We're not talking about being number 1
on
The Expert Mind
·
· Score: 1
We're talking about being expert. However, once you become expert the training required to become number 1 over the other experts become much harder, money, friends, family, weather etc can all make the difference but primarily motivation and drive are the key factors. Most people just aren't that driven, they reach a comfort level and then slack off.
I think for the rest of us its realistic to know we can do well but its not realistic
And you're not that driven either.
What you're talking about *is* motivation
on
The Expert Mind
·
· Score: 1
You aren't motivated to learn calculus, it's just something in the way of the subject you are interested in. If you were motivated to lean maths you would have studied it.
he needs to take people who are actually repelled by subject X, train them, and see if they become experts.
But these people will never become experts, they don't want to do the work, so they won't do what's required to become expert.
There is evidence it does apply to adults as well.
on
The Expert Mind
·
· Score: 1
The conclusion that experts rely more on structured knowledge than on analysis is supported by a rare case study of an initially weak chess player, identified only by the initials D.H., who over the course of nine years rose to become one of Canada's leading masters by 1987. Neil Charness, professor of psychology at Florida State University, showed that despite the increase in the player's strength, he analyzed chess positions no more extensively than he had earlier, relying instead on a vastly improved knowledge of chess positions and associated strategies."
It isn't true to say that other languages cannot be learned later in life either, though there is evidence that those who learn multiple languages as children are better equiped to learn additional languages as adults.
Or it's evidence of better training and motivation
on
The Expert Mind
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
You're interested in the subject, you learn it without seeing that learning as study. You work just as hard at it but don't see it as work, it's fun, your motivation is higher than people who see it as work.
You're a real killjoy. Looking for buried gold with radar is just missing the spirit of the exercise entirely. Ok so is a digger. They should have people out there with shovels.
He converted it all to gold... Which isn't such a bad idea the way the dollar is devaluing. Then he disappeared, presumably to come back and get it when AOL have given up.
People are creatures of habit and familiarity, he's probably hidden it somewhere he's familiar with and is fairly sure it's unlikely to be disturbed. Places he's visited regularly, holidayed, relatives etc. The more often he's been there the greater the familiarity and the greater the chance he's hidden it there. AOL are going after the logical first target.
OK, you're AOL management, you've successfully sued a spammer and discover he's hidden all his "hard earned" assets as gold and platinum bars somewhere. If you had the opportunity, wouldn't you be out there with shovels helping to dig the place up? I know I would.
What they should do is offer a 10% fee for finding the treasure.
The idea that they just worked harder, or rather, better than you is uncomfortable. It means that you're just lazy, don't have the necessary drive or don't know how to train.
It's much easier to believe that they are just innately better and it's not really your fault that you can't reach their level.
"But... if it's cheaper for them to get it from us, then why keep farming? Why not go do something else"
1: They are poor. Pitifully poor, they earn something like $60 per year. Spending that on foreign grain sends the money abroad rather than keeping it in the local economy. 2: They are ignorant. Completely undeducated, they don't know anything else. 3: Their country's economy is nearly non existant, you are assuming there is something else in the economy for them to do.
From your sarcasm it seems that you have no idea how free markets work... There is no such thing as innate value, the only value that something has is the demand for that thing.
The demand for comedy is higher than the demand for mathematical proofs. The recompense for either has absolutely nothing to do with merit, even if you believe a mathematical proof has more innate merit than comedy. BTW, if you do believe that, please define for us exactly how a mathematical proof is better (has more value or merit) than comedy.
"Ericsson argues that what matters is not experience per se but "effortful study," which entails continually tackling challenges that lie just beyond one's competence. That is why it is possible for enthusiasts to spend tens of thousands of hours playing chess or golf or a musical instrument without ever advancing beyond the amateur level and why a properly trained student can overtake them in a relatively short time."
The key term being "effortful study". The science almost directly contradicts what you said. The difference is the quality of the training. If you're training for hours and producing modest results, take a look at the way you train.
Sure, keep telling yourself that next time you see the pictures of famine and starvation in Africa. We're driving the 3rd world into famine and poverty so we don't have to pay over the odds occasionally on international market price of corn/oats/wheat/whatever.
If production goes down on a commodity, it's price/value increases and more people subsequently start producing it or customers switch to something else. High prices are temporary, they correct themselves.
There's a case for a base load of production to make sure that local famines are unlikely but beyond that there should be no subsidies. Gross overproduction kills people.
On the open market. What part of the word "subsidies" don't you understand? The "profit" you're getting a cut of is welfare. It's handed to you still warm from the taxpayers wallet.
That's right, with the subsidies, the american produce is cheaper than they can produce in the developing and third world. Imagine that, you have a farmer with American wages to pay, capital investment in equipment, debts to the banks and with the subsidies it's still cheaper to ship the stuff half way round the world.
The farmers in the third world can't enter the American market, the American market is busy dumping the produce on their market.
