comment
stringlengths 1
9.86k
| context
sequencelengths 0
530
|
|---|---|
>
I assume that Arizona cared enough to NOT elect a whacked out fascist, but ya know... reality and all that | [
"This is why every vote matters\nCongratulations to the people of Arizona",
">\n\nThank goodness Katie Hobbs was in charge of her own election. It’s much easier to win for yourself and your party when you purposefully screw things up for voters causing 2+ hour lines and disenfranchising thousands of citizens voting on Election Day. With leadership like Katie I’m sure Democrats will keep winning for a long time!",
">\n\n\nwhen you purposefully screw things up for voters causing 2+ hour lines and disenfranchising thousands of citizens voting on Election Day. With leadership like Katie I’m sure Democrats will keep winning for a long time!\n\nCitation needed. You know who is to blame? Conservative mouthpieces telling their base to vote last minute when problems can arise. Newsflash to all: early voting works! :)\nAlso, should be noted that across the state there were major Republican election officials who corroborate the integrity of the election.",
">\n\nYou know you're grasping at straws when your argument is \"telling people to vote is disenfranchisement\" LOL you made me laugh",
">\n\nSo, to be clear:\n\nStill no source.\nNo recognition of the failed anti-early voting propaganda from the right that backfired amusingly. \nNo recognition to the numerous state election republican officials who backed the integrity of the elections. (I'd be surprised if you could name them). \nNo recognition to the countless failed court challenges.",
">\n\nI'm a fan of short voting lines across the board. That's why I encourage everyone to do the legal, safe, effective early-voting. Republicans should have done the same. \nLong lines disenfranchise all. I'm sure many dems were in those lines, too.\nAlso, this does not substantiate your claim that Hobbs intentionally did this lol.\nThe judge agrees with me: you can't make accusations about intention without evidence. That would be irresponsible and baseless. If it didn't matter, you and Lake wouldn't be trying to shoehorn in the intentional part. Especially considering this impacts all voters, not just Republicans.\nAlso wait, do you want Hobbs to be hands-on, or hands-off the election? Can't blame her for being in charge while running for governor and then also want her to run it closely and not delegate responsibilities to someone else (which she largely did; see Bill Gates).",
">\n\n\nAlso, this does not substantiate your claim that Hobbs intentionally did this lol.\n\nMaybe you're mistaking me with somebody else, but I never made this claim and I don't care if it was intentional or not.\nIf somebody unintentionally rigs an election... call me old fashioned but I say that's bad! I never said it was intentional. At best, it was negligence... but who knows if it was intentional or not!?",
">\n\nAgain, quoting you:\n\nwhen you purposefully screw things up for voters causing 2+ hour lines and disenfranchising thousands of citizens voting on Election Day. With leadership like Katie I’m sure Democrats will keep winning for a long time!\n\nSynonymous with intentional. Also, again: Republican election officials from Richter to Gates corroborate the integrity of the election. Also, again, no group was targeted since all groups were in those lines. \nAlso, voting lines are often long and yes should be addressed. There would be less lines if Republicans were encouraged to use the system in place in Arizona that is literally a model for the country. That's not the fault of Hobbs that misinformation among Republicans abounds and adds strain to a system that shouldn't need to be strained.",
">\n\nNegligence is purposeful, but that doesn’t mean it’s an intentional action.\nThe lines weren’t 2-3 hours because there were a lot of people. Those lines were there because of a failure in administration, oversight, testing, etc. (i.e. responsibilities of the SOS)",
">\n\n\nRepublican attorneys are going to look through the numbers again and see if there's any grounds to do anything going forward\n\nRelentless.",
">\n\nEhh.\nI support everyone's right to exhaust every legal avenue. If the Republican won by one vote, I'd support the Democrats' right to see if it can be legally overturned, too.\nThe problem is the extrajudicial bullshit the Republicans are trying, not legitimate legal challenges.",
">\n\nWhat legal avenues are there after the recount? Just keep recounting until they get a result they like?",
">\n\nI'm not a lawyer, so I don't know exactly.\nBut if--and that's a big hypothetical \"if\", not something I actually believe happened--for example there were an unusually large discrepancy in the recount, that might be worth challenging. If there's evidence that vote-counters were openly partisan, that might be worth challenging. Hell, if there's evidence that illegal voter suppression caused a significant shift from polling, that might be worth challenging.\nThe point is, if there are legal avenues, it's everyone's right to explore them. The problem is not challenging the results of the election through established legal means, it's challenging the results of the election outside of those established legal avenues.",
">\n\nEvery time they dig into investigating that stuff, they find more wrongdoing on the Republican side, and then try to brush the whole thing under the rug.",
">\n\nI'm not denying that. The point I'm trying to make is that the system must hold. If we want to be able to challenge Republican bullshit, we need to let the Republicans challenge whatever it's legal for them to challenge too. The moment we tell them no, we have zero defense against them telling us no too. In the meantime, the courts will throw out the bullshit.",
">\n\nOh, I wasn't disagreeing with you at all. The system must indeed hold. I was just pointing out that when they do fight it, it always ends up worse for them.",
">\n\n\n”My legal team will be assessing our options to make sure every vote is counted,” wrote Hamadeh, who hasn’t conceded to Mayes.\n\nFor fuck’s sake, THEY JUST COUNTED EVERY VOTE. That’s what a recount is, you absolute fucking DONKEY.",
">\n\nWell, the deficit was almost cut in half after the recount. At this rate, theyd have to recount it an infinite amount of times for it to be super close.",
">\n\nKnow your limits",
">\n\nMy understanding is that this is also the first state level election where the excess death rate of Covid on Republicans likely led to a Democratic victory. The more you know…",
">\n\nConsidering the margin she won by? Yeah, if the Republicans actually pushed their base to embrace proper health measures then they would have won.",
">\n\nThat could probably be said for a wider national look. Hopefully a study comes out in a couple of years on the Covid effect",
">\n\nI think that the Repubs could lose a substantial number of their older die-hard voters over just the next couple of years based on the resistance of many of them to masking and vaccinations. Plus in any year, you'll always have the expected mortality from heart disease, cancer, diabetes, Alzheimer's, accidents, etc. And even some of the younger ones look like health-disasters-waiting-to-happen, i.e. 'Gravy Seals' and 'Meal Team Six.'",
">\n\nWaiting for either evil or idiots to die doesn't usually go well. I've been hearing that far too long and know too many young conservatives, this is not something that just dies off. They must be fought or taught.",
">\n\nArizona has started realizing how much the GOP has screwed them. Unlike Texas, the state has started getting wise and sadly when John McCain died and Trump and company turned on his family and their narrative since he by one vote kept them from repelling the Affordable Health Care Act. When they didn't have a DAMN THING to replace it. Arizona didn't like that and while so many held on with the \"Big Lie\". Now with Lake and company losing so much and all the former GOP government pretty much trying to scorch Earth as they leave. I can see major change for the state. I know my family down there is very happy.",
">\n\nWell most people agree that the Affordable care act is a good thing. Even the red Republican. That's if you call it the ACA. But call it Obama Care no it's bad. What these people are doing is playing on the uneducated not knowing anything. The good thing is things should be going into the right direction. Especially after lake lost her election and election lawsuit.",
">\n\nI’ve literally seen people say Obamacare is bad but they’re glad they have the ACA to provide them health insurance\nThe cognitive dissonance in republicans is astounding",
">\n\nI work at the University monitoring classes. One the them was a history instructor. She said that they did a survey and highlighting everything that the ACA did. But what they did was changed the name. People viewed ACA more favorably when it was called the ACA over Obamacare. It is astonishing.",
">\n\nWell that was basically the point of that branding, wasn't it? \nBy branding the ACA as \"Obamacare,\" the GQP had a very easy time energizing and enraging their voters. They spent so much time to basically hammer in \"Obama bad\" so that by getting people to associate something fundamentally good with someone they hate, the GQP could gain power.\nThere are and were content-oriented critiques of the ACA. But those didn't matter much to the GQP because those critiques would require explaining nuances and their audience having a rudimentary understanding of healthcare law. It is much harder to get a primal reaction with that than it is to get one from saying \"this person bad and evil, this come from bad and evil person.\"",
">\n\nWell that's encouraging. Maybe AZ is rounding a corner and coming to it's senses?",
">\n\nNaw, shits gonna hit the fan now",
">\n\nHow so",
">\n\nRepublicans are going to raise holy hell",
">\n\nLol who cares, they get mad about fictional characters being the wrong race. Impotent outrage is their addiction.",
">\n\nWould help if the media quit covering their outrage as news.",
">\n\nTerrible headline. The Democrat won BEFORE the recount, and framing the story the way they did implies the recount was responsible for the win.",
">\n\nAZ lookin a Lil purplish nowadays",
">\n\n2 elections in a row Dems won, definitely purple.",
">\n\nGet in here, we’re using Republican tears to salt our margarita rims.",
">\n\nshe was also the winner before the recount:\n>Mayes (D) finished 280 votes ahead of Hamadeh (R), down from a lead of 511 in the original count. The reason for the discrepancy was not immediately clear.\nI only added the D and R for distinction in the above quote. So the recount narrowed her lead, but not enough to change anything.",
">\n\nI’m no conspiracy theorist, but if I were, I’d think the Biden administration backed off on Covid regulations knowing that it would cause a disproportionate number of republicans to die.",
">\n\nIf I were a conspiracy theorist, I’d speculate that democrats have been pushing idiocy on republicans for about 50 years, ensuring that democrat kids will outsurvive and outcompete republican kids. But I’m not, and in reality republicans did that for some reason.",
">\n\nat that point you are just admitting to being stupid and gullible with extra steps lol.",
">\n\nOne step at a time is how we move away from the brink.",
">\n\n\"StOp tHe sTeAL!!!1!!!\"",
">\n\nHave the snowflakes on the right started crying about a stolen election yet? Of course they have.",
">\n\nAll the usual bots are in Hamadeh's feed crying and accusing everyone of everything... So, typical GQP loss antics. I wonder if the SC didn't insert themselves into the Gore/Bush results, if the GQP would've adopted this as a strategy to every loss",
">\n\nThey won before the recount. The recount just confirms it.",
">\n\nI know it's really picky but she didn't win \"after\" the recount. She'd already won. The recount affirmed the victory.",
">\n\nThey now have a Democratic governor, attorney general, and Secretary of State, plus a Democratic Senator. Beautiful for a state that used to be considered a Republican stronghold.",
">\n\nMisleading headline.\nShe was already ahead by 511 votes before the recount. After the recount she was 208 votes ahead.\nSo she had already won, but due to how Arizona's election laws are, the small margin prompted a recount to affirm the winner.",
">\n\nThis is good news. Unfortunately it's only more imaginary ammunition for right wing nutjobs",
">\n\nI mean, she won it before the recount as well.",
">\n\nAs good as that news is, what a shame that the state’s new superintendent of public instruction is a raving right-winger who “promised to shut down any hint of ‘critical race theory’.”",
">\n\nThose of you who don't vote because you think it doesn't make any difference need to wake up!",
">\n\nHow is Arizona becoming better than Texas now?! Congrats AZ. From a jealous Texan.",
">\n\nI did my part but my district still has Gosar",
">\n\nI’m sorry for your loss",
">\n\nWe can all thank COVID-19 for this as the margin of Republicans vs. Democrats who unnecessarily died from the virus due to their suicidal politics is far larger than the margin here.\nCOVID-19 is the ultimate Republican self-own.",
">\n\nThe shucky ducky margin.",
">\n\nCue republican shrieking",
">\n\nNow go prosecute the fake electors and their abettors.",
">\n\ngood less power republicans have the better",
">\n\nWhoohooo!",
">\n\nGood on you Arizona.",
">\n\nI worked on some of her television ads! Good for her!",
">\n\nThis last election gave me a little hope that our country isn't yet sliding into fascism.",
">\n\nThe one race that was definitely decided by Republicans intentional antipathy to Covid vaccines.",
">\n\nYeah, well check out the founder of “body for life” bill Phillips. I have friends that train almost everyday, and almost died. Yes, being obese is a co-morbidity, but there are fit people that got hit hard also. I know orca-fat people that had mild symptoms also.",
">\n\nPhew! That should slow down their GOP's march to the middle ages.",
">\n\nRecounts. So hot right now.",
">\n\nAnother win for the good guys!",
">\n\nLawsuit in 5...4...3...",
">\n\nOnce again, no bamboo ballots were discovered.",
">\n\nNow root out the treason and traitors in your state",
">\n\nWho was she running against? A trump backed republican or?",
">\n\nArizona today, texas soon...",
">\n\nIt's going to be too late for a LOT of women/LGBTQ folks in Texas :(",
">\n\nSadly, too true.",
">\n\nWas that recount #1,2,or 3 ?",
">\n\nWon before it too",
">\n\nThank god",
">\n\nHAH! I was buds with the loser, Hamadeh in college and I have no idea what happened to him. It was a pleasure to vote against him and I like to fantasize I and my family may have been the ones to tip the race. \nGlad to see him lose but like most wealthy I'm betting we're going to see him fail upwards.",
">\n\nWinning it twice. She was ahead in the OG count too",
">\n\nDamn those Italian satellites are still working",
">\n\nThis is BS! Obviously the loser Kari Lake won, election fraud is everywhere how can't you see it?!??",
">\n\nEverybody should thank Kari Lake for the win.",
">\n\nThis drama would have not happened if they just used modern counting systems instead of people who looked like they haven’t been outside in days.",
">\n\nDoes this mean the student debt forgiveness lawsuit will get dropped?",
">\n\nOwned Republicons!",
">\n\nAnd the losers just keep losing. Love it.",
">\n\nTruth does Prevail",
">\n\nI’m so proud of my state",
">\n\nYes Democrats still winning!!",
">\n\nI'm so tired of all this winning.",
">\n\nThe Meth politicians loose again. Yay!",
">\n\nOh, that won’t be the end of it. Lawsuit incoming in ten, nine, eight…",
">\n\nWe could probably get 200 people here on reddit who have voted for her, including myself.\nIt's so crazy it was that close.",
">\n\nStill crazy to me that you guys in the US get to elect state attorneys.",
">\n\nThe real problem with electing state attorneys is that they are completely independent and report to no one. An attorney is supposed to represent clients - but these elected attorneys get to pick what cases they want to be involved with and can act independently, even if everyone else in the state government disagrees with the positions they take.",
">\n\nYeah that makes sense…",
">\n\nLet’s hope she’s one of the good ones and not them woke ones.",
">\n\nwhat's your definition of woke?",
">\n\nThe one that makes you go broke",
">\n\nWhere are the Q ninjas?",
">\n\nDid you expect anything else?",
">\n\nHad plenty of time to pack those ballot boxes after legal voting closed. Gotta love it.",
">\n\nTake the w, now pay close attention, you team sport Republican voters- think about what you actually care about and focus on what gets done with these slimy Q fuckheads at the helm, and how much is addressed. This isn’t a fucking game.",
">\n\nI’m glad at the result, but I have to admit it bothers me a bit that we apparently suck so much at accounting for votes that our tally can change by hundreds during a recount.\nEspecially since a system that detail-blind could create opportunity for electoral fraud or other hanky panky.",
">\n\nMost places have automatic or offer recounts when the results are very close. Otherwise it doesn’t really matter. 100 of votes out of 100,000 or a million votes is a very low percentage. This is proof of the dedication to accuracy.",
">\n\n\n100 of votes out of 100,000 or a million votes is a very low percentage\n\n(1) It doesn’t really matter how low a percentage it is if you have majority races that are decided that narrowly. It will change an outcome in a race that’s 200 votes apart if you can’t keep track of votes to the nearest 200.\n(2) That’s not actually good accuracy compared to what should be reasonably achievable from moderately competent people running a well designed system.\nA house costs >$100,000. If your mortgage company charged you an extra hundred here or there would you think that was good accounting on their part? Would you be satisfied with their service if they kept reporting different numbers each time you asked your remaining balance for the month? It’s not like the technology doesn’t exist to be more accurate.",
">\n\nIt actually didn’t change the outcome in this case. It only confirmed the victory. 2.4 million people voted in Arizona in the last election, 100 votes is 0.000041666666667%. Its an imperfect world which is why we have recounts when it’s very close. It’s also important to note that very seldom do recounts change the results.",
">\n\nWhat about Second Recount? Or Recountsies? Do they know about mid afternoon Recounts?",
">\n\nIncoming republican firestorm of ‘sToLEn ElECtiOns’ in 3-2-1",
">\n\n\nno one cares who one it is or what they’ve done.\n\nNo, I'm pretty sure people are happy a trump endorsed moron didn't get the spot.",
">\n\n“That recount was rigged, we are going to do a re-recount to confirm that we actually won in the initial count” - whoever lost that attorney general race\nEdit: I didn’t read the article and assumed that the result was changed after the recount. But it was just reconfirmed. And if anything it was closer than it was before. Title is misleading. Could also say “democrat almost loses Arizona attorney general race after recount”",
">\n\nNah, title is accurate. I mean, it could also say \"democrat solidifies victory over political opponent who lost the initial count and the subsequent recount,\" but that'd be as uselessly editorial as your version.",
">\n\nJust what AZ needs: More support for illegal border crossings. But hey, it’s their state.",
">\n\nIf y'all actually cared about illegal immigrants, how come you guys never go after the ones who hire illegal immigrants?\nDon't want to go after your own party I bet",
">\n\nthis is a perfect example of what’s wrong with american politics. no one cares who one it is or what they’ve done. people just care about weather they are a democrat or a republican"
] |
>
Fucking wink wink, I’ve been to Arizona, I know they didn’t vote Democratic | [
"This is why every vote matters\nCongratulations to the people of Arizona",
