> This is the opposite of how you should want any knowledge worker to think.
Some of us don't choose our beliefs based on what is most convenient or most beneficial to us. Instead, we try to see the world for what it is, truthfully (or as close to a true representation of the world as it's possible to get, anyway). If having a realistic worldview hinders my ability to learn, then so be it. Not everything is about maximizing productivity.
> If having a realistic worldview hinders my ability to learn, then so be it.
I think the point is that the worldview you described is not realistic.
Many people are successful because of hard work and dedication. Sometimes having talent in a tangential field (design, reading, being a good listener) is enough to make you an excellent engineer or team member. Success is complicated and often depends more on the world than on your particular attributes. Example: Maxwell was a true genius, but he had Faraday's life's work to read through. Faraday was a hard worker and a meticulous note taker who didn't really know math, but without his work Maxwell would not have been able to write his equations. Can you imagine if Faraday gave up science because he wasn't good at math?
I feel the core idea is that hard work and deliberate practice will move both those with talent and those without forward and fretting over things you cannot change is an exercise in futility, and you're rather focus on things that you can change.
I fully you agree with you here. But that's not the core idea in the post you're referring to. The core idea in that post was that beliefs should be chosen based on utility, as opposed to truthfulness. I disagree with that idea, because I think truth has inherent value in and of itself. I want to believe things that are true, even if those beliefs are harmful to me.
Furthermore, the poster has very clearly expressed in subsequent posts that they don't believe talent ("innate ability") exists. I strongly disagree with this idea as well, and there is a mountain of evidence to support my position.
Nope. Just because it says so in a book doesn't make it true. When you make a statement of the form "X does not exist", a single counter-example is sufficient to prove you wrong. Lucky for me, many such counter-examples exist, and many have even been discussed in this thread. I'll add one to the list: tourist (Gennady Korotkevich). He's a competitive coder that's several orders of magnitude (e.g. 1000x) better at coding competitions than the average competitor. And the average competitor is a few orders of magnitude better than the average professional programmer who doesn't have algorithm experience. All of this is measurable (at most we can quibble about whether the skill differences are 100x or 10000x or infinite). If you don't believe me, please go and take a simulated Codeforces competition right now and see how long it will take you to solve some set of problems that tourist solved in under 2 hours (or if you will be able to solve them at all - I certainly won't be able to solve the hardest Codeforces div1 problems no matter how much time I put in).
I have a feeling this mountain of empirical evidence was insufficient to change your mind about this. I would appreciate if you could take the time to explain why? Why is this evidence not enough?
I think you’re missing the point or I was unclear. The point is not that masters at a skill don't exist. The point is that attributing their skill mostly to something innate rather than practice, study, etc is not supported by the body of research they review in the book (the book is written for a general audience, their academic research supports the arguments in the book).
There is a mountain of evidence to the contrary. No matter how much you or I would practice, study, etc. we would never become as good as tourist. Most people reach their plateau in competitive coding within 1 year.
is it at all possible that practice and study are insufficient to create further growth? What I think faizshah is talking about is that there is enormous complexity that goes into creating skill.
what sort of community do you leverage for their knowledge? how frequently do you expose yourself to new ideas? do you practice abstraction in places other than code? do you practice effectively and take notes that you review? keep a journal? meditate? are you in good cardiovascular shape?
all of these are the tip of the iceberg when it comes to contributing factors. a plateau is a sign of stagnant processes.
I apologize in advance for what I'm sure is a frustrating tone. I'm sympathetic to your situation.
> is it at all possible that practice and study are insufficient to create further growth? What I think faizshah is talking about is that there is enormous complexity that goes into creating skill.
Sure there is enormous complexity and many factors that go into creating skill, but that's a generic claim, whereas faizsah was making some specific claims. In particular, they were claiming that talent does not exist (or "innate ability" is not a significant contributor to creation of skill, if you want to phrase it more softly). There is a mountain of evidence to show that innate ability is one of the largest differentiating factors between "masters" at a skill compared to "normal people" who practice that skill.
> a plateau is a sign of stagnant processes.
Nope, there are limits to achievable skill. If I practice height jumping, I'm going to plateau pretty quickly and make only incremental improvements even with the best of processes. Same goes for mental pursuits like competitive programming as well.
... And the limits are personal, and can vary immensely, unfair as it might be. Some people high jump 2.45 meter, or design a spaceship that flies to the moon, whilst most people couldn't do this in a thousand lifetimes
Usually, though, people don't do something for long enough to get close to their limits, so, generally in life, all this doesn't matter that much, does it.
And to keep trying and doing what one enjoy is good advice :-)
Some of us don't choose our beliefs based on what is most convenient or most beneficial to us. Instead, we try to see the world for what it is, truthfully (or as close to a true representation of the world as it's possible to get, anyway). If having a realistic worldview hinders my ability to learn, then so be it. Not everything is about maximizing productivity.