      Well I make a lot of memes, so I'm not sure I agree with your first statement haha. I think you'd be surprised at the educational backgrounds of the people that actually make the memes (vs the ones just spreading them). I think my basic thesis is that, if you come from a normal background, and go through these institutions, this is a major selection factor for some level of charisma. You understand the game and you understand the normal person. This is why the first 'round' of purely meritocratic admits worked. The graduates were inevitably going to be so irresistibly charming, they'd have no problem dealing with the world. However, as time went on and they had their own children, who did not experience the normal childhood, they are at a disadvantage. They have the educational background, but not the ability to connect with people. For example, since it's all fresh in our minds. I remember people saying that Vance was going to appear weird at the debate and Walz normal. As evidence, they used the fact that Vance was rich and thus out of touch. At the time I thought differently, simple because Vance had been to Yale and then through the Silicon Valley VC landscape and -- from what I understand -- came out successful. Thus, in my mind, he was the perfect test to my thesis. And I think that's what we saw, not only did he come across as amazingly likeable, he even seemed to make Tim Walz like him at times. And the general consensus was that he won [1]. Normal people don't make it through these institutions without the ability to -- at least temporarily, maybe even disingenuously depending on your politics -- come across as irresistibly charming. > How do you convince someone that there are people out there so gifted at everything that they make MIT and Stanford alums look like village idiots? You likely can't. That's correct, as demonstrated by the people that accuse them of cheating to get where they are. Or of cheating because they worked less hard than someone else who worked very hard at the wrong thing. [1] https://www.politico.com/news/2024/10/02/vance-walz-who-won-vp-debate-roundtable-00181905 https://www.politico.com/news/2024/10/02/vance-walz-who-won-... . Doesn't matter your politics, he clearly was very effective, even if you think he was disingenuous -- like I said, you don't go through Yale and VC without being able to charm.
- abyssin 2y ago
  If you had to make a guess about these behavioral models, what would it be?
  - anon291 2y ago
    Not the one you responded to, but the guy above him. I would say a few things: 1. Less social anxiety / confidence -- simply realizing that the worst thing that happens is you fail. It does help to have daddy's money for this though. 2. More calculating -- One trait I absolutely noticed in all these people was that they had planned out their entire life. This did not mean the plan always happened as expected, but the goal was clear, and always worked towards. They made lists, they met criteria, they executed extremely well. For example, they knew they needed to publish a paper. That can mean you either dazzle with a brilliant paper, which most 'normies' would say is the route you should go down. But that's not necessarily the 'elite' position. Sure, a handful might be truly smart. The rest would just crank out work and submit to as many journals as possible until they found one that matched their criteria. 3. When they get together they talk about ideas -- this one is a trait I picked up on, and it led to some strife with my own family when I went back home. It's a hard one to explain, but with Thanksgiving coming up, really pay attention to what's talked about. Is it celebrities? The current election even? I guarantee you somewhere out there, some elites are discussing the next great invention / policy / etc. It's why so many 'normies' get blind-sided by new ideas, whereas for the elites, it's normal. For example, conspiracists on Twitter believe that AI is the result of alien technology, because they are so far removed from the actual development of the thing that to them it must truly seem like magic.
    - ctchocula 2y ago
      Reminds me of "Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people".
      - DiscourseFan 2y ago
        A quote discussing the behavior of people?
      - 2y ago
Mordisquitos 2y ago
In your second paragraph you're essentially pointing towards what social & developmental psychologist Carol Dweck [0] describes as the 'Growth Mindset' vs 'Fixed Mindset' modes of thinking. To be fair, there is some controversy as to the validity of Dweck's model. However, you may find it interesting, even at the risk of falling into confirmation bias (given that you appear to be primed to agree with it). I myself have no strong opinion as to the validity of the model's explanatory power, but at the very least I do believe it is personally a better choice to aim for a Growth Mindset. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carol_Dweck https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carol_Dweck
- anon291 2y ago
  > To be fair, there is some controversy as to the validity of Dweck's model. However, you may find it interesting, even at the risk of falling into confirmation bias (given that you appear to be primed to agree with it) I've heard about the idea of the 'growth mindset', and indeed my prior today would very much be on that, but by my upbringing I didn't even know that existed.

vjk800 2y ago

Indeed. I went to what was considered an elite university program in my country. Most of the people even there were borderline normal, although probably in the top 1% of the population in mathematical abilities, but some few people seemed to just do whatever the hell they pleased, and always succeed. I'm not sure what was it that drove those people. Were they just so genetically gifted, or was it just crazy high confidence in themselves combined with the same top 1% mathematical abilities that the rest of us had? Or did they have some behavioral models from home that allowed them to flow the way they did? Or did they just give it way more effort than I did, year after year?