">\n\nThank goodness Katie Hobbs was in charge of her own election. It’s much easier to win for yourself and your party when you purposefully screw things up for voters causing 2+ hour lines and disenfranchising thousands of citizens voting on Election Day. With leadership like Katie I’m sure Democrats will keep winning for a long time!",
">\n\n\nwhen you purposefully screw things up for voters causing 2+ hour lines and disenfranchising thousands of citizens voting on Election Day. With leadership like Katie I’m sure Democrats will keep winning for a long time!\n\nCitation needed. You know who is to blame? Conservative mouthpieces telling their base to vote last minute when problems can arise. Newsflash to all: early voting works! :)\nAlso, should be noted that across the state there were major Republican election officials who corroborate the integrity of the election.",
">\n\nYou know you're grasping at straws when your argument is \"telling people to vote is disenfranchisement\" LOL you made me laugh",
">\n\nSo, to be clear:\n\nStill no source.\nNo recognition of the failed anti-early voting propaganda from the right that backfired amusingly. \nNo recognition to the numerous state election republican officials who backed the integrity of the elections. (I'd be surprised if you could name them). \nNo recognition to the countless failed court challenges.",
">\n\nI'm a fan of short voting lines across the board. That's why I encourage everyone to do the legal, safe, effective early-voting. Republicans should have done the same. \nLong lines disenfranchise all. I'm sure many dems were in those lines, too.\nAlso, this does not substantiate your claim that Hobbs intentionally did this lol.\nThe judge agrees with me: you can't make accusations about intention without evidence. That would be irresponsible and baseless. If it didn't matter, you and Lake wouldn't be trying to shoehorn in the intentional part. Especially considering this impacts all voters, not just Republicans.\nAlso wait, do you want Hobbs to be hands-on, or hands-off the election? Can't blame her for being in charge while running for governor and then also want her to run it closely and not delegate responsibilities to someone else (which she largely did; see Bill Gates).",
">\n\n\nAlso, this does not substantiate your claim that Hobbs intentionally did this lol.\n\nMaybe you're mistaking me with somebody else, but I never made this claim and I don't care if it was intentional or not.\nIf somebody unintentionally rigs an election... call me old fashioned but I say that's bad! I never said it was intentional. At best, it was negligence... but who knows if it was intentional or not!?",
">\n\nAgain, quoting you:\n\nwhen you purposefully screw things up for voters causing 2+ hour lines and disenfranchising thousands of citizens voting on Election Day. With leadership like Katie I’m sure Democrats will keep winning for a long time!\n\nSynonymous with intentional. Also, again: Republican election officials from Richter to Gates corroborate the integrity of the election. Also, again, no group was targeted since all groups were in those lines. \nAlso, voting lines are often long and yes should be addressed. There would be less lines if Republicans were encouraged to use the system in place in Arizona that is literally a model for the country. That's not the fault of Hobbs that misinformation among Republicans abounds and adds strain to a system that shouldn't need to be strained.",
">\n\nNegligence is purposeful, but that doesn’t mean it’s an intentional action.\nThe lines weren’t 2-3 hours because there were a lot of people. Those lines were there because of a failure in administration, oversight, testing, etc. (i.e. responsibilities of the SOS)",
">\n\n\nRepublican attorneys are going to look through the numbers again and see if there's any grounds to do anything going forward\n\nRelentless.",
">\n\nEhh.\nI support everyone's right to exhaust every legal avenue. If the Republican won by one vote, I'd support the Democrats' right to see if it can be legally overturned, too.\nThe problem is the extrajudicial bullshit the Republicans are trying, not legitimate legal challenges.",
">\n\nWhat legal avenues are there after the recount? Just keep recounting until they get a result they like?",
">\n\nI'm not a lawyer, so I don't know exactly.\nBut if--and that's a big hypothetical \"if\", not something I actually believe happened--for example there were an unusually large discrepancy in the recount, that might be worth challenging. If there's evidence that vote-counters were openly partisan, that might be worth challenging. Hell, if there's evidence that illegal voter suppression caused a significant shift from polling, that might be worth challenging.\nThe point is, if there are legal avenues, it's everyone's right to explore them. The problem is not challenging the results of the election through established legal means, it's challenging the results of the election outside of those established legal avenues.",
">\n\nEvery time they dig into investigating that stuff, they find more wrongdoing on the Republican side, and then try to brush the whole thing under the rug.",
">\n\nI'm not denying that. The point I'm trying to make is that the system must hold. If we want to be able to challenge Republican bullshit, we need to let the Republicans challenge whatever it's legal for them to challenge too. The moment we tell them no, we have zero defense against them telling us no too. In the meantime, the courts will throw out the bullshit.",
">\n\nOh, I wasn't disagreeing with you at all. The system must indeed hold. I was just pointing out that when they do fight it, it always ends up worse for them.",
">\n\n\n”My legal team will be assessing our options to make sure every vote is counted,” wrote Hamadeh, who hasn’t conceded to Mayes.\n\nFor fuck’s sake, THEY JUST COUNTED EVERY VOTE. That’s what a recount is, you absolute fucking DONKEY.",
">\n\nWell, the deficit was almost cut in half after the recount. At this rate, theyd have to recount it an infinite amount of times for it to be super close.",
">\n\nKnow your limits",
">\n\nMy understanding is that this is also the first state level election where the excess death rate of Covid on Republicans likely led to a Democratic victory. The more you know…",
">\n\nConsidering the margin she won by? Yeah, if the Republicans actually pushed their base to embrace proper health measures then they would have won.",
">\n\nThat could probably be said for a wider national look. Hopefully a study comes out in a couple of years on the Covid effect",
">\n\nI think that the Repubs could lose a substantial number of their older die-hard voters over just the next couple of years based on the resistance of many of them to masking and vaccinations. Plus in any year, you'll always have the expected mortality from heart disease, cancer, diabetes, Alzheimer's, accidents, etc. And even some of the younger ones look like health-disasters-waiting-to-happen, i.e. 'Gravy Seals' and 'Meal Team Six.'",
">\n\nWaiting for either evil or idiots to die doesn't usually go well. I've been hearing that far too long and know too many young conservatives, this is not something that just dies off. They must be fought or taught.",
">\n\nArizona has started realizing how much the GOP has screwed them. Unlike Texas, the state has started getting wise and sadly when John McCain died and Trump and company turned on his family and their narrative since he by one vote kept them from repelling the Affordable Health Care Act. When they didn't have a DAMN THING to replace it. Arizona didn't like that and while so many held on with the \"Big Lie\". Now with Lake and company losing so much and all the former GOP government pretty much trying to scorch Earth as they leave. I can see major change for the state. I know my family down there is very happy.",
">\n\nWell most people agree that the Affordable care act is a good thing. Even the red Republican. That's if you call it the ACA. But call it Obama Care no it's bad. What these people are doing is playing on the uneducated not knowing anything. The good thing is things should be going into the right direction. Especially after lake lost her election and election lawsuit.",
">\n\nI’ve literally seen people say Obamacare is bad but they’re glad they have the ACA to provide them health insurance\nThe cognitive dissonance in republicans is astounding",
">\n\nI work at the University monitoring classes. One the them was a history instructor. She said that they did a survey and highlighting everything that the ACA did. But what they did was changed the name. People viewed ACA more favorably when it was called the ACA over Obamacare. It is astonishing.",
">\n\nWell that was basically the point of that branding, wasn't it? \nBy branding the ACA as \"Obamacare,\" the GQP had a very easy time energizing and enraging their voters. They spent so much time to basically hammer in \"Obama bad\" so that by getting people to associate something fundamentally good with someone they hate, the GQP could gain power.\nThere are and were content-oriented critiques of the ACA. But those didn't matter much to the GQP because those critiques would require explaining nuances and their audience having a rudimentary understanding of healthcare law. It is much harder to get a primal reaction with that than it is to get one from saying \"this person bad and evil, this come from bad and evil person.\"",
">\n\nWell that's encouraging. Maybe AZ is rounding a corner and coming to it's senses?",
">\n\nNaw, shits gonna hit the fan now",
">\n\nHow so",
">\n\nRepublicans are going to raise holy hell",
">\n\nLol who cares, they get mad about fictional characters being the wrong race. Impotent outrage is their addiction.",
">\n\nWould help if the media quit covering their outrage as news.",
">\n\nTerrible headline. The Democrat won BEFORE the recount, and framing the story the way they did implies the recount was responsible for the win.",
">\n\nAZ lookin a Lil purplish nowadays",
">\n\n2 elections in a row Dems won, definitely purple.",
">\n\nGet in here, we’re using Republican tears to salt our margarita rims.",
">\n\nshe was also the winner before the recount:\n>Mayes (D) finished 280 votes ahead of Hamadeh (R), down from a lead of 511 in the original count. The reason for the discrepancy was not immediately clear.\nI only added the D and R for distinction in the above quote. So the recount narrowed her lead, but not enough to change anything.",
">\n\nI’m no conspiracy theorist, but if I were, I’d think the Biden administration backed off on Covid regulations knowing that it would cause a disproportionate number of republicans to die.",
">\n\nIf I were a conspiracy theorist, I’d speculate that democrats have been pushing idiocy on republicans for about 50 years, ensuring that democrat kids will outsurvive and outcompete republican kids. But I’m not, and in reality republicans did that for some reason.",
">\n\nat that point you are just admitting to being stupid and gullible with extra steps lol.",
">\n\nOne step at a time is how we move away from the brink.",
">\n\n\"StOp tHe sTeAL!!!1!!!\"",
">\n\nHave the snowflakes on the right started crying about a stolen election yet? Of course they have.",
">\n\nAll the usual bots are in Hamadeh's feed crying and accusing everyone of everything... So, typical GQP loss antics. I wonder if the SC didn't insert themselves into the Gore/Bush results, if the GQP would've adopted this as a strategy to every loss",
">\n\nThey won before the recount. The recount just confirms it.",
">\n\nI know it's really picky but she didn't win \"after\" the recount. She'd already won. The recount affirmed the victory.",
">\n\nThey now have a Democratic governor, attorney general, and Secretary of State, plus a Democratic Senator. Beautiful for a state that used to be considered a Republican stronghold.",
">\n\nMisleading headline.\nShe was already ahead by 511 votes before the recount. After the recount she was 208 votes ahead.\nSo she had already won, but due to how Arizona's election laws are, the small margin prompted a recount to affirm the winner.",
">\n\nThis is good news. Unfortunately it's only more imaginary ammunition for right wing nutjobs",
">\n\nI mean, she won it before the recount as well.",
">\n\nAs good as that news is, what a shame that the state’s new superintendent of public instruction is a raving right-winger who “promised to shut down any hint of ‘critical race theory’.”",
">\n\nThose of you who don't vote because you think it doesn't make any difference need to wake up!",
">\n\nHow is Arizona becoming better than Texas now?! Congrats AZ. From a jealous Texan.",
">\n\nI did my part but my district still has Gosar",
">\n\nI’m sorry for your loss",
">\n\nWe can all thank COVID-19 for this as the margin of Republicans vs. Democrats who unnecessarily died from the virus due to their suicidal politics is far larger than the margin here.\nCOVID-19 is the ultimate Republican self-own.",
">\n\nThe shucky ducky margin.",
">\n\nCue republican shrieking",
">\n\nNow go prosecute the fake electors and their abettors.",
">\n\ngood less power republicans have the better",
">\n\nWhoohooo!",
">\n\nGood on you Arizona.",
">\n\nI worked on some of her television ads! Good for her!",
">\n\nThis last election gave me a little hope that our country isn't yet sliding into fascism.",
">\n\nThe one race that was definitely decided by Republicans intentional antipathy to Covid vaccines.",
">\n\nYeah, well check out the founder of “body for life” bill Phillips. I have friends that train almost everyday, and almost died. Yes, being obese is a co-morbidity, but there are fit people that got hit hard also. I know orca-fat people that had mild symptoms also.",
">\n\nPhew! That should slow down their GOP's march to the middle ages.",
">\n\nRecounts. So hot right now.",
">\n\nAnother win for the good guys!",
">\n\nLawsuit in 5...4...3...",
">\n\nOnce again, no bamboo ballots were discovered.",
">\n\nNow root out the treason and traitors in your state",
">\n\nWho was she running against? A trump backed republican or?",
">\n\nArizona today, texas soon...",
">\n\nIt's going to be too late for a LOT of women/LGBTQ folks in Texas :(",
">\n\nSadly, too true.",
">\n\nWas that recount #1,2,or 3 ?",
">\n\nWon before it too",
">\n\nThank god",
">\n\nHAH! I was buds with the loser, Hamadeh in college and I have no idea what happened to him. It was a pleasure to vote against him and I like to fantasize I and my family may have been the ones to tip the race. \nGlad to see him lose but like most wealthy I'm betting we're going to see him fail upwards.",
">\n\nWinning it twice. She was ahead in the OG count too",
">\n\nDamn those Italian satellites are still working",
">\n\nThis is BS! Obviously the loser Kari Lake won, election fraud is everywhere how can't you see it?!??",
">\n\nEverybody should thank Kari Lake for the win.",
">\n\nThis drama would have not happened if they just used modern counting systems instead of people who looked like they haven’t been outside in days.",
">\n\nDoes this mean the student debt forgiveness lawsuit will get dropped?",
">\n\nOwned Republicons!",
">\n\nAnd the losers just keep losing. Love it.",
">\n\nTruth does Prevail",
">\n\nI’m so proud of my state",
">\n\nYes Democrats still winning!!",
">\n\nI'm so tired of all this winning.",
">\n\nThe Meth politicians loose again. Yay!",
">\n\nOh, that won’t be the end of it. Lawsuit incoming in ten, nine, eight…",
">\n\nWe could probably get 200 people here on reddit who have voted for her, including myself.\nIt's so crazy it was that close.",
">\n\nStill crazy to me that you guys in the US get to elect state attorneys.",
">\n\nThe real problem with electing state attorneys is that they are completely independent and report to no one. An attorney is supposed to represent clients - but these elected attorneys get to pick what cases they want to be involved with and can act independently, even if everyone else in the state government disagrees with the positions they take.",
">\n\nYeah that makes sense…",
">\n\nLet’s hope she’s one of the good ones and not them woke ones.",
">\n\nwhat's your definition of woke?",
">\n\nThe one that makes you go broke",
">\n\nWhere are the Q ninjas?",
">\n\nDid you expect anything else?",
">\n\nHad plenty of time to pack those ballot boxes after legal voting closed. Gotta love it.",
">\n\nTake the w, now pay close attention, you team sport Republican voters- think about what you actually care about and focus on what gets done with these slimy Q fuckheads at the helm, and how much is addressed. This isn’t a fucking game.",
">\n\nI’m glad at the result, but I have to admit it bothers me a bit that we apparently suck so much at accounting for votes that our tally can change by hundreds during a recount.\nEspecially since a system that detail-blind could create opportunity for electoral fraud or other hanky panky.",
">\n\nMost places have automatic or offer recounts when the results are very close. Otherwise it doesn’t really matter. 100 of votes out of 100,000 or a million votes is a very low percentage. This is proof of the dedication to accuracy.",
">\n\n\n100 of votes out of 100,000 or a million votes is a very low percentage\n\n(1) It doesn’t really matter how low a percentage it is if you have majority races that are decided that narrowly. It will change an outcome in a race that’s 200 votes apart if you can’t keep track of votes to the nearest 200.\n(2) That’s not actually good accuracy compared to what should be reasonably achievable from moderately competent people running a well designed system.\nA house costs >$100,000. If your mortgage company charged you an extra hundred here or there would you think that was good accounting on their part? Would you be satisfied with their service if they kept reporting different numbers each time you asked your remaining balance for the month? It’s not like the technology doesn’t exist to be more accurate.",
">\n\nIt actually didn’t change the outcome in this case. It only confirmed the victory. 2.4 million people voted in Arizona in the last election, 100 votes is 0.000041666666667%. Its an imperfect world which is why we have recounts when it’s very close. It’s also important to note that very seldom do recounts change the results.",
">\n\nWhat about Second Recount? Or Recountsies? Do they know about mid afternoon Recounts?",
">\n\nIncoming republican firestorm of ‘sToLEn ElECtiOns’ in 3-2-1",
">\n\n\nno one cares who one it is or what they’ve done.\n\nNo, I'm pretty sure people are happy a trump endorsed moron didn't get the spot.",
">\n\n“That recount was rigged, we are going to do a re-recount to confirm that we actually won in the initial count” - whoever lost that attorney general race\nEdit: I didn’t read the article and assumed that the result was changed after the recount. But it was just reconfirmed. And if anything it was closer than it was before. Title is misleading. Could also say “democrat almost loses Arizona attorney general race after recount”",
">\n\nNah, title is accurate. I mean, it could also say \"democrat solidifies victory over political opponent who lost the initial count and the subsequent recount,\" but that'd be as uselessly editorial as your version.",
">\n\nJust what AZ needs: More support for illegal border crossings. But hey, it’s their state.",
">\n\nIf y'all actually cared about illegal immigrants, how come you guys never go after the ones who hire illegal immigrants?\nDon't want to go after your own party I bet",
">\n\nthis is a perfect example of what’s wrong with american politics. no one cares who one it is or what they’ve done. people just care about weather they are a democrat or a republican",
">\n\nI assume that Arizona cared enough to NOT elect a whacked out fascist, but ya know... reality and all that"
] |
>
Yeah well I live here and I think that trumps your shitty narrative. There are a LOT of young Democrats in Phoenix/Maricopa county and a lot of elderly folks in more rural or Republican strongholds and a good chunk of people probably died off due to conspiracy theories about masks and vaccines. Phoenix is the 5th largest city in the country population wise. Do the math.
