I think the problem is that people interpret the "do anything" part as "become #1 at anything" (i.e., "prodigy" as per the parent post).
I would say something like "get to the 80th percentile at anything" (or even 95th) would be much more accurate, though, that doesn't sound as catchy. Heck, in many areas you don't even need to work _that_ much or hard to get to the top 20% or so, it's just a matter of a reasonably informed and structured approach, exercised over time.
Re:Becoming a Chess Grandmaster
by The_Colonel on Monday July 26, 2021 @01:45PM
(#27962542)
> I would say something like "get to the 80th percentile at anything" (or even 95th) would be much more accurate, though, that doesn't sound as catchy.
In many areas (sport, art etc.) being in the 80th or even 95th percentile means failure.
Obligatory Dan Luu reference on how 95th percentile of anything is not that impressive https://danluu.com/p95-skill/
The article mentions that chess GM level is probably more like 99.9th percentile. At that level you need to be both very talented and practice very hard.
Re:Becoming a Chess Grandmaster
by fernandopj on Monday July 26, 2021 @01:31PM
(#27962329)
Polgar set out to turn their children into prodigies, but it could have been any field.
They all descibre chess as been what they were introduced and chose to pursue [1], but they were educated in many areas.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%A1szl%C3%B3_Polg%C3%A1r
Re:Becoming a Chess Grandmaster
by automatic6131 on Monday July 26, 2021 @11:50AM
(#27960944)
>I honestly don't understand the "If you work hard enough you can do anything" mindset.
I've encountered these people and it's always a case of being insulated from the reality of what the "anything" in question is.
Re:Becoming a Chess Grandmaster
by systemvoltage on Monday July 26, 2021 @01:01PM
(#27961907)
Working hard to get 90% good at something is very valuable though. That’s how I pay my bills.
I honestly don't understand the "If you work hard enough you can do anything" mindset.
To me it's clearly, obviously, objectively wrong - because otherwise you'd be able to take take absolutely any random child and turn them into a chess prodigy, a musical prodigy, an art prodigy, a literary prodigy, a sports prodigy or a STEM prodigy just by hot housing them.
There's no doubt a lot of talent is wasted by circumstance. But does anyone really believe that at the top levels, hard work will compensate for lack of aptitude?
Edit: Polgar experiment. Inconclusive without a bigger sample and a control group, surely.