Conversation

Everyone wants to discover and invest in the "smartest" and "most driven" people 👀 I instinctively want to avoid anyone who makes it through such a filter
14
352
I've occasionally faked my way into rigged lists of "smartest" under test conditions, and occasionally managed to fake "driven" for several weeks in a row, but if anyone seriously tried to bet on me using such tests in hopes of returns, damn... I'd be a total shitcoin. No moon.
2
99
If I had money to throw at such ideas, I'd probably go for random distribution. At most some testing of basic mental competence to handle money, and not being a known serial killer or something. And no return in an income share sense, just gently encourage a pay-it-forward norm
2
58
Anyone who wants to create artificial selection pressures regimes to reproduce their notions of optimal human beings is typically trying to clone a self-congratulatory idea of themselves at scale
2
169
It's not that it can't work in an investment sense. You'll almost certainly get a certain "yield" of stars, a bunch of mediocrities, and some dogs you quietly ignore. It's just a shitty way to think about human development in general.
4
67
The kind of idea I really like is for systems that can take average mediocrities as input and produce interesting results and evolutions.
3
122
College used to be that. Then it got to be an expensive form of generational wealth transfer and class boundary policing.
2
90
My objection btw isn't about false positive or false negative errors, it's about the very idea of exceptionally privileging exceptionality at the expense of the ability of the ordinary to pursue completely ordinary lives
4
94
Replying to
Mediocrity will do as it does without help. Hoping for the exceptional is raging against the dying of the light. The former is important to come to terms with, but holding it up as an ideal is perverse.
1
Show additional replies, including those that may contain offensive content
Show