Oh wait, you don't have to. They already did it twice for you! | [
"This is why every vote matters\nCongratulations to the people of Arizona",
">\n\nThank goodness Katie Hobbs was in charge of her own election. It’s much easier to win for yourself and your party when you purposefully screw things up for voters causing 2+ hour lines and disenfranchising thousands of citizens voting on Election Day. With leadership like Katie I’m sure Democrats will keep winning for a long time!",
">\n\n\nwhen you purposefully screw things up for voters causing 2+ hour lines and disenfranchising thousands of citizens voting on Election Day. With leadership like Katie I’m sure Democrats will keep winning for a long time!\n\nCitation needed. You know who is to blame? Conservative mouthpieces telling their base to vote last minute when problems can arise. Newsflash to all: early voting works! :)\nAlso, should be noted that across the state there were major Republican election officials who corroborate the integrity of the election.",
">\n\nYou know you're grasping at straws when your argument is \"telling people to vote is disenfranchisement\" LOL you made me laugh",
">\n\nSo, to be clear:\n\nStill no source.\nNo recognition of the failed anti-early voting propaganda from the right that backfired amusingly. \nNo recognition to the numerous state election republican officials who backed the integrity of the elections. (I'd be surprised if you could name them). \nNo recognition to the countless failed court challenges.",
">\n\nI'm a fan of short voting lines across the board. That's why I encourage everyone to do the legal, safe, effective early-voting. Republicans should have done the same. \nLong lines disenfranchise all. I'm sure many dems were in those lines, too.\nAlso, this does not substantiate your claim that Hobbs intentionally did this lol.\nThe judge agrees with me: you can't make accusations about intention without evidence. That would be irresponsible and baseless. If it didn't matter, you and Lake wouldn't be trying to shoehorn in the intentional part. Especially considering this impacts all voters, not just Republicans.\nAlso wait, do you want Hobbs to be hands-on, or hands-off the election? Can't blame her for being in charge while running for governor and then also want her to run it closely and not delegate responsibilities to someone else (which she largely did; see Bill Gates).",
">\n\n\nAlso, this does not substantiate your claim that Hobbs intentionally did this lol.\n\nMaybe you're mistaking me with somebody else, but I never made this claim and I don't care if it was intentional or not.\nIf somebody unintentionally rigs an election... call me old fashioned but I say that's bad! I never said it was intentional. At best, it was negligence... but who knows if it was intentional or not!?",
">\n\nAgain, quoting you:\n\nwhen you purposefully screw things up for voters causing 2+ hour lines and disenfranchising thousands of citizens voting on Election Day. With leadership like Katie I’m sure Democrats will keep winning for a long time!\n\nSynonymous with intentional. Also, again: Republican election officials from Richter to Gates corroborate the integrity of the election. Also, again, no group was targeted since all groups were in those lines. \nAlso, voting lines are often long and yes should be addressed. There would be less lines if Republicans were encouraged to use the system in place in Arizona that is literally a model for the country. That's not the fault of Hobbs that misinformation among Republicans abounds and adds strain to a system that shouldn't need to be strained.",
">\n\nNegligence is purposeful, but that doesn’t mean it’s an intentional action.\nThe lines weren’t 2-3 hours because there were a lot of people. Those lines were there because of a failure in administration, oversight, testing, etc. (i.e. responsibilities of the SOS)",
">\n\n\nRepublican attorneys are going to look through the numbers again and see if there's any grounds to do anything going forward\n\nRelentless.",
">\n\nEhh.\nI support everyone's right to exhaust every legal avenue. If the Republican won by one vote, I'd support the Democrats' right to see if it can be legally overturned, too.\nThe problem is the extrajudicial bullshit the Republicans are trying, not legitimate legal challenges.",
">\n\nWhat legal avenues are there after the recount? Just keep recounting until they get a result they like?",
">\n\nI'm not a lawyer, so I don't know exactly.\nBut if--and that's a big hypothetical \"if\", not something I actually believe happened--for example there were an unusually large discrepancy in the recount, that might be worth challenging. If there's evidence that vote-counters were openly partisan, that might be worth challenging. Hell, if there's evidence that illegal voter suppression caused a significant shift from polling, that might be worth challenging.\nThe point is, if there are legal avenues, it's everyone's right to explore them. The problem is not challenging the results of the election through established legal means, it's challenging the results of the election outside of those established legal avenues.",
">\n\nEvery time they dig into investigating that stuff, they find more wrongdoing on the Republican side, and then try to brush the whole thing under the rug.",
">\n\nI'm not denying that. The point I'm trying to make is that the system must hold. If we want to be able to challenge Republican bullshit, we need to let the Republicans challenge whatever it's legal for them to challenge too. The moment we tell them no, we have zero defense against them telling us no too. In the meantime, the courts will throw out the bullshit.",
">\n\nOh, I wasn't disagreeing with you at all. The system must indeed hold. I was just pointing out that when they do fight it, it always ends up worse for them.",
">\n\n\n”My legal team will be assessing our options to make sure every vote is counted,” wrote Hamadeh, who hasn’t conceded to Mayes.\n\nFor fuck’s sake, THEY JUST COUNTED EVERY VOTE. That’s what a recount is, you absolute fucking DONKEY.",
">\n\nWell, the deficit was almost cut in half after the recount. At this rate, theyd have to recount it an infinite amount of times for it to be super close.",
">\n\nKnow your limits",
">\n\nMy understanding is that this is also the first state level election where the excess death rate of Covid on Republicans likely led to a Democratic victory. The more you know…",
">\n\nConsidering the margin she won by? Yeah, if the Republicans actually pushed their base to embrace proper health measures then they would have won.",
">\n\nThat could probably be said for a wider national look. Hopefully a study comes out in a couple of years on the Covid effect",
">\n\nI think that the Repubs could lose a substantial number of their older die-hard voters over just the next couple of years based on the resistance of many of them to masking and vaccinations. Plus in any year, you'll always have the expected mortality from heart disease, cancer, diabetes, Alzheimer's, accidents, etc. And even some of the younger ones look like health-disasters-waiting-to-happen, i.e. 'Gravy Seals' and 'Meal Team Six.'",
">\n\nWaiting for either evil or idiots to die doesn't usually go well. I've been hearing that far too long and know too many young conservatives, this is not something that just dies off. They must be fought or taught.",
">\n\nArizona has started realizing how much the GOP has screwed them. Unlike Texas, the state has started getting wise and sadly when John McCain died and Trump and company turned on his family and their narrative since he by one vote kept them from repelling the Affordable Health Care Act. When they didn't have a DAMN THING to replace it. Arizona didn't like that and while so many held on with the \"Big Lie\". Now with Lake and company losing so much and all the former GOP government pretty much trying to scorch Earth as they leave. I can see major change for the state. I know my family down there is very happy.",
">\n\nWell most people agree that the Affordable care act is a good thing. Even the red Republican. That's if you call it the ACA. But call it Obama Care no it's bad. What these people are doing is playing on the uneducated not knowing anything. The good thing is things should be going into the right direction. Especially after lake lost her election and election lawsuit.",
">\n\nI’ve literally seen people say Obamacare is bad but they’re glad they have the ACA to provide them health insurance\nThe cognitive dissonance in republicans is astounding",
">\n\nI work at the University monitoring classes. One the them was a history instructor. She said that they did a survey and highlighting everything that the ACA did. But what they did was changed the name. People viewed ACA more favorably when it was called the ACA over Obamacare. It is astonishing.",
">\n\nWell that was basically the point of that branding, wasn't it? \nBy branding the ACA as \"Obamacare,\" the GQP had a very easy time energizing and enraging their voters. They spent so much time to basically hammer in \"Obama bad\" so that by getting people to associate something fundamentally good with someone they hate, the GQP could gain power.\nThere are and were content-oriented critiques of the ACA. But those didn't matter much to the GQP because those critiques would require explaining nuances and their audience having a rudimentary understanding of healthcare law. It is much harder to get a primal reaction with that than it is to get one from saying \"this person bad and evil, this come from bad and evil person.\"",
">\n\nWell that's encouraging. Maybe AZ is rounding a corner and coming to it's senses?",
">\n\nNaw, shits gonna hit the fan now",
">\n\nHow so",
">\n\nRepublicans are going to raise holy hell",
">\n\nLol who cares, they get mad about fictional characters being the wrong race. Impotent outrage is their addiction.",
">\n\nWould help if the media quit covering their outrage as news.",
">\n\nTerrible headline. The Democrat won BEFORE the recount, and framing the story the way they did implies the recount was responsible for the win.",
">\n\nAZ lookin a Lil purplish nowadays",
">\n\n2 elections in a row Dems won, definitely purple.",
">\n\nGet in here, we’re using Republican tears to salt our margarita rims.",
">\n\nshe was also the winner before the recount:\n>Mayes (D) finished 280 votes ahead of Hamadeh (R), down from a lead of 511 in the original count. The reason for the discrepancy was not immediately clear.\nI only added the D and R for distinction in the above quote. So the recount narrowed her lead, but not enough to change anything.",
">\n\nI’m no conspiracy theorist, but if I were, I’d think the Biden administration backed off on Covid regulations knowing that it would cause a disproportionate number of republicans to die.",
">\n\nIf I were a conspiracy theorist, I’d speculate that democrats have been pushing idiocy on republicans for about 50 years, ensuring that democrat kids will outsurvive and outcompete republican kids. But I’m not, and in reality republicans did that for some reason.",
">\n\nat that point you are just admitting to being stupid and gullible with extra steps lol.",
">\n\nOne step at a time is how we move away from the brink.",
">\n\n\"StOp tHe sTeAL!!!1!!!\"",
">\n\nHave the snowflakes on the right started crying about a stolen election yet? Of course they have.",
">\n\nAll the usual bots are in Hamadeh's feed crying and accusing everyone of everything... So, typical GQP loss antics. I wonder if the SC didn't insert themselves into the Gore/Bush results, if the GQP would've adopted this as a strategy to every loss",
">\n\nThey won before the recount. The recount just confirms it.",
">\n\nI know it's really picky but she didn't win \"after\" the recount. She'd already won. The recount affirmed the victory.",
">\n\nThey now have a Democratic governor, attorney general, and Secretary of State, plus a Democratic Senator. Beautiful for a state that used to be considered a Republican stronghold.",
">\n\nMisleading headline.\nShe was already ahead by 511 votes before the recount. After the recount she was 208 votes ahead.\nSo she had already won, but due to how Arizona's election laws are, the small margin prompted a recount to affirm the winner.",
">\n\nThis is good news. Unfortunately it's only more imaginary ammunition for right wing nutjobs",
">\n\nI mean, she won it before the recount as well.",
">\n\nAs good as that news is, what a shame that the state’s new superintendent of public instruction is a raving right-winger who “promised to shut down any hint of ‘critical race theory’.”",
">\n\nThose of you who don't vote because you think it doesn't make any difference need to wake up!",
">\n\nHow is Arizona becoming better than Texas now?! Congrats AZ. From a jealous Texan.",
">\n\nI did my part but my district still has Gosar",
">\n\nI’m sorry for your loss",
">\n\nWe can all thank COVID-19 for this as the margin of Republicans vs. Democrats who unnecessarily died from the virus due to their suicidal politics is far larger than the margin here.\nCOVID-19 is the ultimate Republican self-own.",
">\n\nThe shucky ducky margin.",
">\n\nCue republican shrieking",
">\n\nNow go prosecute the fake electors and their abettors.",
">\n\ngood less power republicans have the better",
">\n\nWhoohooo!",
">\n\nGood on you Arizona.",
">\n\nI worked on some of her television ads! Good for her!",
">\n\nThis last election gave me a little hope that our country isn't yet sliding into fascism.",
">\n\nThe one race that was definitely decided by Republicans intentional antipathy to Covid vaccines.",
">\n\nYeah, well check out the founder of “body for life” bill Phillips. I have friends that train almost everyday, and almost died. Yes, being obese is a co-morbidity, but there are fit people that got hit hard also. I know orca-fat people that had mild symptoms also.",
">\n\nPhew! That should slow down their GOP's march to the middle ages.",
">\n\nRecounts. So hot right now.",
">\n\nAnother win for the good guys!",
">\n\nLawsuit in 5...4...3...",
">\n\nOnce again, no bamboo ballots were discovered.",
">\n\nNow root out the treason and traitors in your state",
">\n\nWho was she running against? A trump backed republican or?",
">\n\nArizona today, texas soon...",
">\n\nIt's going to be too late for a LOT of women/LGBTQ folks in Texas :(",
">\n\nSadly, too true.",
">\n\nWas that recount #1,2,or 3 ?",
">\n\nWon before it too",
">\n\nThank god",
">\n\nHAH! I was buds with the loser, Hamadeh in college and I have no idea what happened to him. It was a pleasure to vote against him and I like to fantasize I and my family may have been the ones to tip the race. \nGlad to see him lose but like most wealthy I'm betting we're going to see him fail upwards.",
">\n\nWinning it twice. She was ahead in the OG count too",
">\n\nDamn those Italian satellites are still working",
">\n\nThis is BS! Obviously the loser Kari Lake won, election fraud is everywhere how can't you see it?!??",
">\n\nEverybody should thank Kari Lake for the win.",
">\n\nThis drama would have not happened if they just used modern counting systems instead of people who looked like they haven’t been outside in days.",
">\n\nDoes this mean the student debt forgiveness lawsuit will get dropped?",
">\n\nOwned Republicons!",
">\n\nAnd the losers just keep losing. Love it.",
">\n\nTruth does Prevail",
">\n\nI’m so proud of my state",
">\n\nYes Democrats still winning!!",
">\n\nI'm so tired of all this winning.",
">\n\nThe Meth politicians loose again. Yay!",
">\n\nOh, that won’t be the end of it. Lawsuit incoming in ten, nine, eight…",
">\n\nWe could probably get 200 people here on reddit who have voted for her, including myself.\nIt's so crazy it was that close.",
">\n\nStill crazy to me that you guys in the US get to elect state attorneys.",
">\n\nThe real problem with electing state attorneys is that they are completely independent and report to no one. An attorney is supposed to represent clients - but these elected attorneys get to pick what cases they want to be involved with and can act independently, even if everyone else in the state government disagrees with the positions they take.",
">\n\nYeah that makes sense…",
">\n\nLet’s hope she’s one of the good ones and not them woke ones.",
">\n\nwhat's your definition of woke?",
">\n\nThe one that makes you go broke",
">\n\nWhere are the Q ninjas?",
">\n\nDid you expect anything else?",
">\n\nHad plenty of time to pack those ballot boxes after legal voting closed. Gotta love it.",
">\n\nTake the w, now pay close attention, you team sport Republican voters- think about what you actually care about and focus on what gets done with these slimy Q fuckheads at the helm, and how much is addressed. This isn’t a fucking game.",
">\n\nI’m glad at the result, but I have to admit it bothers me a bit that we apparently suck so much at accounting for votes that our tally can change by hundreds during a recount.\nEspecially since a system that detail-blind could create opportunity for electoral fraud or other hanky panky.",
">\n\nMost places have automatic or offer recounts when the results are very close. Otherwise it doesn’t really matter. 100 of votes out of 100,000 or a million votes is a very low percentage. This is proof of the dedication to accuracy.",
">\n\n\n100 of votes out of 100,000 or a million votes is a very low percentage\n\n(1) It doesn’t really matter how low a percentage it is if you have majority races that are decided that narrowly. It will change an outcome in a race that’s 200 votes apart if you can’t keep track of votes to the nearest 200.\n(2) That’s not actually good accuracy compared to what should be reasonably achievable from moderately competent people running a well designed system.\nA house costs >$100,000. If your mortgage company charged you an extra hundred here or there would you think that was good accounting on their part? Would you be satisfied with their service if they kept reporting different numbers each time you asked your remaining balance for the month? It’s not like the technology doesn’t exist to be more accurate.",
">\n\nIt actually didn’t change the outcome in this case. It only confirmed the victory. 2.4 million people voted in Arizona in the last election, 100 votes is 0.000041666666667%. Its an imperfect world which is why we have recounts when it’s very close. It’s also important to note that very seldom do recounts change the results.",
">\n\nWhat about Second Recount? Or Recountsies? Do they know about mid afternoon Recounts?",
">\n\nIncoming republican firestorm of ‘sToLEn ElECtiOns’ in 3-2-1",
">\n\n\nno one cares who one it is or what they’ve done.\n\nNo, I'm pretty sure people are happy a trump endorsed moron didn't get the spot.",
">\n\n“That recount was rigged, we are going to do a re-recount to confirm that we actually won in the initial count” - whoever lost that attorney general race\nEdit: I didn’t read the article and assumed that the result was changed after the recount. But it was just reconfirmed. And if anything it was closer than it was before. Title is misleading. Could also say “democrat almost loses Arizona attorney general race after recount”",
">\n\nNah, title is accurate. I mean, it could also say \"democrat solidifies victory over political opponent who lost the initial count and the subsequent recount,\" but that'd be as uselessly editorial as your version.",
">\n\nJust what AZ needs: More support for illegal border crossings. But hey, it’s their state.",
">\n\nIf y'all actually cared about illegal immigrants, how come you guys never go after the ones who hire illegal immigrants?\nDon't want to go after your own party I bet",
">\n\nthis is a perfect example of what’s wrong with american politics. no one cares who one it is or what they’ve done. people just care about weather they are a democrat or a republican",
">\n\nI assume that Arizona cared enough to NOT elect a whacked out fascist, but ya know... reality and all that",
">\n\nFucking wink wink, I’ve been to Arizona, I know they didn’t vote Democratic"
] |
>
Pray tell why it was that I traversed the entire state via Route 66 and saw 100x the amount of Trump material than I did Biden or anyone democratic? | [
"This is why every vote matters\nCongratulations to the people of Arizona",
