[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.

[wpietri]

Cognitive biases don't work like that. Yes, you may believe in some fashion that the world isn't just. But that doesn't mean you won't apply the fallacy when it backs some previously held view.