"Though I'm not quite sure why the farmers would give permission for parts of their crop to be destroyed (even if he/she's an OSS advocate)."
Because of the subsidies the crops have been overproduced into worthlessness. In the case of corn it fetches something around $2 per bushel on the open market, but $3 per bushel to grow the stuff. You the taxpayer, well, essentially burn money to keep farmers buzzing around on their big tonka toys feeling productive.
Oh and in the process, devastating the economies and agricultural markets of third world countries causing widespread famine and poverty.
It usually starts for children in most civilised countries at about 4 or 5 years old and continues informing the student with the best available information until they are somewhere around 21-22 years old. The students are often taught several subjects, including things like history, languages, science, mathematics, music and religious education.
Look, they need a generation of people who are willing, eager even to give up their lives for the benefit of the leadership. How better to get a couple of hundred thousand people to head on over to another country and sacrifice their lives securing em, lets say, oil resources. You tell them they're protecting their country from the other group of religious zealots and that they'll be going to heaven when they do get blown to pieces all over the road.
It isn't in the leadership's interest to have an educated, intelligent, secular and questioning populace.
Actually a lot of it comes from the ability to devalue the currency by printing money on demand.
The police, intelligence services, military industrial complex for instance have to be paid. You can do that by raising taxes, or by printing more money. Raising taxes is the obvious way to do it, but how popular are you going to be if you increase income and sales taxation? You'd be out at the next election.
Well, you control the printing presses, so just print more money, pay the services and suppliers with this new money, you can do what you like then without raising taxation and pissing off the electorate. Unfortunately, money like any commodity is subject to the laws of supply and demand so if you increase the amount of money around, each dollar becomes worth less and you have inflation, though you can easily deflect that blame on to others; Oil suppliers, employee wage demands, greedy retailers etc.
If the government was unable to print money (actually to borrow it) on demand, it's power to wage war, to pay for expensive surveillance etc would be very severely curtailed because it would have to raise taxation to pay for these services.
If you really want to limit the power of governments, then you have to remove or reduce their ability to create money on demand. If you're a libertarian for instance and really believe in small government then move your savings out of your local currency and into some other commodity; Property, gold, silver, shares etc.
The strangest thing is how casually we have come to take it for granted. We buy books from Amazon, airline tickets from Easyjet and Ryanair, tickets for theatres and cinemas online, as if doing so were the most natural thing in the world.
Welcome to the power of the liberal market, catastrophe theory and tipping points, or How Things Change. Who says mathematics is completely useless.
Just don't ever allow your kids to shred anything, even once. If you do, you may find yourself re-filling your taxes, one piece of sellotape at a time.
They're controlled forms of conflict. Codified warfare where males go out and prove their fitness to breed to females. The resulting wealth, cars, planes, yachts are all simply peacock feathers shouting look at what I've got, my progeny will be successfull.
(Yeah and btw, that's also why females are extremely unlikely to ever have full equality in the workplace. Sorry gals, you're not really competing for what you think you're competing for).
Interesting, he's going to go down in history with similar status as Gutenberg. One of the very very few people alive who will still be referenced in 500, 1000 years where even kings, prime ministers and presidents will be forgotten.
Slashdot Mirror
And you're not that driven either.
But these people will never become experts, they don't want to do the work, so they won't do what's required to become expert.
It isn't true to say that other languages cannot be learned later in life either, though there is evidence that those who learn multiple languages as children are better equiped to learn additional languages as adults.
You're interested in the subject, you learn it without seeing that learning as study. You work just as hard at it but don't see it as work, it's fun, your motivation is higher than people who see it as work.
You're a real killjoy. Looking for buried gold with radar is just missing the spirit of the exercise entirely. Ok so is a digger. They should have people out there with shovels.
He converted it all to gold... Which isn't such a bad idea the way the dollar is devaluing. Then he disappeared, presumably to come back and get it when AOL have given up.
People are creatures of habit and familiarity, he's probably hidden it somewhere he's familiar with and is fairly sure it's unlikely to be disturbed. Places he's visited regularly, holidayed, relatives etc. The more often he's been there the greater the familiarity and the greater the chance he's hidden it there. AOL are going after the logical first target.
OK, you're AOL management, you've successfully sued a spammer and discover he's hidden all his "hard earned" assets as gold and platinum bars somewhere. If you had the opportunity, wouldn't you be out there with shovels helping to dig the place up? I know I would.
What they should do is offer a 10% fee for finding the treasure.
The idea that they just worked harder, or rather, better than you is uncomfortable. It means that you're just lazy, don't have the necessary drive or don't know how to train.
It's much easier to believe that they are just innately better and it's not really your fault that you can't reach their level.
"But ... if it's cheaper for them to get it from us, then why keep farming? Why not go do something else"
1: They are poor. Pitifully poor, they earn something like $60 per year. Spending that on foreign grain sends the money abroad rather than keeping it in the local economy.