">\n\nThank goodness Katie Hobbs was in charge of her own election. It’s much easier to win for yourself and your party when you purposefully screw things up for voters causing 2+ hour lines and disenfranchising thousands of citizens voting on Election Day. With leadership like Katie I’m sure Democrats will keep winning for a long time!",
">\n\n\nwhen you purposefully screw things up for voters causing 2+ hour lines and disenfranchising thousands of citizens voting on Election Day. With leadership like Katie I’m sure Democrats will keep winning for a long time!\n\nCitation needed. You know who is to blame? Conservative mouthpieces telling their base to vote last minute when problems can arise. Newsflash to all: early voting works! :)\nAlso, should be noted that across the state there were major Republican election officials who corroborate the integrity of the election.",
">\n\nYou know you're grasping at straws when your argument is \"telling people to vote is disenfranchisement\" LOL you made me laugh",
">\n\nSo, to be clear:\n\nStill no source.\nNo recognition of the failed anti-early voting propaganda from the right that backfired amusingly. \nNo recognition to the numerous state election republican officials who backed the integrity of the elections. (I'd be surprised if you could name them). \nNo recognition to the countless failed court challenges.",
">\n\nI'm a fan of short voting lines across the board. That's why I encourage everyone to do the legal, safe, effective early-voting. Republicans should have done the same. \nLong lines disenfranchise all. I'm sure many dems were in those lines, too.\nAlso, this does not substantiate your claim that Hobbs intentionally did this lol.\nThe judge agrees with me: you can't make accusations about intention without evidence. That would be irresponsible and baseless. If it didn't matter, you and Lake wouldn't be trying to shoehorn in the intentional part. Especially considering this impacts all voters, not just Republicans.\nAlso wait, do you want Hobbs to be hands-on, or hands-off the election? Can't blame her for being in charge while running for governor and then also want her to run it closely and not delegate responsibilities to someone else (which she largely did; see Bill Gates).",
">\n\n\nAlso, this does not substantiate your claim that Hobbs intentionally did this lol.\n\nMaybe you're mistaking me with somebody else, but I never made this claim and I don't care if it was intentional or not.\nIf somebody unintentionally rigs an election... call me old fashioned but I say that's bad! I never said it was intentional. At best, it was negligence... but who knows if it was intentional or not!?",
">\n\nAgain, quoting you:\n\nwhen you purposefully screw things up for voters causing 2+ hour lines and disenfranchising thousands of citizens voting on Election Day. With leadership like Katie I’m sure Democrats will keep winning for a long time!\n\nSynonymous with intentional. Also, again: Republican election officials from Richter to Gates corroborate the integrity of the election. Also, again, no group was targeted since all groups were in those lines. \nAlso, voting lines are often long and yes should be addressed. There would be less lines if Republicans were encouraged to use the system in place in Arizona that is literally a model for the country. That's not the fault of Hobbs that misinformation among Republicans abounds and adds strain to a system that shouldn't need to be strained.",
">\n\nNegligence is purposeful, but that doesn’t mean it’s an intentional action.\nThe lines weren’t 2-3 hours because there were a lot of people. Those lines were there because of a failure in administration, oversight, testing, etc. (i.e. responsibilities of the SOS)",
">\n\n\nRepublican attorneys are going to look through the numbers again and see if there's any grounds to do anything going forward\n\nRelentless.",
">\n\nEhh.\nI support everyone's right to exhaust every legal avenue. If the Republican won by one vote, I'd support the Democrats' right to see if it can be legally overturned, too.\nThe problem is the extrajudicial bullshit the Republicans are trying, not legitimate legal challenges.",
">\n\nWhat legal avenues are there after the recount? Just keep recounting until they get a result they like?",
">\n\nI'm not a lawyer, so I don't know exactly.\nBut if--and that's a big hypothetical \"if\", not something I actually believe happened--for example there were an unusually large discrepancy in the recount, that might be worth challenging. If there's evidence that vote-counters were openly partisan, that might be worth challenging. Hell, if there's evidence that illegal voter suppression caused a significant shift from polling, that might be worth challenging.\nThe point is, if there are legal avenues, it's everyone's right to explore them. The problem is not challenging the results of the election through established legal means, it's challenging the results of the election outside of those established legal avenues.",
">\n\nEvery time they dig into investigating that stuff, they find more wrongdoing on the Republican side, and then try to brush the whole thing under the rug.",
">\n\nI'm not denying that. The point I'm trying to make is that the system must hold. If we want to be able to challenge Republican bullshit, we need to let the Republicans challenge whatever it's legal for them to challenge too. The moment we tell them no, we have zero defense against them telling us no too. In the meantime, the courts will throw out the bullshit.",
">\n\nOh, I wasn't disagreeing with you at all. The system must indeed hold. I was just pointing out that when they do fight it, it always ends up worse for them.",
">\n\n\n”My legal team will be assessing our options to make sure every vote is counted,” wrote Hamadeh, who hasn’t conceded to Mayes.\n\nFor fuck’s sake, THEY JUST COUNTED EVERY VOTE. That’s what a recount is, you absolute fucking DONKEY.",
">\n\nWell, the deficit was almost cut in half after the recount. At this rate, theyd have to recount it an infinite amount of times for it to be super close.",
">\n\nKnow your limits",
">\n\nMy understanding is that this is also the first state level election where the excess death rate of Covid on Republicans likely led to a Democratic victory. The more you know…",
">\n\nConsidering the margin she won by? Yeah, if the Republicans actually pushed their base to embrace proper health measures then they would have won.",
">\n\nThat could probably be said for a wider national look. Hopefully a study comes out in a couple of years on the Covid effect",
">\n\nI think that the Repubs could lose a substantial number of their older die-hard voters over just the next couple of years based on the resistance of many of them to masking and vaccinations. Plus in any year, you'll always have the expected mortality from heart disease, cancer, diabetes, Alzheimer's, accidents, etc. And even some of the younger ones look like health-disasters-waiting-to-happen, i.e. 'Gravy Seals' and 'Meal Team Six.'",
">\n\nWaiting for either evil or idiots to die doesn't usually go well. I've been hearing that far too long and know too many young conservatives, this is not something that just dies off. They must be fought or taught.",
">\n\nArizona has started realizing how much the GOP has screwed them. Unlike Texas, the state has started getting wise and sadly when John McCain died and Trump and company turned on his family and their narrative since he by one vote kept them from repelling the Affordable Health Care Act. When they didn't have a DAMN THING to replace it. Arizona didn't like that and while so many held on with the \"Big Lie\". Now with Lake and company losing so much and all the former GOP government pretty much trying to scorch Earth as they leave. I can see major change for the state. I know my family down there is very happy.",
">\n\nWell most people agree that the Affordable care act is a good thing. Even the red Republican. That's if you call it the ACA. But call it Obama Care no it's bad. What these people are doing is playing on the uneducated not knowing anything. The good thing is things should be going into the right direction. Especially after lake lost her election and election lawsuit.",
">\n\nI’ve literally seen people say Obamacare is bad but they’re glad they have the ACA to provide them health insurance\nThe cognitive dissonance in republicans is astounding",
">\n\nI work at the University monitoring classes. One the them was a history instructor. She said that they did a survey and highlighting everything that the ACA did. But what they did was changed the name. People viewed ACA more favorably when it was called the ACA over Obamacare. It is astonishing.",
">\n\nWell that was basically the point of that branding, wasn't it? \nBy branding the ACA as \"Obamacare,\" the GQP had a very easy time energizing and enraging their voters. They spent so much time to basically hammer in \"Obama bad\" so that by getting people to associate something fundamentally good with someone they hate, the GQP could gain power.\nThere are and were content-oriented critiques of the ACA. But those didn't matter much to the GQP because those critiques would require explaining nuances and their audience having a rudimentary understanding of healthcare law. It is much harder to get a primal reaction with that than it is to get one from saying \"this person bad and evil, this come from bad and evil person.\"",
">\n\nWell that's encouraging. Maybe AZ is rounding a corner and coming to it's senses?",
">\n\nNaw, shits gonna hit the fan now",
">\n\nHow so",
">\n\nRepublicans are going to raise holy hell",
">\n\nLol who cares, they get mad about fictional characters being the wrong race. Impotent outrage is their addiction.",
">\n\nWould help if the media quit covering their outrage as news.",
">\n\nTerrible headline. The Democrat won BEFORE the recount, and framing the story the way they did implies the recount was responsible for the win.",
">\n\nAZ lookin a Lil purplish nowadays",
">\n\n2 elections in a row Dems won, definitely purple.",
">\n\nGet in here, we’re using Republican tears to salt our margarita rims.",
">\n\nshe was also the winner before the recount:\n>Mayes (D) finished 280 votes ahead of Hamadeh (R), down from a lead of 511 in the original count. The reason for the discrepancy was not immediately clear.\nI only added the D and R for distinction in the above quote. So the recount narrowed her lead, but not enough to change anything.",
">\n\nI’m no conspiracy theorist, but if I were, I’d think the Biden administration backed off on Covid regulations knowing that it would cause a disproportionate number of republicans to die.",
">\n\nIf I were a conspiracy theorist, I’d speculate that democrats have been pushing idiocy on republicans for about 50 years, ensuring that democrat kids will outsurvive and outcompete republican kids. But I’m not, and in reality republicans did that for some reason.",
">\n\nat that point you are just admitting to being stupid and gullible with extra steps lol.",
">\n\nOne step at a time is how we move away from the brink.",
">\n\n\"StOp tHe sTeAL!!!1!!!\"",
">\n\nHave the snowflakes on the right started crying about a stolen election yet? Of course they have.",
">\n\nAll the usual bots are in Hamadeh's feed crying and accusing everyone of everything... So, typical GQP loss antics. I wonder if the SC didn't insert themselves into the Gore/Bush results, if the GQP would've adopted this as a strategy to every loss",
">\n\nThey won before the recount. The recount just confirms it.",
">\n\nI know it's really picky but she didn't win \"after\" the recount. She'd already won. The recount affirmed the victory.",
">\n\nThey now have a Democratic governor, attorney general, and Secretary of State, plus a Democratic Senator. Beautiful for a state that used to be considered a Republican stronghold.",
">\n\nMisleading headline.\nShe was already ahead by 511 votes before the recount. After the recount she was 208 votes ahead.\nSo she had already won, but due to how Arizona's election laws are, the small margin prompted a recount to affirm the winner.",
">\n\nThis is good news. Unfortunately it's only more imaginary ammunition for right wing nutjobs",
">\n\nI mean, she won it before the recount as well.",
">\n\nAs good as that news is, what a shame that the state’s new superintendent of public instruction is a raving right-winger who “promised to shut down any hint of ‘critical race theory’.”",
">\n\nThose of you who don't vote because you think it doesn't make any difference need to wake up!",
">\n\nHow is Arizona becoming better than Texas now?! Congrats AZ. From a jealous Texan.",
">\n\nI did my part but my district still has Gosar",
">\n\nI’m sorry for your loss",
">\n\nWe can all thank COVID-19 for this as the margin of Republicans vs. Democrats who unnecessarily died from the virus due to their suicidal politics is far larger than the margin here.\nCOVID-19 is the ultimate Republican self-own.",
">\n\nThe shucky ducky margin.",
">\n\nCue republican shrieking",
">\n\nNow go prosecute the fake electors and their abettors.",
">\n\ngood less power republicans have the better",
">\n\nWhoohooo!",
">\n\nGood on you Arizona.",
">\n\nI worked on some of her television ads! Good for her!",
">\n\nThis last election gave me a little hope that our country isn't yet sliding into fascism.",
">\n\nThe one race that was definitely decided by Republicans intentional antipathy to Covid vaccines.",
">\n\nYeah, well check out the founder of “body for life” bill Phillips. I have friends that train almost everyday, and almost died. Yes, being obese is a co-morbidity, but there are fit people that got hit hard also. I know orca-fat people that had mild symptoms also.",
">\n\nPhew! That should slow down their GOP's march to the middle ages.",
">\n\nRecounts. So hot right now.",
">\n\nAnother win for the good guys!",
">\n\nLawsuit in 5...4...3...",
">\n\nOnce again, no bamboo ballots were discovered.",
">\n\nNow root out the treason and traitors in your state",
">\n\nWho was she running against? A trump backed republican or?",
">\n\nArizona today, texas soon...",
">\n\nIt's going to be too late for a LOT of women/LGBTQ folks in Texas :(",
">\n\nSadly, too true.",
">\n\nWas that recount #1,2,or 3 ?",
">\n\nWon before it too",
">\n\nThank god",
">\n\nHAH! I was buds with the loser, Hamadeh in college and I have no idea what happened to him. It was a pleasure to vote against him and I like to fantasize I and my family may have been the ones to tip the race. \nGlad to see him lose but like most wealthy I'm betting we're going to see him fail upwards.",
">\n\nWinning it twice. She was ahead in the OG count too",
">\n\nDamn those Italian satellites are still working",
">\n\nThis is BS! Obviously the loser Kari Lake won, election fraud is everywhere how can't you see it?!??",
">\n\nEverybody should thank Kari Lake for the win.",
">\n\nThis drama would have not happened if they just used modern counting systems instead of people who looked like they haven’t been outside in days.",
">\n\nDoes this mean the student debt forgiveness lawsuit will get dropped?",
">\n\nOwned Republicons!",
">\n\nAnd the losers just keep losing. Love it.",
">\n\nTruth does Prevail",
">\n\nI’m so proud of my state",
">\n\nYes Democrats still winning!!",
">\n\nI'm so tired of all this winning.",
">\n\nThe Meth politicians loose again. Yay!",
">\n\nOh, that won’t be the end of it. Lawsuit incoming in ten, nine, eight…",
">\n\nWe could probably get 200 people here on reddit who have voted for her, including myself.\nIt's so crazy it was that close.",
">\n\nStill crazy to me that you guys in the US get to elect state attorneys.",
">\n\nThe real problem with electing state attorneys is that they are completely independent and report to no one. An attorney is supposed to represent clients - but these elected attorneys get to pick what cases they want to be involved with and can act independently, even if everyone else in the state government disagrees with the positions they take.",
">\n\nYeah that makes sense…",
">\n\nLet’s hope she’s one of the good ones and not them woke ones.",
">\n\nwhat's your definition of woke?",
">\n\nThe one that makes you go broke",
">\n\nWhere are the Q ninjas?",
">\n\nDid you expect anything else?",
">\n\nHad plenty of time to pack those ballot boxes after legal voting closed. Gotta love it.",
">\n\nTake the w, now pay close attention, you team sport Republican voters- think about what you actually care about and focus on what gets done with these slimy Q fuckheads at the helm, and how much is addressed. This isn’t a fucking game.",
">\n\nI’m glad at the result, but I have to admit it bothers me a bit that we apparently suck so much at accounting for votes that our tally can change by hundreds during a recount.\nEspecially since a system that detail-blind could create opportunity for electoral fraud or other hanky panky.",
">\n\nMost places have automatic or offer recounts when the results are very close. Otherwise it doesn’t really matter. 100 of votes out of 100,000 or a million votes is a very low percentage. This is proof of the dedication to accuracy.",
">\n\n\n100 of votes out of 100,000 or a million votes is a very low percentage\n\n(1) It doesn’t really matter how low a percentage it is if you have majority races that are decided that narrowly. It will change an outcome in a race that’s 200 votes apart if you can’t keep track of votes to the nearest 200.\n(2) That’s not actually good accuracy compared to what should be reasonably achievable from moderately competent people running a well designed system.\nA house costs >$100,000. If your mortgage company charged you an extra hundred here or there would you think that was good accounting on their part? Would you be satisfied with their service if they kept reporting different numbers each time you asked your remaining balance for the month? It’s not like the technology doesn’t exist to be more accurate.",
">\n\nIt actually didn’t change the outcome in this case. It only confirmed the victory. 2.4 million people voted in Arizona in the last election, 100 votes is 0.000041666666667%. Its an imperfect world which is why we have recounts when it’s very close. It’s also important to note that very seldom do recounts change the results.",
">\n\nWhat about Second Recount? Or Recountsies? Do they know about mid afternoon Recounts?",
">\n\nIncoming republican firestorm of ‘sToLEn ElECtiOns’ in 3-2-1",
">\n\n\nno one cares who one it is or what they’ve done.\n\nNo, I'm pretty sure people are happy a trump endorsed moron didn't get the spot.",
">\n\n“That recount was rigged, we are going to do a re-recount to confirm that we actually won in the initial count” - whoever lost that attorney general race\nEdit: I didn’t read the article and assumed that the result was changed after the recount. But it was just reconfirmed. And if anything it was closer than it was before. Title is misleading. Could also say “democrat almost loses Arizona attorney general race after recount”",
">\n\nNah, title is accurate. I mean, it could also say \"democrat solidifies victory over political opponent who lost the initial count and the subsequent recount,\" but that'd be as uselessly editorial as your version.",
">\n\nJust what AZ needs: More support for illegal border crossings. But hey, it’s their state.",
">\n\nIf y'all actually cared about illegal immigrants, how come you guys never go after the ones who hire illegal immigrants?\nDon't want to go after your own party I bet",
">\n\nthis is a perfect example of what’s wrong with american politics. no one cares who one it is or what they’ve done. people just care about weather they are a democrat or a republican",
">\n\nI assume that Arizona cared enough to NOT elect a whacked out fascist, but ya know... reality and all that",
">\n\nFucking wink wink, I’ve been to Arizona, I know they didn’t vote Democratic",
">\n\nYeah well I live here and I think that trumps your shitty narrative. There are a LOT of young Democrats in Phoenix/Maricopa county and a lot of elderly folks in more rural or Republican strongholds and a good chunk of people probably died off due to conspiracy theories about masks and vaccines. Phoenix is the 5th largest city in the country population wise. Do the math.\nOh wait, you don't have to. They already did it twice for you!"
