The Mountain Bastard

4.2K posts

The Mountain Bastard banner
The Mountain Bastard

The Mountain Bastard

@MBastard2

Grumpus Mountain Man

Washington Katılım Mayıs 2024
244 Takip Edilen288 Takipçiler
Sabitlenmiş Tweet
The Mountain Bastard
The Mountain Bastard@MBastard2·
I’d prefer not to be a dick, but the world seems short of them right now. You can’t reason with this insanity, so the only option is to mock.
The Mountain Bastard tweet media
English
1
0
28
1.8K
Super 70s Sports
Super 70s Sports@Super70sSports·
Who’s the greatest athlete who went to any school you’ve graduated from? I’ll start: Johnny Unitas, University of Louisville.
Super 70s Sports tweet media
English
776
35
856
84.5K
The Mountain Bastard
The Mountain Bastard@MBastard2·
@neontaster There isn’t a single human need we don’t pay for… This is why we had to bring back the word “retarded.”
English
0
0
0
97
The Mountain Bastard
The Mountain Bastard@MBastard2·
I wasn’t always the Mountain Bastard. Before I became the Bastard, I was soft and weak… …but I came from good stock. This guy next to me had quintuple bypass surgery less than a month after this climb. He was a tough sonifabitch.
The Mountain Bastard tweet media
English
0
0
0
9
The Mountain Bastard
The Mountain Bastard@MBastard2·
@wil_da_beast630 I grew up with an older brother and sister who were not genetically related to me. I was, however, genetically my parents, child. We were all raised in an identical environment… I ended up like my parents. My brother and sister are nothing like my parents.
English
0
0
2
124
Wilfred Reilly
Wilfred Reilly@wil_da_beast630·
About 80% of this is just that the guy who raised the chess-master kids is an IQ-140+ shrink whose work I've read. Like, if I wanted to "raise my son to be a professional writer who also played high school varsity sports," there's a 95% chance I could.
Ihtesham Ali@ihtesham2005

