(Untitled)

[jcreed]

An interesting hypothesis about what makes people's background seem impressive or not: the short version is, if you're unable to easily picture how someone accomplished something, it seems very impressive, as an orthogonal factor to how hard it actually was.

Comments

[platypuslord]

I agree.

[jcreed]

Yeah, fair point. I think I like the article more for simply articulating a kind of impressiveness (which as your other comment points out, definitely can be/seem "forced") than convincing me it's the dominant factor. It also connects with some things I've read in the past about magic tricks, shrug.

[physics_dude]

I, personally, am not impressed by sports, but David clearly demonstrated leadership and grit which might translate to other areas. When you break down Steve's story, it doesn't clearly show much other than his maturity of priorities, as you call it. He certainly deserves credit for that much, but we don't know from this how much responsibility he actually had or how successful he was in Johannesburg.

I think the important observation is this: "serendipitous occurrences developed, over time, into something inexplicable." It's fine to make a value judgment in favor of Steve, but it raises interesting questions. What if Steve had not stumbled into the UN? How do you identify a potential Steve? How also do you determine if a Steve was essential or simply in the right place at the right time, given your supposed failure of simulation?

[meshach]

That's really interesting. The flip side is that people have to be able to understand what you accomplished. I think valuing the outcome is important too as Chrisamphone says.

For example tanning an animal hide is seen as less impressive than making a pair of saddles even though the shoes take 20 minutes.