] |
>
Because putting political shit on your car is super cringe. Sounds like you answered your own question there? | [
"This is why every vote matters\nCongratulations to the people of Arizona",
">\n\nThank goodness Katie Hobbs was in charge of her own election. It’s much easier to win for yourself and your party when you purposefully screw things up for voters causing 2+ hour lines and disenfranchising thousands of citizens voting on Election Day. With leadership like Katie I’m sure Democrats will keep winning for a long time!",
">\n\n\nwhen you purposefully screw things up for voters causing 2+ hour lines and disenfranchising thousands of citizens voting on Election Day. With leadership like Katie I’m sure Democrats will keep winning for a long time!\n\nCitation needed. You know who is to blame? Conservative mouthpieces telling their base to vote last minute when problems can arise. Newsflash to all: early voting works! :)\nAlso, should be noted that across the state there were major Republican election officials who corroborate the integrity of the election.",
">\n\nYou know you're grasping at straws when your argument is \"telling people to vote is disenfranchisement\" LOL you made me laugh",
">\n\nSo, to be clear:\n\nStill no source.\nNo recognition of the failed anti-early voting propaganda from the right that backfired amusingly. \nNo recognition to the numerous state election republican officials who backed the integrity of the elections. (I'd be surprised if you could name them). \nNo recognition to the countless failed court challenges.",
">\n\nI'm a fan of short voting lines across the board. That's why I encourage everyone to do the legal, safe, effective early-voting. Republicans should have done the same. \nLong lines disenfranchise all. I'm sure many dems were in those lines, too.\nAlso, this does not substantiate your claim that Hobbs intentionally did this lol.\nThe judge agrees with me: you can't make accusations about intention without evidence. That would be irresponsible and baseless. If it didn't matter, you and Lake wouldn't be trying to shoehorn in the intentional part. Especially considering this impacts all voters, not just Republicans.\nAlso wait, do you want Hobbs to be hands-on, or hands-off the election? Can't blame her for being in charge while running for governor and then also want her to run it closely and not delegate responsibilities to someone else (which she largely did; see Bill Gates).",
">\n\n\nAlso, this does not substantiate your claim that Hobbs intentionally did this lol.\n\nMaybe you're mistaking me with somebody else, but I never made this claim and I don't care if it was intentional or not.\nIf somebody unintentionally rigs an election... call me old fashioned but I say that's bad! I never said it was intentional. At best, it was negligence... but who knows if it was intentional or not!?",
">\n\nAgain, quoting you:\n\nwhen you purposefully screw things up for voters causing 2+ hour lines and disenfranchising thousands of citizens voting on Election Day. With leadership like Katie I’m sure Democrats will keep winning for a long time!\n\nSynonymous with intentional. Also, again: Republican election officials from Richter to Gates corroborate the integrity of the election. Also, again, no group was targeted since all groups were in those lines. \nAlso, voting lines are often long and yes should be addressed. There would be less lines if Republicans were encouraged to use the system in place in Arizona that is literally a model for the country. That's not the fault of Hobbs that misinformation among Republicans abounds and adds strain to a system that shouldn't need to be strained.",
">\n\nNegligence is purposeful, but that doesn’t mean it’s an intentional action.\nThe lines weren’t 2-3 hours because there were a lot of people. Those lines were there because of a failure in administration, oversight, testing, etc. (i.e. responsibilities of the SOS)",
">\n\n\nRepublican attorneys are going to look through the numbers again and see if there's any grounds to do anything going forward\n\nRelentless.",
">\n\nEhh.\nI support everyone's right to exhaust every legal avenue. If the Republican won by one vote, I'd support the Democrats' right to see if it can be legally overturned, too.\nThe problem is the extrajudicial bullshit the Republicans are trying, not legitimate legal challenges.",
">\n\nWhat legal avenues are there after the recount? Just keep recounting until they get a result they like?",
">\n\nI'm not a lawyer, so I don't know exactly.\nBut if--and that's a big hypothetical \"if\", not something I actually believe happened--for example there were an unusually large discrepancy in the recount, that might be worth challenging. If there's evidence that vote-counters were openly partisan, that might be worth challenging. Hell, if there's evidence that illegal voter suppression caused a significant shift from polling, that might be worth challenging.\nThe point is, if there are legal avenues, it's everyone's right to explore them. The problem is not challenging the results of the election through established legal means, it's challenging the results of the election outside of those established legal avenues.",
">\n\nEvery time they dig into investigating that stuff, they find more wrongdoing on the Republican side, and then try to brush the whole thing under the rug.",
">\n\nI'm not denying that. The point I'm trying to make is that the system must hold. If we want to be able to challenge Republican bullshit, we need to let the Republicans challenge whatever it's legal for them to challenge too. The moment we tell them no, we have zero defense against them telling us no too. In the meantime, the courts will throw out the bullshit.",
">\n\nOh, I wasn't disagreeing with you at all. The system must indeed hold. I was just pointing out that when they do fight it, it always ends up worse for them.",
">\n\n\n”My legal team will be assessing our options to make sure every vote is counted,” wrote Hamadeh, who hasn’t conceded to Mayes.\n\nFor fuck’s sake, THEY JUST COUNTED EVERY VOTE. That’s what a recount is, you absolute fucking DONKEY.",
">\n\nWell, the deficit was almost cut in half after the recount. At this rate, theyd have to recount it an infinite amount of times for it to be super close.",
">\n\nKnow your limits",
">\n\nMy understanding is that this is also the first state level election where the excess death rate of Covid on Republicans likely led to a Democratic victory. The more you know…",
">\n\nConsidering the margin she won by? Yeah, if the Republicans actually pushed their base to embrace proper health measures then they would have won.",
">\n\nThat could probably be said for a wider national look. Hopefully a study comes out in a couple of years on the Covid effect",
">\n\nI think that the Repubs could lose a substantial number of their older die-hard voters over just the next couple of years based on the resistance of many of them to masking and vaccinations. Plus in any year, you'll always have the expected mortality from heart disease, cancer, diabetes, Alzheimer's, accidents, etc. And even some of the younger ones look like health-disasters-waiting-to-happen, i.e. 'Gravy Seals' and 'Meal Team Six.'",
">\n\nWaiting for either evil or idiots to die doesn't usually go well. I've been hearing that far too long and know too many young conservatives, this is not something that just dies off. They must be fought or taught.",
">\n\nArizona has started realizing how much the GOP has screwed them. Unlike Texas, the state has started getting wise and sadly when John McCain died and Trump and company turned on his family and their narrative since he by one vote kept them from repelling the Affordable Health Care Act. When they didn't have a DAMN THING to replace it. Arizona didn't like that and while so many held on with the \"Big Lie\". Now with Lake and company losing so much and all the former GOP government pretty much trying to scorch Earth as they leave. I can see major change for the state. I know my family down there is very happy.",
">\n\nWell most people agree that the Affordable care act is a good thing. Even the red Republican. That's if you call it the ACA. But call it Obama Care no it's bad. What these people are doing is playing on the uneducated not knowing anything. The good thing is things should be going into the right direction. Especially after lake lost her election and election lawsuit.",
">\n\nI’ve literally seen people say Obamacare is bad but they’re glad they have the ACA to provide them health insurance\nThe cognitive dissonance in republicans is astounding",
">\n\nI work at the University monitoring classes. One the them was a history instructor. She said that they did a survey and highlighting everything that the ACA did. But what they did was changed the name. People viewed ACA more favorably when it was called the ACA over Obamacare. It is astonishing.",
">\n\nWell that was basically the point of that branding, wasn't it? \nBy branding the ACA as \"Obamacare,\" the GQP had a very easy time energizing and enraging their voters. They spent so much time to basically hammer in \"Obama bad\" so that by getting people to associate something fundamentally good with someone they hate, the GQP could gain power.\nThere are and were content-oriented critiques of the ACA. But those didn't matter much to the GQP because those critiques would require explaining nuances and their audience having a rudimentary understanding of healthcare law. It is much harder to get a primal reaction with that than it is to get one from saying \"this person bad and evil, this come from bad and evil person.\"",
">\n\nWell that's encouraging. Maybe AZ is rounding a corner and coming to it's senses?",
">\n\nNaw, shits gonna hit the fan now",
">\n\nHow so",
">\n\nRepublicans are going to raise holy hell",
">\n\nLol who cares, they get mad about fictional characters being the wrong race. Impotent outrage is their addiction.",
">\n\nWould help if the media quit covering their outrage as news.",
">\n\nTerrible headline. The Democrat won BEFORE the recount, and framing the story the way they did implies the recount was responsible for the win.",
">\n\nAZ lookin a Lil purplish nowadays",
">\n\n2 elections in a row Dems won, definitely purple.",
">\n\nGet in here, we’re using Republican tears to salt our margarita rims.",
">\n\nshe was also the winner before the recount:\n>Mayes (D) finished 280 votes ahead of Hamadeh (R), down from a lead of 511 in the original count. The reason for the discrepancy was not immediately clear.\nI only added the D and R for distinction in the above quote. So the recount narrowed her lead, but not enough to change anything.",
">\n\nI’m no conspiracy theorist, but if I were, I’d think the Biden administration backed off on Covid regulations knowing that it would cause a disproportionate number of republicans to die.",
">\n\nIf I were a conspiracy theorist, I’d speculate that democrats have been pushing idiocy on republicans for about 50 years, ensuring that democrat kids will outsurvive and outcompete republican kids. But I’m not, and in reality republicans did that for some reason.",
">\n\nat that point you are just admitting to being stupid and gullible with extra steps lol.",
">\n\nOne step at a time is how we move away from the brink.",
">\n\n\"StOp tHe sTeAL!!!1!!!\"",
">\n\nHave the snowflakes on the right started crying about a stolen election yet? Of course they have.",
">\n\nAll the usual bots are in Hamadeh's feed crying and accusing everyone of everything... So, typical GQP loss antics. I wonder if the SC didn't insert themselves into the Gore/Bush results, if the GQP would've adopted this as a strategy to every loss",
">\n\nThey won before the recount. The recount just confirms it.",
">\n\nI know it's really picky but she didn't win \"after\" the recount. She'd already won. The recount affirmed the victory.",
">\n\nThey now have a Democratic governor, attorney general, and Secretary of State, plus a Democratic Senator. Beautiful for a state that used to be considered a Republican stronghold.",
">\n\nMisleading headline.\nShe was already ahead by 511 votes before the recount. After the recount she was 208 votes ahead.\nSo she had already won, but due to how Arizona's election laws are, the small margin prompted a recount to affirm the winner.",
">\n\nThis is good news. Unfortunately it's only more imaginary ammunition for right wing nutjobs",
">\n\nI mean, she won it before the recount as well.",
">\n\nAs good as that news is, what a shame that the state’s new superintendent of public instruction is a raving right-winger who “promised to shut down any hint of ‘critical race theory’.”",
">\n\nThose of you who don't vote because you think it doesn't make any difference need to wake up!",
">\n\nHow is Arizona becoming better than Texas now?! Congrats AZ. From a jealous Texan.",
">\n\nI did my part but my district still has Gosar",
">\n\nI’m sorry for your loss",
">\n\nWe can all thank COVID-19 for this as the margin of Republicans vs. Democrats who unnecessarily died from the virus due to their suicidal politics is far larger than the margin here.\nCOVID-19 is the ultimate Republican self-own.",
">\n\nThe shucky ducky margin.",
">\n\nCue republican shrieking",
">\n\nNow go prosecute the fake electors and their abettors.",
">\n\ngood less power republicans have the better",
">\n\nWhoohooo!",
">\n\nGood on you Arizona.",
">\n\nI worked on some of her television ads! Good for her!",
">\n\nThis last election gave me a little hope that our country isn't yet sliding into fascism.",
">\n\nThe one race that was definitely decided by Republicans intentional antipathy to Covid vaccines.",
">\n\nYeah, well check out the founder of “body for life” bill Phillips. I have friends that train almost everyday, and almost died. Yes, being obese is a co-morbidity, but there are fit people that got hit hard also. I know orca-fat people that had mild symptoms also.",
">\n\nPhew! That should slow down their GOP's march to the middle ages.",
">\n\nRecounts. So hot right now.",
">\n\nAnother win for the good guys!",
">\n\nLawsuit in 5...4...3...",
">\n\nOnce again, no bamboo ballots were discovered.",
">\n\nNow root out the treason and traitors in your state",
">\n\nWho was she running against? A trump backed republican or?",
">\n\nArizona today, texas soon...",
">\n\nIt's going to be too late for a LOT of women/LGBTQ folks in Texas :(",
">\n\nSadly, too true.",
">\n\nWas that recount #1,2,or 3 ?",
">\n\nWon before it too",
">\n\nThank god",
">\n\nHAH! I was buds with the loser, Hamadeh in college and I have no idea what happened to him. It was a pleasure to vote against him and I like to fantasize I and my family may have been the ones to tip the race. \nGlad to see him lose but like most wealthy I'm betting we're going to see him fail upwards.",
">\n\nWinning it twice. She was ahead in the OG count too",
">\n\nDamn those Italian satellites are still working",
">\n\nThis is BS! Obviously the loser Kari Lake won, election fraud is everywhere how can't you see it?!??",
">\n\nEverybody should thank Kari Lake for the win.",
">\n\nThis drama would have not happened if they just used modern counting systems instead of people who looked like they haven’t been outside in days.",
">\n\nDoes this mean the student debt forgiveness lawsuit will get dropped?",
">\n\nOwned Republicons!",
">\n\nAnd the losers just keep losing. Love it.",
">\n\nTruth does Prevail",
">\n\nI’m so proud of my state",
">\n\nYes Democrats still winning!!",
">\n\nI'm so tired of all this winning.",
">\n\nThe Meth politicians loose again. Yay!",
">\n\nOh, that won’t be the end of it. Lawsuit incoming in ten, nine, eight…",
">\n\nWe could probably get 200 people here on reddit who have voted for her, including myself.\nIt's so crazy it was that close.",
">\n\nStill crazy to me that you guys in the US get to elect state attorneys.",
">\n\nThe real problem with electing state attorneys is that they are completely independent and report to no one. An attorney is supposed to represent clients - but these elected attorneys get to pick what cases they want to be involved with and can act independently, even if everyone else in the state government disagrees with the positions they take.",
">\n\nYeah that makes sense…",
">\n\nLet’s hope she’s one of the good ones and not them woke ones.",
">\n\nwhat's your definition of woke?",
">\n\nThe one that makes you go broke",
">\n\nWhere are the Q ninjas?",
">\n\nDid you expect anything else?",
">\n\nHad plenty of time to pack those ballot boxes after legal voting closed. Gotta love it.",
">\n\nTake the w, now pay close attention, you team sport Republican voters- think about what you actually care about and focus on what gets done with these slimy Q fuckheads at the helm, and how much is addressed. This isn’t a fucking game.",
">\n\nI’m glad at the result, but I have to admit it bothers me a bit that we apparently suck so much at accounting for votes that our tally can change by hundreds during a recount.\nEspecially since a system that detail-blind could create opportunity for electoral fraud or other hanky panky.",
">\n\nMost places have automatic or offer recounts when the results are very close. Otherwise it doesn’t really matter. 100 of votes out of 100,000 or a million votes is a very low percentage. This is proof of the dedication to accuracy.",
">\n\n\n100 of votes out of 100,000 or a million votes is a very low percentage\n\n(1) It doesn’t really matter how low a percentage it is if you have majority races that are decided that narrowly. It will change an outcome in a race that’s 200 votes apart if you can’t keep track of votes to the nearest 200.\n(2) That’s not actually good accuracy compared to what should be reasonably achievable from moderately competent people running a well designed system.\nA house costs >$100,000. If your mortgage company charged you an extra hundred here or there would you think that was good accounting on their part? Would you be satisfied with their service if they kept reporting different numbers each time you asked your remaining balance for the month? It’s not like the technology doesn’t exist to be more accurate.",
">\n\nIt actually didn’t change the outcome in this case. It only confirmed the victory. 2.4 million people voted in Arizona in the last election, 100 votes is 0.000041666666667%. Its an imperfect world which is why we have recounts when it’s very close. It’s also important to note that very seldom do recounts change the results.",
">\n\nWhat about Second Recount? Or Recountsies? Do they know about mid afternoon Recounts?",
">\n\nIncoming republican firestorm of ‘sToLEn ElECtiOns’ in 3-2-1",
">\n\n\nno one cares who one it is or what they’ve done.\n\nNo, I'm pretty sure people are happy a trump endorsed moron didn't get the spot.",
">\n\n“That recount was rigged, we are going to do a re-recount to confirm that we actually won in the initial count” - whoever lost that attorney general race\nEdit: I didn’t read the article and assumed that the result was changed after the recount. But it was just reconfirmed. And if anything it was closer than it was before. Title is misleading. Could also say “democrat almost loses Arizona attorney general race after recount”",
">\n\nNah, title is accurate. I mean, it could also say \"democrat solidifies victory over political opponent who lost the initial count and the subsequent recount,\" but that'd be as uselessly editorial as your version.",
">\n\nJust what AZ needs: More support for illegal border crossings. But hey, it’s their state.",
">\n\nIf y'all actually cared about illegal immigrants, how come you guys never go after the ones who hire illegal immigrants?\nDon't want to go after your own party I bet",
">\n\nthis is a perfect example of what’s wrong with american politics. no one cares who one it is or what they’ve done. people just care about weather they are a democrat or a republican",
">\n\nI assume that Arizona cared enough to NOT elect a whacked out fascist, but ya know... reality and all that",
">\n\nFucking wink wink, I’ve been to Arizona, I know they didn’t vote Democratic",
">\n\nYeah well I live here and I think that trumps your shitty narrative. There are a LOT of young Democrats in Phoenix/Maricopa county and a lot of elderly folks in more rural or Republican strongholds and a good chunk of people probably died off due to conspiracy theories about masks and vaccines. Phoenix is the 5th largest city in the country population wise. Do the math.\nOh wait, you don't have to. They already did it twice for you!",
">\n\nPray tell why it was that I traversed the entire state via Route 66 and saw 100x the amount of Trump material than I did Biden or anyone democratic?"
