[ZhuanXia]

I often wonder about this in the context of musicians and actors. You would have to be a fool to pick such careers, as the prospects are so dim. Yet because of this dimness the selection pressure is very high on the pool of contenders. So our best actors and musicians are fool/geniuses.

Which implies the most innately talented potential musicians and actors are working at a hedge fund or Google DeepMind. And perhaps the odd personalities of musicians and actors is more to do with the bottlenecked selection than some relationship between talent and impulsivity: Only the egotistical and impulsive would step into such fray.

And so we are left not with the best but with the best of a bad lot!

[diego]

That assumes everyone picks their job as a rational economic actor. This is clearly not the case. Even if it were, if you believe you have a decent change then you might as well give it one shot, and if it doesn't work then you can fall back on something else while you're young.

Note that this is the same rational for starting a startup. Would you argue that all successful startup founders are the best of a bad lot?

[ZeroFries]

Or, you know, they enjoy the craft/art-form, and want to do it professionally. There's definitely some weird selection pressure in show-biz, and impulsiveness/ego may play a small role, but there's a million ego-maniacs for every Tom Cruise.

[j88439h84]

People wanting a more reliable job can work in any field with reliable jobs. I dont understand why you picked the most prestigious ones. Aren't they more likely to be farmers or nurses or teachers?

[brianwawok]

Musican and actor are winner take all (or most markets).

Economics would predict the 10 guys really really good at singing would tour, as they make many millions of dollars.. and the guys that are only OK at singing (but also good at math), go on to be accountants and sit in a desk somewhere. Global demand for accountants is much higher than singers.