2: They are ignorant. Completely undeducated, they don't know anything else.
3: Their country's economy is nearly non existant, you are assuming there is something else in the economy for them to do.
From your sarcasm it seems that you have no idea how free markets work... There is no such thing as innate value, the only value that something has is the demand for that thing.
The demand for comedy is higher than the demand for mathematical proofs. The recompense for either has absolutely nothing to do with merit, even if you believe a mathematical proof has more innate merit than comedy. BTW, if you do believe that, please define for us exactly how a mathematical proof is better (has more value or merit) than comedy.
The key term being "effortful study". The science almost directly contradicts what you said. The difference is the quality of the training. If you're training for hours and producing modest results, take a look at the way you train.
Sure, keep telling yourself that next time you see the pictures of famine and starvation in Africa. We're driving the 3rd world into famine and poverty so we don't have to pay over the odds occasionally on international market price of corn/oats/wheat/whatever.
If production goes down on a commodity, it's price/value increases and more people subsequently start producing it or customers switch to something else. High prices are temporary, they correct themselves.
There's a case for a base load of production to make sure that local famines are unlikely but beyond that there should be no subsidies. Gross overproduction kills people.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&si d=aIUBO99o5fTw&refer=home
On the open market. What part of the word "subsidies" don't you understand? The "profit" you're getting a cut of is welfare. It's handed to you still warm from the taxpayers wallet.
That's right, with the subsidies, the american produce is cheaper than they can produce in the developing and third world. Imagine that, you have a farmer with American wages to pay, capital investment in equipment, debts to the banks and with the subsidies it's still cheaper to ship the stuff half way round the world.
The farmers in the third world can't enter the American market, the American market is busy dumping the produce on their market.
"Though I'm not quite sure why the farmers would give permission for parts of their crop to be destroyed (even if he/she's an OSS advocate)."
Because of the subsidies the crops have been overproduced into worthlessness. In the case of corn it fetches something around $2 per bushel on the open market, but $3 per bushel to grow the stuff. You the taxpayer, well, essentially burn money to keep farmers buzzing around on their big tonka toys feeling productive.
Oh and in the process, devastating the economies and agricultural markets of third world countries causing widespread famine and poverty.
It usually starts for children in most civilised countries at about 4 or 5 years old and continues informing the student with the best available information until they are somewhere around 21-22 years old. The students are often taught several subjects, including things like history, languages, science, mathematics, music and religious education.
Look, they need a generation of people who are willing, eager even to give up their lives for the benefit of the leadership. How better to get a couple of hundred thousand people to head on over to another country and sacrifice their lives securing em, lets say, oil resources. You tell them they're protecting their country from the other group of religious zealots and that they'll be going to heaven when they do get blown to pieces all over the road.
It isn't in the leadership's interest to have an educated, intelligent, secular and questioning populace.
Actually a lot of it comes from the ability to devalue the currency by printing money on demand.
The police, intelligence services, military industrial complex for instance have to be paid. You can do that by raising taxes, or by printing more money. Raising taxes is the obvious way to do it, but how popular are you going to be if you increase income and sales taxation? You'd be out at the next election.
Well, you control the printing presses, so just print more money, pay the services and suppliers with this new money, you can do what you like then without raising taxation and pissing off the electorate. Unfortunately, money like any commodity is subject to the laws of supply and demand so if you increase the amount of money around, each dollar becomes worth less and you have inflation, though you can easily deflect that blame on to others; Oil suppliers, employee wage demands, greedy retailers etc.
If the government was unable to print money (actually to borrow it) on demand, it's power to wage war, to pay for expensive surveillance etc would be very severely curtailed because it would have to raise taxation to pay for these services.
If you really want to limit the power of governments, then you have to remove or reduce their ability to create money on demand. If you're a libertarian for instance and really believe in small government then move your savings out of your local currency and into some other commodity; Property, gold, silver, shares etc.
Welcome to the power of the liberal market, catastrophe theory and tipping points, or How Things Change. Who says mathematics is completely useless.
Hey, it's fun to shred stuff...
Just don't ever allow your kids to shred anything, even once. If you do, you may find yourself re-filling your taxes, one piece of sellotape at a time.
They're controlled forms of conflict. Codified warfare where males go out and prove their fitness to breed to females. The resulting wealth, cars, planes, yachts are all simply peacock feathers shouting look at what I've got, my progeny will be successfull.
(Yeah and btw, that's also why females are extremely unlikely to ever have full equality in the workplace. Sorry gals, you're not really competing for what you think you're competing for).
Hmm, the difference between cost and value again. Beads for the natives mate...
And both Friends Reunited and EasyJet are very popular UK web sites.
He said flashing his 4 digit UID. Oi you, get off my lawn.
Interesting, he's going to go down in history with similar status as Gutenberg. One of the very very few people alive who will still be referenced in 500, 1000 years where even kings, prime ministers and presidents will be forgotten.