] |
>
I don’t recall saying anything about a car | [
"This is why every vote matters\nCongratulations to the people of Arizona",
">\n\nThank goodness Katie Hobbs was in charge of her own election. It’s much easier to win for yourself and your party when you purposefully screw things up for voters causing 2+ hour lines and disenfranchising thousands of citizens voting on Election Day. With leadership like Katie I’m sure Democrats will keep winning for a long time!",
">\n\n\nwhen you purposefully screw things up for voters causing 2+ hour lines and disenfranchising thousands of citizens voting on Election Day. With leadership like Katie I’m sure Democrats will keep winning for a long time!\n\nCitation needed. You know who is to blame? Conservative mouthpieces telling their base to vote last minute when problems can arise. Newsflash to all: early voting works! :)\nAlso, should be noted that across the state there were major Republican election officials who corroborate the integrity of the election.",
">\n\nYou know you're grasping at straws when your argument is \"telling people to vote is disenfranchisement\" LOL you made me laugh",
">\n\nSo, to be clear:\n\nStill no source.\nNo recognition of the failed anti-early voting propaganda from the right that backfired amusingly. \nNo recognition to the numerous state election republican officials who backed the integrity of the elections. (I'd be surprised if you could name them). \nNo recognition to the countless failed court challenges.",
">\n\nI'm a fan of short voting lines across the board. That's why I encourage everyone to do the legal, safe, effective early-voting. Republicans should have done the same. \nLong lines disenfranchise all. I'm sure many dems were in those lines, too.\nAlso, this does not substantiate your claim that Hobbs intentionally did this lol.\nThe judge agrees with me: you can't make accusations about intention without evidence. That would be irresponsible and baseless. If it didn't matter, you and Lake wouldn't be trying to shoehorn in the intentional part. Especially considering this impacts all voters, not just Republicans.\nAlso wait, do you want Hobbs to be hands-on, or hands-off the election? Can't blame her for being in charge while running for governor and then also want her to run it closely and not delegate responsibilities to someone else (which she largely did; see Bill Gates).",
">\n\n\nAlso, this does not substantiate your claim that Hobbs intentionally did this lol.\n\nMaybe you're mistaking me with somebody else, but I never made this claim and I don't care if it was intentional or not.\nIf somebody unintentionally rigs an election... call me old fashioned but I say that's bad! I never said it was intentional. At best, it was negligence... but who knows if it was intentional or not!?",
">\n\nAgain, quoting you:\n\nwhen you purposefully screw things up for voters causing 2+ hour lines and disenfranchising thousands of citizens voting on Election Day. With leadership like Katie I’m sure Democrats will keep winning for a long time!\n\nSynonymous with intentional. Also, again: Republican election officials from Richter to Gates corroborate the integrity of the election. Also, again, no group was targeted since all groups were in those lines. \nAlso, voting lines are often long and yes should be addressed. There would be less lines if Republicans were encouraged to use the system in place in Arizona that is literally a model for the country. That's not the fault of Hobbs that misinformation among Republicans abounds and adds strain to a system that shouldn't need to be strained.",
">\n\nNegligence is purposeful, but that doesn’t mean it’s an intentional action.\nThe lines weren’t 2-3 hours because there were a lot of people. Those lines were there because of a failure in administration, oversight, testing, etc. (i.e. responsibilities of the SOS)",
">\n\n\nRepublican attorneys are going to look through the numbers again and see if there's any grounds to do anything going forward\n\nRelentless.",
">\n\nEhh.\nI support everyone's right to exhaust every legal avenue. If the Republican won by one vote, I'd support the Democrats' right to see if it can be legally overturned, too.\nThe problem is the extrajudicial bullshit the Republicans are trying, not legitimate legal challenges.",
">\n\nWhat legal avenues are there after the recount? Just keep recounting until they get a result they like?",
">\n\nI'm not a lawyer, so I don't know exactly.\nBut if--and that's a big hypothetical \"if\", not something I actually believe happened--for example there were an unusually large discrepancy in the recount, that might be worth challenging. If there's evidence that vote-counters were openly partisan, that might be worth challenging. Hell, if there's evidence that illegal voter suppression caused a significant shift from polling, that might be worth challenging.\nThe point is, if there are legal avenues, it's everyone's right to explore them. The problem is not challenging the results of the election through established legal means, it's challenging the results of the election outside of those established legal avenues.",
">\n\nEvery time they dig into investigating that stuff, they find more wrongdoing on the Republican side, and then try to brush the whole thing under the rug.",
">\n\nI'm not denying that. The point I'm trying to make is that the system must hold. If we want to be able to challenge Republican bullshit, we need to let the Republicans challenge whatever it's legal for them to challenge too. The moment we tell them no, we have zero defense against them telling us no too. In the meantime, the courts will throw out the bullshit.",
">\n\nOh, I wasn't disagreeing with you at all. The system must indeed hold. I was just pointing out that when they do fight it, it always ends up worse for them.",
">\n\n\n”My legal team will be assessing our options to make sure every vote is counted,” wrote Hamadeh, who hasn’t conceded to Mayes.\n\nFor fuck’s sake, THEY JUST COUNTED EVERY VOTE. That’s what a recount is, you absolute fucking DONKEY.",
">\n\nWell, the deficit was almost cut in half after the recount. At this rate, theyd have to recount it an infinite amount of times for it to be super close.",
">\n\nKnow your limits",
">\n\nMy understanding is that this is also the first state level election where the excess death rate of Covid on Republicans likely led to a Democratic victory. The more you know…",
">\n\nConsidering the margin she won by? Yeah, if the Republicans actually pushed their base to embrace proper health measures then they would have won.",
">\n\nThat could probably be said for a wider national look. Hopefully a study comes out in a couple of years on the Covid effect",
">\n\nI think that the Repubs could lose a substantial number of their older die-hard voters over just the next couple of years based on the resistance of many of them to masking and vaccinations. Plus in any year, you'll always have the expected mortality from heart disease, cancer, diabetes, Alzheimer's, accidents, etc. And even some of the younger ones look like health-disasters-waiting-to-happen, i.e. 'Gravy Seals' and 'Meal Team Six.'",
">\n\nWaiting for either evil or idiots to die doesn't usually go well. I've been hearing that far too long and know too many young conservatives, this is not something that just dies off. They must be fought or taught.",
">\n\nArizona has started realizing how much the GOP has screwed them. Unlike Texas, the state has started getting wise and sadly when John McCain died and Trump and company turned on his family and their narrative since he by one vote kept them from repelling the Affordable Health Care Act. When they didn't have a DAMN THING to replace it. Arizona didn't like that and while so many held on with the \"Big Lie\". Now with Lake and company losing so much and all the former GOP government pretty much trying to scorch Earth as they leave. I can see major change for the state. I know my family down there is very happy.",
">\n\nWell most people agree that the Affordable care act is a good thing. Even the red Republican. That's if you call it the ACA. But call it Obama Care no it's bad. What these people are doing is playing on the uneducated not knowing anything. The good thing is things should be going into the right direction. Especially after lake lost her election and election lawsuit.",
">\n\nI’ve literally seen people say Obamacare is bad but they’re glad they have the ACA to provide them health insurance\nThe cognitive dissonance in republicans is astounding",
">\n\nI work at the University monitoring classes. One the them was a history instructor. She said that they did a survey and highlighting everything that the ACA did. But what they did was changed the name. People viewed ACA more favorably when it was called the ACA over Obamacare. It is astonishing.",
">\n\nWell that was basically the point of that branding, wasn't it? \nBy branding the ACA as \"Obamacare,\" the GQP had a very easy time energizing and enraging their voters. They spent so much time to basically hammer in \"Obama bad\" so that by getting people to associate something fundamentally good with someone they hate, the GQP could gain power.\nThere are and were content-oriented critiques of the ACA. But those didn't matter much to the GQP because those critiques would require explaining nuances and their audience having a rudimentary understanding of healthcare law. It is much harder to get a primal reaction with that than it is to get one from saying \"this person bad and evil, this come from bad and evil person.\"",
">\n\nWell that's encouraging. Maybe AZ is rounding a corner and coming to it's senses?",
">\n\nNaw, shits gonna hit the fan now",
">\n\nHow so",
">\n\nRepublicans are going to raise holy hell",
">\n\nLol who cares, they get mad about fictional characters being the wrong race. Impotent outrage is their addiction.",
">\n\nWould help if the media quit covering their outrage as news.",
">\n\nTerrible headline. The Democrat won BEFORE the recount, and framing the story the way they did implies the recount was responsible for the win.",
">\n\nAZ lookin a Lil purplish nowadays",
">\n\n2 elections in a row Dems won, definitely purple.",
">\n\nGet in here, we’re using Republican tears to salt our margarita rims.",
">\n\nshe was also the winner before the recount:\n>Mayes (D) finished 280 votes ahead of Hamadeh (R), down from a lead of 511 in the original count. The reason for the discrepancy was not immediately clear.\nI only added the D and R for distinction in the above quote. So the recount narrowed her lead, but not enough to change anything.",
">\n\nI’m no conspiracy theorist, but if I were, I’d think the Biden administration backed off on Covid regulations knowing that it would cause a disproportionate number of republicans to die.",
">\n\nIf I were a conspiracy theorist, I’d speculate that democrats have been pushing idiocy on republicans for about 50 years, ensuring that democrat kids will outsurvive and outcompete republican kids. But I’m not, and in reality republicans did that for some reason.",
">\n\nat that point you are just admitting to being stupid and gullible with extra steps lol.",
">\n\nOne step at a time is how we move away from the brink.",
">\n\n\"StOp tHe sTeAL!!!1!!!\"",
">\n\nHave the snowflakes on the right started crying about a stolen election yet? Of course they have.",
">\n\nAll the usual bots are in Hamadeh's feed crying and accusing everyone of everything... So, typical GQP loss antics. I wonder if the SC didn't insert themselves into the Gore/Bush results, if the GQP would've adopted this as a strategy to every loss",
">\n\nThey won before the recount. The recount just confirms it.",
">\n\nI know it's really picky but she didn't win \"after\" the recount. She'd already won. The recount affirmed the victory.",
">\n\nThey now have a Democratic governor, attorney general, and Secretary of State, plus a Democratic Senator. Beautiful for a state that used to be considered a Republican stronghold.",
">\n\nMisleading headline.\nShe was already ahead by 511 votes before the recount. After the recount she was 208 votes ahead.\nSo she had already won, but due to how Arizona's election laws are, the small margin prompted a recount to affirm the winner.",
">\n\nThis is good news. Unfortunately it's only more imaginary ammunition for right wing nutjobs",
">\n\nI mean, she won it before the recount as well.",
">\n\nAs good as that news is, what a shame that the state’s new superintendent of public instruction is a raving right-winger who “promised to shut down any hint of ‘critical race theory’.”",
">\n\nThose of you who don't vote because you think it doesn't make any difference need to wake up!",
">\n\nHow is Arizona becoming better than Texas now?! Congrats AZ. From a jealous Texan.",
">\n\nI did my part but my district still has Gosar",
">\n\nI’m sorry for your loss",
">\n\nWe can all thank COVID-19 for this as the margin of Republicans vs. Democrats who unnecessarily died from the virus due to their suicidal politics is far larger than the margin here.\nCOVID-19 is the ultimate Republican self-own.",
">\n\nThe shucky ducky margin.",
">\n\nCue republican shrieking",
">\n\nNow go prosecute the fake electors and their abettors.",
">\n\ngood less power republicans have the better",
">\n\nWhoohooo!",
">\n\nGood on you Arizona.",
">\n\nI worked on some of her television ads! Good for her!",
">\n\nThis last election gave me a little hope that our country isn't yet sliding into fascism.",
">\n\nThe one race that was definitely decided by Republicans intentional antipathy to Covid vaccines.",
">\n\nYeah, well check out the founder of “body for life” bill Phillips. I have friends that train almost everyday, and almost died. Yes, being obese is a co-morbidity, but there are fit people that got hit hard also. I know orca-fat people that had mild symptoms also.",
">\n\nPhew! That should slow down their GOP's march to the middle ages.",
">\n\nRecounts. So hot right now.",
">\n\nAnother win for the good guys!",
">\n\nLawsuit in 5...4...3...",
">\n\nOnce again, no bamboo ballots were discovered.",
">\n\nNow root out the treason and traitors in your state",
">\n\nWho was she running against? A trump backed republican or?",
">\n\nArizona today, texas soon...",
">\n\nIt's going to be too late for a LOT of women/LGBTQ folks in Texas :(",
">\n\nSadly, too true.",
">\n\nWas that recount #1,2,or 3 ?",
">\n\nWon before it too",
">\n\nThank god",
">\n\nHAH! I was buds with the loser, Hamadeh in college and I have no idea what happened to him. It was a pleasure to vote against him and I like to fantasize I and my family may have been the ones to tip the race. \nGlad to see him lose but like most wealthy I'm betting we're going to see him fail upwards.",
">\n\nWinning it twice. She was ahead in the OG count too",
">\n\nDamn those Italian satellites are still working",
">\n\nThis is BS! Obviously the loser Kari Lake won, election fraud is everywhere how can't you see it?!??",
">\n\nEverybody should thank Kari Lake for the win.",
">\n\nThis drama would have not happened if they just used modern counting systems instead of people who looked like they haven’t been outside in days.",
">\n\nDoes this mean the student debt forgiveness lawsuit will get dropped?",
">\n\nOwned Republicons!",
">\n\nAnd the losers just keep losing. Love it.",
">\n\nTruth does Prevail",
">\n\nI’m so proud of my state",
">\n\nYes Democrats still winning!!",
">\n\nI'm so tired of all this winning.",
">\n\nThe Meth politicians loose again. Yay!",
">\n\nOh, that won’t be the end of it. Lawsuit incoming in ten, nine, eight…",
">\n\nWe could probably get 200 people here on reddit who have voted for her, including myself.\nIt's so crazy it was that close.",
">\n\nStill crazy to me that you guys in the US get to elect state attorneys.",
">\n\nThe real problem with electing state attorneys is that they are completely independent and report to no one. An attorney is supposed to represent clients - but these elected attorneys get to pick what cases they want to be involved with and can act independently, even if everyone else in the state government disagrees with the positions they take.",
">\n\nYeah that makes sense…",
">\n\nLet’s hope she’s one of the good ones and not them woke ones.",
">\n\nwhat's your definition of woke?",
">\n\nThe one that makes you go broke",
">\n\nWhere are the Q ninjas?",
">\n\nDid you expect anything else?",
">\n\nHad plenty of time to pack those ballot boxes after legal voting closed. Gotta love it.",
">\n\nTake the w, now pay close attention, you team sport Republican voters- think about what you actually care about and focus on what gets done with these slimy Q fuckheads at the helm, and how much is addressed. This isn’t a fucking game.",
">\n\nI’m glad at the result, but I have to admit it bothers me a bit that we apparently suck so much at accounting for votes that our tally can change by hundreds during a recount.\nEspecially since a system that detail-blind could create opportunity for electoral fraud or other hanky panky.",
">\n\nMost places have automatic or offer recounts when the results are very close. Otherwise it doesn’t really matter. 100 of votes out of 100,000 or a million votes is a very low percentage. This is proof of the dedication to accuracy.",
">\n\n\n100 of votes out of 100,000 or a million votes is a very low percentage\n\n(1) It doesn’t really matter how low a percentage it is if you have majority races that are decided that narrowly. It will change an outcome in a race that’s 200 votes apart if you can’t keep track of votes to the nearest 200.\n(2) That’s not actually good accuracy compared to what should be reasonably achievable from moderately competent people running a well designed system.\nA house costs >$100,000. If your mortgage company charged you an extra hundred here or there would you think that was good accounting on their part? Would you be satisfied with their service if they kept reporting different numbers each time you asked your remaining balance for the month? It’s not like the technology doesn’t exist to be more accurate.",
">\n\nIt actually didn’t change the outcome in this case. It only confirmed the victory. 2.4 million people voted in Arizona in the last election, 100 votes is 0.000041666666667%. Its an imperfect world which is why we have recounts when it’s very close. It’s also important to note that very seldom do recounts change the results.",
">\n\nWhat about Second Recount? Or Recountsies? Do they know about mid afternoon Recounts?",
">\n\nIncoming republican firestorm of ‘sToLEn ElECtiOns’ in 3-2-1",
">\n\n\nno one cares who one it is or what they’ve done.\n\nNo, I'm pretty sure people are happy a trump endorsed moron didn't get the spot.",
">\n\n“That recount was rigged, we are going to do a re-recount to confirm that we actually won in the initial count” - whoever lost that attorney general race\nEdit: I didn’t read the article and assumed that the result was changed after the recount. But it was just reconfirmed. And if anything it was closer than it was before. Title is misleading. Could also say “democrat almost loses Arizona attorney general race after recount”",
">\n\nNah, title is accurate. I mean, it could also say \"democrat solidifies victory over political opponent who lost the initial count and the subsequent recount,\" but that'd be as uselessly editorial as your version.",
">\n\nJust what AZ needs: More support for illegal border crossings. But hey, it’s their state.",
">\n\nIf y'all actually cared about illegal immigrants, how come you guys never go after the ones who hire illegal immigrants?\nDon't want to go after your own party I bet",
">\n\nthis is a perfect example of what’s wrong with american politics. no one cares who one it is or what they’ve done. people just care about weather they are a democrat or a republican",
">\n\nI assume that Arizona cared enough to NOT elect a whacked out fascist, but ya know... reality and all that",
">\n\nFucking wink wink, I’ve been to Arizona, I know they didn’t vote Democratic",
">\n\nYeah well I live here and I think that trumps your shitty narrative. There are a LOT of young Democrats in Phoenix/Maricopa county and a lot of elderly folks in more rural or Republican strongholds and a good chunk of people probably died off due to conspiracy theories about masks and vaccines. Phoenix is the 5th largest city in the country population wise. Do the math.\nOh wait, you don't have to. They already did it twice for you!",
">\n\nPray tell why it was that I traversed the entire state via Route 66 and saw 100x the amount of Trump material than I did Biden or anyone democratic?",
">\n\nBecause putting political shit on your car is super cringe. Sounds like you answered your own question there?"
