Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Talent

felixstocker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 108 posts

Re: Talent

#81

Post by thrance »

matheusmoreira wrote: post #51
j3s wrote: post #49

Paul Erdös once stopped using amphetamines for a single month, and couldn't manage to maintain his interest in math _at all_. and this writer claims that it must have been his talent and natural interest? lol "lean into your strengths" is a great adage, but what if my interests are mainly "watching cartoons" and "playing video games" instead of "writing lengthy blog posts about talent"? i dispute that there exists a…

Playing video games apparently prints money these days. People stream it to audiences and get paid ad money. Some random anime facts YouTube channel can also print money if enough people watch it. Cartoons? Make some Tom and Jerry memes and enjoy. People print money by making videos reacting to stuff , basically professional HN commentators posting hot takes in video form. Totally absurd if you ask me but that's the…

Doesn't seem much more absurd than the multi-billion dollars industry of looking at people pass a ball around through the TV screen. People take issues with the new and take the old for granted. You might as well use your reasoning on every aspects of the entertainment economy.

Advertising does fuck our society in many ways, but I don't think its demise would be the end of streaming, or even of "react" content.

Re: Talent

#82

Post by Kudos »

Centigonal wrote: post #30
efficax wrote: post #29

The answer is always amphetamines

Everyone says that, but there are plenty of people who take amphetamines every day, and nearly all of them never approach the productivity of Paul Erdos.

If you think of it as a multiplier, even a small one, then Paul Erdos was just multiplying from a larger starting number.

Re: Talent

#83

Post by djoldman »

If I could measure only two things when hiring but I got an exact measurement of them, they would be initiative/drive and interest.

In my experience, those who are truly interested in something and have an innate need to get things done by taking the initiative themselves almost always beat natural talent.

It just so happens that lots of people with those traits end up looking like people with natural talent.

Re: Talent

#84

Post by matheusmoreira »

thrance wrote: post #81
matheusmoreira wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Playing video games apparently prints money these days. People stream it to audiences and get paid ad money. Some random anime facts YouTube channel can also print money if enough people watch it. Cartoons? Make some Tom and Jerry memes and enjoy. People print money by making videos reacting to stuff , basically professional HN commentators posting hot takes in video form. Totally absurd if you ask me but that's the…

Doesn't seem much more absurd than the multi-billion dollars industry of looking at people pass a ball around through the TV screen. People take issues with the new and take the old for granted. You might as well use your reasoning on every aspects of the entertainment economy. Advertising does fuck our society in many ways, but I don't think its demise would be the end of streaming, or even of "react" content.

> You might as well use your reasoning on every aspects of the entertainment economy.

I do. I find things like professional sports to be extremely problematic due to the disproportional rewards. It's quite demoralizing to watch people get paid millions of dollars to play games while those who get educated and become tradesmen, professionals and whatnot get paid peanuts by comparison.

Ask newer generations what they want to become and too often you get back bullshit like soccer player, streamer, influencer. It's the sort of thing that makes me think society is sick and needs to be completely overhauled.

> I don't think its demise would be the end of streaming, or even of "react" content.

I don't think those things should end. I think they should not be incentivized via ad money. Get rid of the advertising and all these distortions will correct themselves. Plenty of people will do it anyway for the love of it and that's okay.

Re: Talent

#85

Post by thrance »

matheusmoreira wrote: post #84
thrance wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesn't seem much more absurd than the multi-billion dollars industry of looking at people pass a ball around through the TV screen. People take issues with the new and take the old for granted. You might as well use your reasoning on every aspects of the entertainment economy. Advertising does fuck our society in many ways, but I don't think its demise would be the end of streaming, or even of "react" content.

> You might as well use your reasoning on every aspects of the entertainment economy. I do. I find things like professional sports to be extremely problematic due to the disproportional rewards. It's quite demoralizing to watch people get paid millions of dollars to play games while those who get educated and become tradesmen, professionals and whatnot get paid peanuts by comparison. Ask newer generations what they w…

Well then, I agree completely with your viewpoint.

Re: Talent

#87

Post by Jensson »

kaladin-jasnah wrote: post #74
sjamaan wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If your parents present you with your first computer when you're five years old, and it drops you to a bash prompt, and that's all you have, then you'll probably know considerably more than everyone else just from that being your only choice for a computing environment. Only if you have the interest and aptitude to dig in. Compare this with OP's story about trying to learn music instruments at an early age, and his…

Yeah. I think it's about exposure, though. You can find your interests, talents, and such more easily if you have the luck to have the smörgåsbord of cool things in life presented to you at a young age.

> You can find your interests, talents, and such more easily if you have the luck to have the smörgåsbord of cool things in life presented to you at a young age.

That is called school, everyone goes there. Before school was mandatory and most kids didn't go there was little opportunity to discover your talents, but today most kids gets to try crafting stuff and reading about a wide range of subjects and doing a wide range of physical sports and learning basic music in school.

There might still be some undiscovered talents after all that, but most do get in contact with something that relates to their talent if they have one.

Re: Talent

#88

Post by commandlinefan »

tptacek wrote: post #40
commandlinefan wrote: post #16

(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.

Aw and here I was thinking I was special

Re: Talent

#89

Post by aswegs8 »

iambateman wrote: post #22

I stopped reading after there was a quote about how amphetamines helped improve his math. Like...maybe. But I think it's pretty well understood that taking amphetamines is a net-negative for individuals and society.

He was just taking adderall-level doses, no recreational doses. Basically in line with ADHD treatment. Not sure how that level for those who need it would be net negative

Re: Talent

#90

Post by pickdig »

its much easier to learn math now. it's good we have chromebooks + various llms for a low price / for free for poor kids. but i guess being poor means you dont have time to learn math or something.

doing math is way easier nowadays though i mean there's discord, stack exchange, various llms that help you, etc.

erdos & ramanujan have amazing mathematica intuition which is kinda the 'heart' of math imho. btw...

Post reply on HN