anon291 2y ago
Yes, I truly learned a lot from them. Immediately after school, despite getting a degree in Math / Computer Science, I decided to just go for it like they did, and joined one of the Big 3 strategy consulting firms where I worked for a few months, where I learned even more about these types of people. We need to actually contend with their very real ability before we dismiss them with memes.
- bilbo0s 2y ago
  One of the big issues is that the people making the memes, never actually met any of the people we're all talking about. It's easy to dismiss if it's not real for you. If you've been moving between say, Cambridge and Sommerville, you understand. If you haven't, you think you can do anything that top .01% of the top 1% can do. How do you convince someone that there are people out there so gifted at everything that they make MIT and Stanford alums look like village idiots? You likely can't. People reading our comments will think, "That's a myth. There are no people like that."
  - anon291 2y ago
    Well I make a lot of memes, so I'm not sure I agree with your first statement haha. I think you'd be surprised at the educational backgrounds of the people that actually make the memes (vs the ones just spreading them). I think my basic thesis is that, if you come from a normal background, and go through these institutions, this is a major selection factor for some level of charisma. You understand the game and you understand the normal person. This is why the first 'round' of purely meritocratic admits worked. The graduates were inevitably going to be so irresistibly charming, they'd have no problem dealing with the world. However, as time went on and they had their own children, who did not experience the normal childhood, they are at a disadvantage. They have the educational background, but not the ability to connect with people. For example, since it's all fresh in our minds. I remember people saying that Vance was going to appear weird at the debate and Walz normal. As evidence, they used the fact that Vance was rich and thus out of touch. At the time I thought differently, simple because Vance had been to Yale and then through the Silicon Valley VC landscape and -- from what I understand -- came out successful. Thus, in my mind, he was the perfect test to my thesis. And I think that's what we saw, not only did he come across as amazingly likeable, he even seemed to make Tim Walz like him at times. And the general consensus was that he won [1]. Normal people don't make it through these institutions without the ability to -- at least temporarily, maybe even disingenuously depending on your politics -- come across as irresistibly charming. > How do you convince someone that there are people out there so gifted at everything that they make MIT and Stanford alums look like village idiots? You likely can't. That's correct, as demonstrated by the people that accuse them of cheating to get where they are. Or of cheating because they worked less hard than someone else who worked very hard at the wrong thing. [1] https://www.politico.com/news/2024/10/02/vance-walz-who-won-vp-debate-roundtable-00181905 https://www.politico.com/news/2024/10/02/vance-walz-who-won-... . Doesn't matter your politics, he clearly was very effective, even if you think he was disingenuous -- like I said, you don't go through Yale and VC without being able to charm.
abyssin 2y ago
If you had to make a guess about these behavioral models, what would it be?
- anon291 2y ago
  Not the one you responded to, but the guy above him. I would say a few things: 1. Less social anxiety / confidence -- simply realizing that the worst thing that happens is you fail. It does help to have daddy's money for this though. 2. More calculating -- One trait I absolutely noticed in all these people was that they had planned out their entire life. This did not mean the plan always happened as expected, but the goal was clear, and always worked towards. They made lists, they met criteria, they executed extremely well. For example, they knew they needed to publish a paper. That can mean you either dazzle with a brilliant paper, which most 'normies' would say is the route you should go down. But that's not necessarily the 'elite' position. Sure, a handful might be truly smart. The rest would just crank out work and submit to as many journals as possible until they found one that matched their criteria. 3. When they get together they talk about ideas -- this one is a trait I picked up on, and it led to some strife with my own family when I went back home. It's a hard one to explain, but with Thanksgiving coming up, really pay attention to what's talked about. Is it celebrities? The current election even? I guarantee you somewhere out there, some elites are discussing the next great invention / policy / etc. It's why so many 'normies' get blind-sided by new ideas, whereas for the elites, it's normal. For example, conspiracists on Twitter believe that AI is the result of alien technology, because they are so far removed from the actual development of the thing that to them it must truly seem like magic.
  - ctchocula 2y ago
    Reminds me of "Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people".
    - DiscourseFan 2y ago
      A quote discussing the behavior of people?
    - 2y ago

Mordisquitos 2y ago

In your second paragraph you're essentially pointing towards what social & developmental psychologist Carol Dweck [0] describes as the 'Growth Mindset' vs 'Fixed Mindset' modes of thinking. To be fair, there is some controversy as to the validity of Dweck's model. However, you may find it interesting, even at the risk of falling into confirmation bias (given that you appear to be primed to agree with it). I myself have no strong opinion as to the validity of the model's explanatory power, but at the very least I do believe it is personally a better choice to aim for a Growth Mindset. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carol_Dweck https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carol_Dweck

anon291 2y ago
> To be fair, there is some controversy as to the validity of Dweck's model. However, you may find it interesting, even at the risk of falling into confirmation bias (given that you appear to be primed to agree with it) I've heard about the idea of the 'growth mindset', and indeed my prior today would very much be on that, but by my upbringing I didn't even know that existed.