] |
>
A difference of 230 votes out of over 2 million is a bit better than normal, yeah. | [
"This is why every vote matters\nCongratulations to the people of Arizona",
">\n\nThank goodness Katie Hobbs was in charge of her own election. It’s much easier to win for yourself and your party when you purposefully screw things up for voters causing 2+ hour lines and disenfranchising thousands of citizens voting on Election Day. With leadership like Katie I’m sure Democrats will keep winning for a long time!",
">\n\n\nwhen you purposefully screw things up for voters causing 2+ hour lines and disenfranchising thousands of citizens voting on Election Day. With leadership like Katie I’m sure Democrats will keep winning for a long time!\n\nCitation needed. You know who is to blame? Conservative mouthpieces telling their base to vote last minute when problems can arise. Newsflash to all: early voting works! :)\nAlso, should be noted that across the state there were major Republican election officials who corroborate the integrity of the election.",
">\n\nYou know you're grasping at straws when your argument is \"telling people to vote is disenfranchisement\" LOL you made me laugh",
">\n\nSo, to be clear:\n\nStill no source.\nNo recognition of the failed anti-early voting propaganda from the right that backfired amusingly. \nNo recognition to the numerous state election republican officials who backed the integrity of the elections. (I'd be surprised if you could name them). \nNo recognition to the countless failed court challenges.",
">\n\nI'm a fan of short voting lines across the board. That's why I encourage everyone to do the legal, safe, effective early-voting. Republicans should have done the same. \nLong lines disenfranchise all. I'm sure many dems were in those lines, too.\nAlso, this does not substantiate your claim that Hobbs intentionally did this lol.\nThe judge agrees with me: you can't make accusations about intention without evidence. That would be irresponsible and baseless. If it didn't matter, you and Lake wouldn't be trying to shoehorn in the intentional part. Especially considering this impacts all voters, not just Republicans.\nAlso wait, do you want Hobbs to be hands-on, or hands-off the election? Can't blame her for being in charge while running for governor and then also want her to run it closely and not delegate responsibilities to someone else (which she largely did; see Bill Gates).",
">\n\n\nAlso, this does not substantiate your claim that Hobbs intentionally did this lol.\n\nMaybe you're mistaking me with somebody else, but I never made this claim and I don't care if it was intentional or not.\nIf somebody unintentionally rigs an election... call me old fashioned but I say that's bad! I never said it was intentional. At best, it was negligence... but who knows if it was intentional or not!?",
">\n\nAgain, quoting you:\n\nwhen you purposefully screw things up for voters causing 2+ hour lines and disenfranchising thousands of citizens voting on Election Day. With leadership like Katie I’m sure Democrats will keep winning for a long time!\n\nSynonymous with intentional. Also, again: Republican election officials from Richter to Gates corroborate the integrity of the election. Also, again, no group was targeted since all groups were in those lines. \nAlso, voting lines are often long and yes should be addressed. There would be less lines if Republicans were encouraged to use the system in place in Arizona that is literally a model for the country. That's not the fault of Hobbs that misinformation among Republicans abounds and adds strain to a system that shouldn't need to be strained.",
">\n\nNegligence is purposeful, but that doesn’t mean it’s an intentional action.\nThe lines weren’t 2-3 hours because there were a lot of people. Those lines were there because of a failure in administration, oversight, testing, etc. (i.e. responsibilities of the SOS)",
">\n\n\nRepublican attorneys are going to look through the numbers again and see if there's any grounds to do anything going forward\n\nRelentless.",
">\n\nEhh.\nI support everyone's right to exhaust every legal avenue. If the Republican won by one vote, I'd support the Democrats' right to see if it can be legally overturned, too.\nThe problem is the extrajudicial bullshit the Republicans are trying, not legitimate legal challenges.",
">\n\nWhat legal avenues are there after the recount? Just keep recounting until they get a result they like?",
">\n\nI'm not a lawyer, so I don't know exactly.\nBut if--and that's a big hypothetical \"if\", not something I actually believe happened--for example there were an unusually large discrepancy in the recount, that might be worth challenging. If there's evidence that vote-counters were openly partisan, that might be worth challenging. Hell, if there's evidence that illegal voter suppression caused a significant shift from polling, that might be worth challenging.\nThe point is, if there are legal avenues, it's everyone's right to explore them. The problem is not challenging the results of the election through established legal means, it's challenging the results of the election outside of those established legal avenues.",
">\n\nEvery time they dig into investigating that stuff, they find more wrongdoing on the Republican side, and then try to brush the whole thing under the rug.",
">\n\nI'm not denying that. The point I'm trying to make is that the system must hold. If we want to be able to challenge Republican bullshit, we need to let the Republicans challenge whatever it's legal for them to challenge too. The moment we tell them no, we have zero defense against them telling us no too. In the meantime, the courts will throw out the bullshit.",
">\n\nOh, I wasn't disagreeing with you at all. The system must indeed hold. I was just pointing out that when they do fight it, it always ends up worse for them.",
">\n\n\n”My legal team will be assessing our options to make sure every vote is counted,” wrote Hamadeh, who hasn’t conceded to Mayes.\n\nFor fuck’s sake, THEY JUST COUNTED EVERY VOTE. That’s what a recount is, you absolute fucking DONKEY.",
">\n\nWell, the deficit was almost cut in half after the recount. At this rate, theyd have to recount it an infinite amount of times for it to be super close.",
">\n\nKnow your limits",
">\n\nMy understanding is that this is also the first state level election where the excess death rate of Covid on Republicans likely led to a Democratic victory. The more you know…",
">\n\nConsidering the margin she won by? Yeah, if the Republicans actually pushed their base to embrace proper health measures then they would have won.",
">\n\nThat could probably be said for a wider national look. Hopefully a study comes out in a couple of years on the Covid effect",
">\n\nI think that the Repubs could lose a substantial number of their older die-hard voters over just the next couple of years based on the resistance of many of them to masking and vaccinations. Plus in any year, you'll always have the expected mortality from heart disease, cancer, diabetes, Alzheimer's, accidents, etc. And even some of the younger ones look like health-disasters-waiting-to-happen, i.e. 'Gravy Seals' and 'Meal Team Six.'",
">\n\nWaiting for either evil or idiots to die doesn't usually go well. I've been hearing that far too long and know too many young conservatives, this is not something that just dies off. They must be fought or taught.",
">\n\nArizona has started realizing how much the GOP has screwed them. Unlike Texas, the state has started getting wise and sadly when John McCain died and Trump and company turned on his family and their narrative since he by one vote kept them from repelling the Affordable Health Care Act. When they didn't have a DAMN THING to replace it. Arizona didn't like that and while so many held on with the \"Big Lie\". Now with Lake and company losing so much and all the former GOP government pretty much trying to scorch Earth as they leave. I can see major change for the state. I know my family down there is very happy.",
">\n\nWell most people agree that the Affordable care act is a good thing. Even the red Republican. That's if you call it the ACA. But call it Obama Care no it's bad. What these people are doing is playing on the uneducated not knowing anything. The good thing is things should be going into the right direction. Especially after lake lost her election and election lawsuit.",
">\n\nI’ve literally seen people say Obamacare is bad but they’re glad they have the ACA to provide them health insurance\nThe cognitive dissonance in republicans is astounding",
">\n\nI work at the University monitoring classes. One the them was a history instructor. She said that they did a survey and highlighting everything that the ACA did. But what they did was changed the name. People viewed ACA more favorably when it was called the ACA over Obamacare. It is astonishing.",
">\n\nWell that was basically the point of that branding, wasn't it? \nBy branding the ACA as \"Obamacare,\" the GQP had a very easy time energizing and enraging their voters. They spent so much time to basically hammer in \"Obama bad\" so that by getting people to associate something fundamentally good with someone they hate, the GQP could gain power.\nThere are and were content-oriented critiques of the ACA. But those didn't matter much to the GQP because those critiques would require explaining nuances and their audience having a rudimentary understanding of healthcare law. It is much harder to get a primal reaction with that than it is to get one from saying \"this person bad and evil, this come from bad and evil person.\"",
">\n\nWell that's encouraging. Maybe AZ is rounding a corner and coming to it's senses?",
">\n\nNaw, shits gonna hit the fan now",
">\n\nHow so",
">\n\nRepublicans are going to raise holy hell",
">\n\nLol who cares, they get mad about fictional characters being the wrong race. Impotent outrage is their addiction.",
">\n\nWould help if the media quit covering their outrage as news.",
">\n\nTerrible headline. The Democrat won BEFORE the recount, and framing the story the way they did implies the recount was responsible for the win.",
">\n\nAZ lookin a Lil purplish nowadays",
">\n\n2 elections in a row Dems won, definitely purple.",
">\n\nGet in here, we’re using Republican tears to salt our margarita rims.",
">\n\nshe was also the winner before the recount:\n>Mayes (D) finished 280 votes ahead of Hamadeh (R), down from a lead of 511 in the original count. The reason for the discrepancy was not immediately clear.\nI only added the D and R for distinction in the above quote. So the recount narrowed her lead, but not enough to change anything.",
">\n\nI’m no conspiracy theorist, but if I were, I’d think the Biden administration backed off on Covid regulations knowing that it would cause a disproportionate number of republicans to die.",
">\n\nIf I were a conspiracy theorist, I’d speculate that democrats have been pushing idiocy on republicans for about 50 years, ensuring that democrat kids will outsurvive and outcompete republican kids. But I’m not, and in reality republicans did that for some reason.",
">\n\nat that point you are just admitting to being stupid and gullible with extra steps lol.",
">\n\nOne step at a time is how we move away from the brink.",
">\n\n\"StOp tHe sTeAL!!!1!!!\"",
">\n\nHave the snowflakes on the right started crying about a stolen election yet? Of course they have.",
">\n\nAll the usual bots are in Hamadeh's feed crying and accusing everyone of everything... So, typical GQP loss antics. I wonder if the SC didn't insert themselves into the Gore/Bush results, if the GQP would've adopted this as a strategy to every loss",
">\n\nThey won before the recount. The recount just confirms it.",
">\n\nI know it's really picky but she didn't win \"after\" the recount. She'd already won. The recount affirmed the victory.",
">\n\nThey now have a Democratic governor, attorney general, and Secretary of State, plus a Democratic Senator. Beautiful for a state that used to be considered a Republican stronghold.",
">\n\nMisleading headline.\nShe was already ahead by 511 votes before the recount. After the recount she was 208 votes ahead.\nSo she had already won, but due to how Arizona's election laws are, the small margin prompted a recount to affirm the winner.",
">\n\nThis is good news. Unfortunately it's only more imaginary ammunition for right wing nutjobs",
">\n\nI mean, she won it before the recount as well.",
">\n\nAs good as that news is, what a shame that the state’s new superintendent of public instruction is a raving right-winger who “promised to shut down any hint of ‘critical race theory’.”",
">\n\nThose of you who don't vote because you think it doesn't make any difference need to wake up!",
">\n\nHow is Arizona becoming better than Texas now?! Congrats AZ. From a jealous Texan.",
">\n\nI did my part but my district still has Gosar",
">\n\nI’m sorry for your loss",
">\n\nWe can all thank COVID-19 for this as the margin of Republicans vs. Democrats who unnecessarily died from the virus due to their suicidal politics is far larger than the margin here.\nCOVID-19 is the ultimate Republican self-own.",
">\n\nThe shucky ducky margin.",
">\n\nCue republican shrieking",
">\n\nNow go prosecute the fake electors and their abettors.",
">\n\ngood less power republicans have the better",
">\n\nWhoohooo!",
">\n\nGood on you Arizona.",
">\n\nI worked on some of her television ads! Good for her!",
">\n\nThis last election gave me a little hope that our country isn't yet sliding into fascism.",
">\n\nThe one race that was definitely decided by Republicans intentional antipathy to Covid vaccines.",
">\n\nYeah, well check out the founder of “body for life” bill Phillips. I have friends that train almost everyday, and almost died. Yes, being obese is a co-morbidity, but there are fit people that got hit hard also. I know orca-fat people that had mild symptoms also.",
">\n\nPhew! That should slow down their GOP's march to the middle ages.",
">\n\nRecounts. So hot right now.",
">\n\nAnother win for the good guys!",
">\n\nLawsuit in 5...4...3...",
">\n\nOnce again, no bamboo ballots were discovered.",
">\n\nNow root out the treason and traitors in your state",
">\n\nWho was she running against? A trump backed republican or?",
">\n\nArizona today, texas soon...",
">\n\nIt's going to be too late for a LOT of women/LGBTQ folks in Texas :(",
">\n\nSadly, too true.",
">\n\nWas that recount #1,2,or 3 ?",
">\n\nWon before it too",
">\n\nThank god",
">\n\nHAH! I was buds with the loser, Hamadeh in college and I have no idea what happened to him. It was a pleasure to vote against him and I like to fantasize I and my family may have been the ones to tip the race. \nGlad to see him lose but like most wealthy I'm betting we're going to see him fail upwards.",
">\n\nWinning it twice. She was ahead in the OG count too",
">\n\nDamn those Italian satellites are still working",
">\n\nThis is BS! Obviously the loser Kari Lake won, election fraud is everywhere how can't you see it?!??",
">\n\nEverybody should thank Kari Lake for the win.",
">\n\nThis drama would have not happened if they just used modern counting systems instead of people who looked like they haven’t been outside in days.",
">\n\nDoes this mean the student debt forgiveness lawsuit will get dropped?",
">\n\nOwned Republicons!",
">\n\nAnd the losers just keep losing. Love it.",
">\n\nTruth does Prevail",
">\n\nI’m so proud of my state",
">\n\nYes Democrats still winning!!",
">\n\nI'm so tired of all this winning.",
">\n\nThe Meth politicians loose again. Yay!",
">\n\nOh, that won’t be the end of it. Lawsuit incoming in ten, nine, eight…",
">\n\nWe could probably get 200 people here on reddit who have voted for her, including myself.\nIt's so crazy it was that close.",
">\n\nStill crazy to me that you guys in the US get to elect state attorneys.",
">\n\nThe real problem with electing state attorneys is that they are completely independent and report to no one. An attorney is supposed to represent clients - but these elected attorneys get to pick what cases they want to be involved with and can act independently, even if everyone else in the state government disagrees with the positions they take.",
">\n\nYeah that makes sense…",
">\n\nLet’s hope she’s one of the good ones and not them woke ones.",
">\n\nwhat's your definition of woke?",
">\n\nThe one that makes you go broke",
">\n\nWhere are the Q ninjas?",
">\n\nDid you expect anything else?",
">\n\nHad plenty of time to pack those ballot boxes after legal voting closed. Gotta love it.",
">\n\nTake the w, now pay close attention, you team sport Republican voters- think about what you actually care about and focus on what gets done with these slimy Q fuckheads at the helm, and how much is addressed. This isn’t a fucking game.",
">\n\nI’m glad at the result, but I have to admit it bothers me a bit that we apparently suck so much at accounting for votes that our tally can change by hundreds during a recount.\nEspecially since a system that detail-blind could create opportunity for electoral fraud or other hanky panky.",
">\n\nMost places have automatic or offer recounts when the results are very close. Otherwise it doesn’t really matter. 100 of votes out of 100,000 or a million votes is a very low percentage. This is proof of the dedication to accuracy.",
">\n\n\n100 of votes out of 100,000 or a million votes is a very low percentage\n\n(1) It doesn’t really matter how low a percentage it is if you have majority races that are decided that narrowly. It will change an outcome in a race that’s 200 votes apart if you can’t keep track of votes to the nearest 200.\n(2) That’s not actually good accuracy compared to what should be reasonably achievable from moderately competent people running a well designed system.\nA house costs >$100,000. If your mortgage company charged you an extra hundred here or there would you think that was good accounting on their part? Would you be satisfied with their service if they kept reporting different numbers each time you asked your remaining balance for the month? It’s not like the technology doesn’t exist to be more accurate.",
