[lkdjjdjjjdskjd]

Most people don't obsess about rockets. I would find the story more convincing if there were also examples of "talents" who didn't go anywhere. I find it rather likely that people with his talents would always find a way.

Of course there is always untapped potential, for the time being. That is why there are still startups and entrepreneurs, who try to release that potential. But it is not as simple as hiring diverse genders and races.

It is simply a hard problem to enable people to make the most out of their talents and potentials.

The Tom Mueller case seems to illustrate that well. What if there had been no SpaceX during his lifetime. Who would have been to blame? What would there have to be done? Perhaps Tom Mueller would have started his own Space company? Or maybe not. But whose duty would it supposedly be to provide a space company for people like him to work at?

Most people are not even sure how to enable their own children to make the most of their talents (or to develop some talents to begin with) - let alone some strangers. I think that also shows that it is not primarily an issue of diversity. We simply don't know enough about developing talents and making the most out of life yet. So we experiment - sometimes it works out, and sometimes it doesn't.

What exactly made Tom Mueller obsessed with rockets? If I want my kids to become rocket scientists, should I send them to lumber jack camps in the summer?

[wpietri]

There's a contradiction between your two statements:

> I would find the story more convincing if there were also examples of "talents" who didn't go anywhere.

> I find it rather likely that people with his talents would always find a way.

The latter is basically the just world fallacy. [1] It assumes that the outcomes are correct. If you were offered examples of people who the writer said were talented but didn't go anywhere, I think you'd just just bring the just world fallacy to bear, believing that their bad outcome was proof that they weren't really talented.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis

[lkdjjdjjjdskjd]

I am not the one who wrote an article making claims, so why should the burden of proof be on me? I dnn't think your criticism of my comment is fair at all.

The author made a claim, so they should support it. That has nothing to do with just world hypothesis. Also, he actually provided an example of somebody prevailing against the odds.

The only evidence that talent might be wasted is our feelings that it may be so. That's not enough.

As for contradicting statements, it seems to me my statements both say the same thing. Both are a request for providing evidence of (unfairly) wasted talents.

[wpietri]

It wasn't an article. It especially wasn't a scientific study. They were offering a viewpoint and an example.

But if you're right, and people should always offer ironclad proof of claims, please show me the studies that back your claim that "The author made a claim, so they should support it." I will only accept high-n, double-blind studies published in major journals. Thanks in advance.

[lkdjjdjjjdskjd]

They are not obliged to provide examples or proofs, but I am also not obliged to believe their claims. If you want, I "offered" my "viewpoint" that the support of their argument was insufficient.

Moreover, I am ENTITLED to having doubts. Isn't that what the modern world (and also the article here) is all about? Entitlement?

In general, more double-blind studies would be a good thing, so what is your point?

[wpietri]

My point is that you're bringing up an absurd, inapplicable standard to further justify your application of the just-world fallacy.

[lkdjjdjjjdskjd]

All I did was ask for some examples. That's not an absurd, inapplicable standard.

And I am not applying the just-world fallacy. I think it is a completely misguided way to think about the world to begin with.

Of course not everybody reaches the optimal outcome in life. That doesn't make it unfair or an injustice.

Why did nobody inspire me to buy Google stock when I was a teenager? Then I would be a millionaire by now. Other people became millionaires because they bought Google stock.

So unfair! It is such an injustice! Obviously I am entitled to be bestowed millions by society now, because the only reason I am not a millionaire is because society didn't point me towards buying stock as a youth.

Also, I think I am entitled to at least 1000 Bitcoin. Can I send you my address? It is not my fault that society didn't encourage me to become a computer geek who would then experiment with Bitcoin mining in 2009.

So obviously I don't believe in a "just world", because I myself am a living example of it not being just!

While you can frame your view of the world that way, and not rest until everybody in the world is EXACTLY the same (you may also look into genetic engineering, because it won't do that some people are more beautiful than others), I think it is a completely silly approach.

[zug_zug]

Uh, I think the point is that we need to build fair systems that reward high-performers. This answers all of your questions.

>> What if there had been no SpaceX during his lifetime.

We need a fair and level capitalist system that reduces barriers-to-entry for innovative companies and stops monopolistic practices. This will ensure that good ideas are profitable and make it in investors self-interest to build companies around the Muellers of the world.

>> We simply don't know enough about developing talents and making the most out of life yet.

The point is, we need to build systems that enables geniuses to be discovered regardless of races, resume, age, skintone, college. By-and-large the software industry is already incredibly efficient at this relative to other industries.

Other industries (e.g. healthcare) should adapt or be eaten. Software should double-down on talent speaking for itself (e.g. blind interviews, open coding competitions for all)

[lkdjjdjjjdskjd]

"The point is, we need to build systems that enables geniuses to be discovered regardless of races, resume, age, skintone, college."

I was referring to that. It is a hard problem, not simply a matter of hiring more ethnically diverse people. If you just say "we need a better system", frankly I consider it a fluff article. There is no actionable information in it. It would be like saying "we need to create better cancer treatments" - yeah, sure, but HOW?

"We need a fair and level capitalist system that reduces barriers-to-entry for innovative companies and stops monopolistic practices."

I am not convinced our current system is unfair. At least the article doesn't provide any evidence for it, as I said. It seems to me all sorts of companies are trying to improve opportunities for everyone (YCombinator Startup School, MOOCs come to mind). The lack of opportunities for some people is not because of unfairness, but because we don't know how to do it better yet.

But who is "unfair" here? Again - if nobody would have created a space agency for Tom Mueller to work for, would it have been unfair? And who would have been to blame? I really don't think fairness is the dominant issue here.

[Animats]

"The point is, we need to build systems that enables geniuses to be discovered regardless of races, resume, age, skintone, college."

Which the US did in the 1960s, out of fear that the USSR was gaining. Heavy IQ testing and attempts to identify gifted students. Now it's all about "no child left behind", trying to do something for the losers.

[lkdjjdjjjdskjd]

How did that turn out? My impression is we simply don't know enough about creating prodigies yet.

There is the Polgar/Ericsson approach, but it may be too narrow. It may enable us to create, say, chess prodigies - but how do we pick the fields for people to become prodigies in? Also, it might not be economically feasible. I think Polgar educated his kids as a full time job. Can't do that with everybody.

[Animats]

Most people don't obsess about rockets.

Not any more. That was back in the Space Age, 1956-1973.

[lkdjjdjjjdskjd]

That Tom Mueller guy is building rockets right now, though.

The point is, there may simply not be that many people obsessing about some things to the point of becoming geniuses in their field.