A Hungarian psychologist raised three daughters to prove that any child could become a chess grandmaster through early specialization. He succeeded. Two of them became grandmasters. One became the greatest female chess player who ever lived. Then a sports scientist looked at the data and found something nobody wanted to hear. His name is David Epstein. The book is called "Range." The Polgar experiment is one of the most famous case studies in the history of deliberate practice. Laszlo Polgar wrote a book before his daughters were even born arguing that geniuses are made, not born. He homeschooled all three girls in chess from age four. By their teens, Susan, Sofia, and Judit were dominating tournaments against grown men. Judit became the youngest grandmaster in history at the time, breaking Bobby Fischer's record. The story became the gospel of early specialization. Pick a domain young, drill it hard, and you can manufacture excellence. Epstein opens his book by telling that story honestly and then quietly demolishing the conclusion most people drew from it. Chess works that way. Most things do not. Here is the distinction that took him four years of research to articulate, and that almost nobody who quotes the 10,000 hour rule has ever read. There are two kinds of environments in which humans develop expertise. Psychologists call them kind and wicked. A kind environment has clear rules, immediate feedback, and patterns that repeat reliably. Chess is the cleanest example. Every game ends with a winner and a loser. Every move is recorded. The board never changes shape. The pieces never invent new ways to move. A child who plays ten thousand games will see most of the patterns that exist in the game, and pattern recognition is exactly what chess mastery is built on. A wicked environment is the opposite. Feedback is delayed or misleading. Rules shift. The patterns that worked yesterday may be exactly the wrong patterns to apply tomorrow. Most of the real world looks like this. Medicine is wicked. Investing is wicked. Building a company is wicked. Scientific research is wicked. Almost every job that involves a complex changing system with humans in it is wicked. The Polgar sisters trained in the kindest environment any human can train in. Their success was real and the method was correct. The mistake was generalizing the method to fields where the underlying structure of the environment is completely different. Epstein's research is what made the implication impossible to ignore. He looked at the careers of elite athletes outside of chess and golf and found that the pattern was almost the inverse of what people assumed. The athletes who reached the very top of their sports were overwhelmingly people who had played multiple sports as children, specialized late, and often switched disciplines well into their teens. Roger Federer played squash, badminton, basketball, handball, tennis, table tennis, and soccer before tennis became his focus. The kids who specialized in tennis at age six and trained year-round for a decade mostly burned out, got injured, or topped out at lower levels of the sport. The same pattern showed up everywhere he looked outside of kind environments. Inventors with the most patents had worked in multiple unrelated fields before their breakthrough work. Comic book creators with the longest careers had drawn for the most different genres before settling. Scientists who won Nobel Prizes were dramatically more likely than their peers to be serious amateur musicians, painters, sculptors, or writers. The skill that mattered in wicked environments was not depth in one pattern. It was the ability to recognize when a pattern from one domain applied unexpectedly in another. That kind of thinking cannot be built by drilling a single subject. It can only be built by accumulating mental models from many subjects and learning to move between them. The deeper finding is the one that should change how you think about your own career. Specialists in wicked environments often get worse with experience, not better. Epstein cites studies of doctors, financial analysts, intelligence officers, and forecasters showing that years of experience in a narrow domain frequently produce more confident judgments without producing more accurate ones. The expert builds elaborate mental models that feel comprehensive and turn out to be increasingly disconnected from the actual structure of the problem. They stop noticing what does not fit their framework. They mistake fluency for understanding. Generalists do better in wicked domains for a reason that sounds almost mystical until you understand the mechanism. They have less invested in any single mental model, so they abandon broken models faster. They are used to being a beginner, so they are not threatened by the discomfort of not knowing. They have seen enough different domains that they can usually find an analogy from one field that unlocks a problem in another. The technical name for this is analogical thinking, and the research on it is one of the most underrated bodies of work in cognitive science. The single most useful sentence in the entire book is the one Epstein puts almost as a throwaway. Match quality matters more than head start. A person who tries six different fields in their twenties and finds the one that genuinely fits them will outperform a person who picked one field at fourteen and stuck to it on willpower alone. The lost years were not lost. They were the search process that produced the match. Every field they walked away from taught them something they later imported into the field they finally chose. The reason this is so hard to accept is cultural, not empirical. We tell children to pick a path early. We reward the prodigy who knew at six. We treat the late bloomer as someone who failed to launch on time, when the data suggests they were running an entirely different and often more effective optimization process underneath. The Polgar sisters were not wrong. The conclusion the world drew from them was. If your environment is genuinely kind, specialize early and drill hard. If it is wicked, and almost every interesting human problem is, then the people who win are the ones who refused to specialize until they had seen enough to know what was actually worth specializing in. You are not behind. You were running the right experiment all along.

English
14
13
159
17.3K
The Mountain Bastard
The Mountain Bastard@MBastard2·
@wil_da_beast630 I'm not so bothered by lowering the score for an A, but why the hell is someone with a 25% receiving a passing grade?
English
0
0
0
42
David Marcus
David Marcus@BlueBoxDave·
What percentage of the wealth in Somalia comes directly from fraud against the American government?
English
87
97
783
50.8K
The Mountain Bastard
The Mountain Bastard@MBastard2·
@BlueBoxDave I live one county to the north of Seattle. Those people despise me… And the feeling is mutual. I hope they continue to elect people like her. I want to see them get everything they vote for.
English
0
0
9
106
The Mountain Bastard
The Mountain Bastard@MBastard2·
@wil_da_beast630 40 years ago or so in StL, the Post Dispatch made a big deal about disparity in police stops. Nothing but raw numbers. No accounting for vehicle registration or driving habits. Simply "more black people per capita pulled over...so...racism." Funny, they hate per capita now
English
0
0
2
183
Clifton Duncan
Clifton Duncan@cliftonaduncan·
If you came of age listening to female rappers like MC Lyte, Queen Latifah, Salt N' Peppa and Lauryn Hill, you understand the visceral disgust I feel seeing this.
keeno ✧@ayekeeno

Bobbi Althoff was genuinely speechless after Sexy Redd started listing off the names for her lip gloss brand, saying stores like Sephora & Ulta REFUSE to carry it because of the names 💀😭 “gonorrhea, yellow discharge, p-ssyhole pink, bootyhole brown, nut, blue balls”

English
139
256
2.6K
104.2K
Amiri King
Amiri King@AmiriKing·
Mexicans all day. 😎
English
14
2
64
3.4K
Amiri King
Amiri King@AmiriKing·
Here’s a great test that’ll reinforce the stereotypes. Did you hear what I heard?
English
135
139
1.4K
36.5K