Live data from Hacker News

Talent

felixstocker.com

31–40 of 108 posts

Re: Talent

#31

The author concludes that "I should make sure I sweated blood working on a strength, [and] do more of what comes naturally." Something I found was that sometimes the things I have the most passion and interest for are _not_ the things that are strengths. But they have become strengths. Today, I would consider myself to be an OS and systems programmer person. It was abjectly _not_ something that came to me naturally.…

[deleted]

Re: Talent

#33

Two things: * Don't work in power-law / winner-take-all industries, unless you are truly remarkable (and even then, you need a lot of luck). Entertainment is the most obvious example of such an industry. * No shit talent exists. Just look at basketball players. Presumably nobody thinks Wemby is 7'5" because he just trained harder at growing tall than anyone else? Why would any other characteristic be different?

> Entertainment is the most obvious example of such an industry. Is it? Consider the case of nepo babies: often no extreme talent (or perhaps any at all), yet extreme luck.

Entertainment is illustrative. There have been controlled studies (e.g., https://www.princeton.edu/~mjs3/salganik_dodds_watts06_full....) showing that there are sort of chaotic social dynamics influencing popularity, in that what others are paying attention to influence what someone is paying attention to, which leads to these kinds of random paths of success. Clearly there's some ability at play as well, but beyond some level, it starts to have a lot of chaotic path dependency.

I suspect a lot of fields are like this also, like academics (nowadays at least) and some other things. Maybe a lot of life is like it.

The discussions often seem to me to become oversimplified, like comparing some poor genius with access to books who overcomes it all by sheer ability, to some hypothetical other person with comparatively great education that's taken for granted. But what if that hypothetical other person is being ridiculed for liking math? Or reading books? Or what if there is no college math books around, they get bored, and go off on the wrong path? What if their interests are for something more complex in its ability determinants than math, or that someone doesn't encounter until later in life usually?

Sometimes I feel like people aren't necessarily exposed to what they are best suited for, for all sorts of reasons. This is a classic "finding a career" problem, with advice to try things until you stumble on it — the converse situation being one where you think you like a vocation and then find out later you hate it. It's not like what you're best suited to is just on a shelf for you to look at and have an immediate grasp of; it comes from having experience with it, which not everyone might have. Maybe there's an excellent potential rugby player out there who never had the opportunity to play rugby or even knows what it is.

Life is just so complex, people get in each others' way for all sorts of reasons, and corruption complicates things more.

Re: Talent

#34
Imo the author is missing crucial point, by making comparisons of things which are not comparable. You can not say, Person A is brilliant at xyz, why is Person B not brilliant at it, even though the circumstances and resources might be identical. The difference is, people who push themselves or are pushed to be good or great at something will barely come as far as those people who get drawn to something, because it means the can avoid suffering, grieve or else. Imo this is the strong driving force here, with the examples of Erdös and Ramanujan. I claim Ramanujan didn't became a great mathematician, because he wanted to be good at math, but mathematics gave him a space, where he could forget about his devastating circumstances of poverty and inequality. And the deeper he got into math the more he felt aligned to it and at home.

Re: Talent

#35
Everything's luck, or lack thereof.

Free will does not exist, but I suppose it's handy for society at large to pretend that it does.

I don't know why, but I let myself believe for so long that I was the captain of my ship. Now that I embody the fact that everything's out of my control, I have become so much more relaxed and content with life. I do not compare myself with people that are better (or worse) off than me. They lucked into their lives as well.

I am very grateful for everything I have been given. Even the fact that I exist and get to experience this beautiful thing called consciousness. I do not complain much anymore. I work hard to give back. Not that I am rich. But I am strongly inclined to produce more and consume less, perhaps that is because I wish to show appreciation for the gift of the present that I have been given.

And my reaction isn't positive based on only good luck. I've had my fair share of bad luck, and I have been deeply disadvantaged in certain areas of life. But even for those areas, I do not blame myself. Since I believe that it was 100% the role of luck in shaping everything.

I know some people can react to the lack of free will in a negative way, but that has not been the case for me. Would be interesting to dive deeper into why. This realization has also not taken my agency, or my will to live and take action. I know that sounds contradictory, but it's true.

Re: Talent

#36
After reading this note I realized that there is a special breed of people that attends meetings, coordinates communication strategies across the organization, pro-actively addresses blockers and engages stakeholders as naturally as ducks take to water (or as naturally as Ramanujan did math).....

But who wants to be that special breed?

Re: Talent

#38

obsessively writing Motivational pieces is the new therapy … what a world…

Yeah and using people who write as inspiration is really weird to me. I’d rather look up to people who are slightly too busy to write 2k words a day because they’re actually doing things.

Re: Talent

#39
I think as part of my 2026 goals I’ve got to learn how to shitpost half as good as some of the people that make the HN front page. These blog posts have a solid self-fellating energy to them replete with quotes from brand names that’s just too good to pass up on. A complete lack of experience talking about talent with nothing to show for it? Shit sign me up I’m all about that. I’ll have to put a twist on it. Maybe I’ll find something from Grothendieck and maybe mix it in with Moebius to form that perfect slurry of articulated diarrhea. Hmm, I just have to choose the right serif font that gives my each word an air of Oxford superiority. Maybe I can prompt ChatGPT for tips.

Re: Talent

#40

(tangent) That referenced Scott Alexander article was how I figured out his real last name before the New York Times doxxed him - he gave so many details about his brother I realized who he was talking about.

IIRC some of his most famous early posts ran under his own name! This wasn't ever a real secret.
Post reply on HN