">\n\nIt actually didn’t change the outcome in this case. It only confirmed the victory. 2.4 million people voted in Arizona in the last election, 100 votes is 0.000041666666667%. Its an imperfect world which is why we have recounts when it’s very close. It’s also important to note that very seldom do recounts change the results.",
">\n\nWhat about Second Recount? Or Recountsies? Do they know about mid afternoon Recounts?",
">\n\nIncoming republican firestorm of ‘sToLEn ElECtiOns’ in 3-2-1",
">\n\n\nno one cares who one it is or what they’ve done.\n\nNo, I'm pretty sure people are happy a trump endorsed moron didn't get the spot.",
">\n\n“That recount was rigged, we are going to do a re-recount to confirm that we actually won in the initial count” - whoever lost that attorney general race\nEdit: I didn’t read the article and assumed that the result was changed after the recount. But it was just reconfirmed. And if anything it was closer than it was before. Title is misleading. Could also say “democrat almost loses Arizona attorney general race after recount”",
">\n\nNah, title is accurate. I mean, it could also say \"democrat solidifies victory over political opponent who lost the initial count and the subsequent recount,\" but that'd be as uselessly editorial as your version.",
">\n\nJust what AZ needs: More support for illegal border crossings. But hey, it’s their state.",
">\n\nIf y'all actually cared about illegal immigrants, how come you guys never go after the ones who hire illegal immigrants?\nDon't want to go after your own party I bet",
">\n\nthis is a perfect example of what’s wrong with american politics. no one cares who one it is or what they’ve done. people just care about weather they are a democrat or a republican",
">\n\nI assume that Arizona cared enough to NOT elect a whacked out fascist, but ya know... reality and all that",
">\n\nFucking wink wink, I’ve been to Arizona, I know they didn’t vote Democratic",
">\n\nYeah well I live here and I think that trumps your shitty narrative. There are a LOT of young Democrats in Phoenix/Maricopa county and a lot of elderly folks in more rural or Republican strongholds and a good chunk of people probably died off due to conspiracy theories about masks and vaccines. Phoenix is the 5th largest city in the country population wise. Do the math.\nOh wait, you don't have to. They already did it twice for you!",
">\n\nPray tell why it was that I traversed the entire state via Route 66 and saw 100x the amount of Trump material than I did Biden or anyone democratic?",
">\n\nBecause putting political shit on your car is super cringe. Sounds like you answered your own question there?",
">\n\nI don’t recall saying anything about a car"
] |
>
OMG RiGgEd | [
"This is why every vote matters\nCongratulations to the people of Arizona",
">\n\nThank goodness Katie Hobbs was in charge of her own election. It’s much easier to win for yourself and your party when you purposefully screw things up for voters causing 2+ hour lines and disenfranchising thousands of citizens voting on Election Day. With leadership like Katie I’m sure Democrats will keep winning for a long time!",
">\n\n\nwhen you purposefully screw things up for voters causing 2+ hour lines and disenfranchising thousands of citizens voting on Election Day. With leadership like Katie I’m sure Democrats will keep winning for a long time!\n\nCitation needed. You know who is to blame? Conservative mouthpieces telling their base to vote last minute when problems can arise. Newsflash to all: early voting works! :)\nAlso, should be noted that across the state there were major Republican election officials who corroborate the integrity of the election.",
">\n\nYou know you're grasping at straws when your argument is \"telling people to vote is disenfranchisement\" LOL you made me laugh",
">\n\nSo, to be clear:\n\nStill no source.\nNo recognition of the failed anti-early voting propaganda from the right that backfired amusingly. \nNo recognition to the numerous state election republican officials who backed the integrity of the elections. (I'd be surprised if you could name them). \nNo recognition to the countless failed court challenges.",
">\n\nI'm a fan of short voting lines across the board. That's why I encourage everyone to do the legal, safe, effective early-voting. Republicans should have done the same. \nLong lines disenfranchise all. I'm sure many dems were in those lines, too.\nAlso, this does not substantiate your claim that Hobbs intentionally did this lol.\nThe judge agrees with me: you can't make accusations about intention without evidence. That would be irresponsible and baseless. If it didn't matter, you and Lake wouldn't be trying to shoehorn in the intentional part. Especially considering this impacts all voters, not just Republicans.\nAlso wait, do you want Hobbs to be hands-on, or hands-off the election? Can't blame her for being in charge while running for governor and then also want her to run it closely and not delegate responsibilities to someone else (which she largely did; see Bill Gates).",
">\n\n\nAlso, this does not substantiate your claim that Hobbs intentionally did this lol.\n\nMaybe you're mistaking me with somebody else, but I never made this claim and I don't care if it was intentional or not.\nIf somebody unintentionally rigs an election... call me old fashioned but I say that's bad! I never said it was intentional. At best, it was negligence... but who knows if it was intentional or not!?",
">\n\nAgain, quoting you:\n\nwhen you purposefully screw things up for voters causing 2+ hour lines and disenfranchising thousands of citizens voting on Election Day. With leadership like Katie I’m sure Democrats will keep winning for a long time!\n\nSynonymous with intentional. Also, again: Republican election officials from Richter to Gates corroborate the integrity of the election. Also, again, no group was targeted since all groups were in those lines. \nAlso, voting lines are often long and yes should be addressed. There would be less lines if Republicans were encouraged to use the system in place in Arizona that is literally a model for the country. That's not the fault of Hobbs that misinformation among Republicans abounds and adds strain to a system that shouldn't need to be strained.",
">\n\nNegligence is purposeful, but that doesn’t mean it’s an intentional action.\nThe lines weren’t 2-3 hours because there were a lot of people. Those lines were there because of a failure in administration, oversight, testing, etc. (i.e. responsibilities of the SOS)",
">\n\n\nRepublican attorneys are going to look through the numbers again and see if there's any grounds to do anything going forward\n\nRelentless.",
">\n\nEhh.\nI support everyone's right to exhaust every legal avenue. If the Republican won by one vote, I'd support the Democrats' right to see if it can be legally overturned, too.\nThe problem is the extrajudicial bullshit the Republicans are trying, not legitimate legal challenges.",
">\n\nWhat legal avenues are there after the recount? Just keep recounting until they get a result they like?",
">\n\nI'm not a lawyer, so I don't know exactly.\nBut if--and that's a big hypothetical \"if\", not something I actually believe happened--for example there were an unusually large discrepancy in the recount, that might be worth challenging. If there's evidence that vote-counters were openly partisan, that might be worth challenging. Hell, if there's evidence that illegal voter suppression caused a significant shift from polling, that might be worth challenging.\nThe point is, if there are legal avenues, it's everyone's right to explore them. The problem is not challenging the results of the election through established legal means, it's challenging the results of the election outside of those established legal avenues.",
">\n\nEvery time they dig into investigating that stuff, they find more wrongdoing on the Republican side, and then try to brush the whole thing under the rug.",
">\n\nI'm not denying that. The point I'm trying to make is that the system must hold. If we want to be able to challenge Republican bullshit, we need to let the Republicans challenge whatever it's legal for them to challenge too. The moment we tell them no, we have zero defense against them telling us no too. In the meantime, the courts will throw out the bullshit.",
">\n\nOh, I wasn't disagreeing with you at all. The system must indeed hold. I was just pointing out that when they do fight it, it always ends up worse for them.",
">\n\n\n”My legal team will be assessing our options to make sure every vote is counted,” wrote Hamadeh, who hasn’t conceded to Mayes.\n\nFor fuck’s sake, THEY JUST COUNTED EVERY VOTE. That’s what a recount is, you absolute fucking DONKEY.",
">\n\nWell, the deficit was almost cut in half after the recount. At this rate, theyd have to recount it an infinite amount of times for it to be super close.",
">\n\nKnow your limits",
">\n\nMy understanding is that this is also the first state level election where the excess death rate of Covid on Republicans likely led to a Democratic victory. The more you know…",
">\n\nConsidering the margin she won by? Yeah, if the Republicans actually pushed their base to embrace proper health measures then they would have won.",
">\n\nThat could probably be said for a wider national look. Hopefully a study comes out in a couple of years on the Covid effect",
">\n\nI think that the Repubs could lose a substantial number of their older die-hard voters over just the next couple of years based on the resistance of many of them to masking and vaccinations. Plus in any year, you'll always have the expected mortality from heart disease, cancer, diabetes, Alzheimer's, accidents, etc. And even some of the younger ones look like health-disasters-waiting-to-happen, i.e. 'Gravy Seals' and 'Meal Team Six.'",
">\n\nWaiting for either evil or idiots to die doesn't usually go well. I've been hearing that far too long and know too many young conservatives, this is not something that just dies off. They must be fought or taught.",
">\n\nArizona has started realizing how much the GOP has screwed them. Unlike Texas, the state has started getting wise and sadly when John McCain died and Trump and company turned on his family and their narrative since he by one vote kept them from repelling the Affordable Health Care Act. When they didn't have a DAMN THING to replace it. Arizona didn't like that and while so many held on with the \"Big Lie\". Now with Lake and company losing so much and all the former GOP government pretty much trying to scorch Earth as they leave. I can see major change for the state. I know my family down there is very happy.",
">\n\nWell most people agree that the Affordable care act is a good thing. Even the red Republican. That's if you call it the ACA. But call it Obama Care no it's bad. What these people are doing is playing on the uneducated not knowing anything. The good thing is things should be going into the right direction. Especially after lake lost her election and election lawsuit.",
">\n\nI’ve literally seen people say Obamacare is bad but they’re glad they have the ACA to provide them health insurance\nThe cognitive dissonance in republicans is astounding",
">\n\nI work at the University monitoring classes. One the them was a history instructor. She said that they did a survey and highlighting everything that the ACA did. But what they did was changed the name. People viewed ACA more favorably when it was called the ACA over Obamacare. It is astonishing.",
">\n\nWell that was basically the point of that branding, wasn't it? \nBy branding the ACA as \"Obamacare,\" the GQP had a very easy time energizing and enraging their voters. They spent so much time to basically hammer in \"Obama bad\" so that by getting people to associate something fundamentally good with someone they hate, the GQP could gain power.\nThere are and were content-oriented critiques of the ACA. But those didn't matter much to the GQP because those critiques would require explaining nuances and their audience having a rudimentary understanding of healthcare law. It is much harder to get a primal reaction with that than it is to get one from saying \"this person bad and evil, this come from bad and evil person.\"",
">\n\nWell that's encouraging. Maybe AZ is rounding a corner and coming to it's senses?",
">\n\nNaw, shits gonna hit the fan now",
">\n\nHow so",
">\n\nRepublicans are going to raise holy hell",
">\n\nLol who cares, they get mad about fictional characters being the wrong race. Impotent outrage is their addiction.",
">\n\nWould help if the media quit covering their outrage as news.",
">\n\nTerrible headline. The Democrat won BEFORE the recount, and framing the story the way they did implies the recount was responsible for the win.",
">\n\nAZ lookin a Lil purplish nowadays",
">\n\n2 elections in a row Dems won, definitely purple.",
">\n\nGet in here, we’re using Republican tears to salt our margarita rims.",
">\n\nshe was also the winner before the recount:\n>Mayes (D) finished 280 votes ahead of Hamadeh (R), down from a lead of 511 in the original count. The reason for the discrepancy was not immediately clear.\nI only added the D and R for distinction in the above quote. So the recount narrowed her lead, but not enough to change anything.",
">\n\nI’m no conspiracy theorist, but if I were, I’d think the Biden administration backed off on Covid regulations knowing that it would cause a disproportionate number of republicans to die.",
">\n\nIf I were a conspiracy theorist, I’d speculate that democrats have been pushing idiocy on republicans for about 50 years, ensuring that democrat kids will outsurvive and outcompete republican kids. But I’m not, and in reality republicans did that for some reason.",
">\n\nat that point you are just admitting to being stupid and gullible with extra steps lol.",
">\n\nOne step at a time is how we move away from the brink.",
">\n\n\"StOp tHe sTeAL!!!1!!!\"",
">\n\nHave the snowflakes on the right started crying about a stolen election yet? Of course they have.",
">\n\nAll the usual bots are in Hamadeh's feed crying and accusing everyone of everything... So, typical GQP loss antics. I wonder if the SC didn't insert themselves into the Gore/Bush results, if the GQP would've adopted this as a strategy to every loss",
">\n\nThey won before the recount. The recount just confirms it.",
">\n\nI know it's really picky but she didn't win \"after\" the recount. She'd already won. The recount affirmed the victory.",
">\n\nThey now have a Democratic governor, attorney general, and Secretary of State, plus a Democratic Senator. Beautiful for a state that used to be considered a Republican stronghold.",
">\n\nMisleading headline.\nShe was already ahead by 511 votes before the recount. After the recount she was 208 votes ahead.\nSo she had already won, but due to how Arizona's election laws are, the small margin prompted a recount to affirm the winner.",
">\n\nThis is good news. Unfortunately it's only more imaginary ammunition for right wing nutjobs",
">\n\nI mean, she won it before the recount as well.",
">\n\nAs good as that news is, what a shame that the state’s new superintendent of public instruction is a raving right-winger who “promised to shut down any hint of ‘critical race theory’.”",
">\n\nThose of you who don't vote because you think it doesn't make any difference need to wake up!",
">\n\nHow is Arizona becoming better than Texas now?! Congrats AZ. From a jealous Texan.",
">\n\nI did my part but my district still has Gosar",
">\n\nI’m sorry for your loss",
">\n\nWe can all thank COVID-19 for this as the margin of Republicans vs. Democrats who unnecessarily died from the virus due to their suicidal politics is far larger than the margin here.\nCOVID-19 is the ultimate Republican self-own.",
">\n\nThe shucky ducky margin.",
">\n\nCue republican shrieking",
">\n\nNow go prosecute the fake electors and their abettors.",
">\n\ngood less power republicans have the better",
">\n\nWhoohooo!",
">\n\nGood on you Arizona.",
">\n\nI worked on some of her television ads! Good for her!",
">\n\nThis last election gave me a little hope that our country isn't yet sliding into fascism.",
">\n\nThe one race that was definitely decided by Republicans intentional antipathy to Covid vaccines.",
">\n\nYeah, well check out the founder of “body for life” bill Phillips. I have friends that train almost everyday, and almost died. Yes, being obese is a co-morbidity, but there are fit people that got hit hard also. I know orca-fat people that had mild symptoms also.",
">\n\nPhew! That should slow down their GOP's march to the middle ages.",
">\n\nRecounts. So hot right now.",
">\n\nAnother win for the good guys!",
">\n\nLawsuit in 5...4...3...",
">\n\nOnce again, no bamboo ballots were discovered.",
">\n\nNow root out the treason and traitors in your state",
">\n\nWho was she running against? A trump backed republican or?",
">\n\nArizona today, texas soon...",
">\n\nIt's going to be too late for a LOT of women/LGBTQ folks in Texas :(",
">\n\nSadly, too true.",
">\n\nWas that recount #1,2,or 3 ?",
">\n\nWon before it too",
">\n\nThank god",
">\n\nHAH! I was buds with the loser, Hamadeh in college and I have no idea what happened to him. It was a pleasure to vote against him and I like to fantasize I and my family may have been the ones to tip the race. \nGlad to see him lose but like most wealthy I'm betting we're going to see him fail upwards.",
">\n\nWinning it twice. She was ahead in the OG count too",
">\n\nDamn those Italian satellites are still working",
">\n\nThis is BS! Obviously the loser Kari Lake won, election fraud is everywhere how can't you see it?!??",
">\n\nEverybody should thank Kari Lake for the win.",
">\n\nThis drama would have not happened if they just used modern counting systems instead of people who looked like they haven’t been outside in days.",
">\n\nDoes this mean the student debt forgiveness lawsuit will get dropped?",
">\n\nOwned Republicons!",
">\n\nAnd the losers just keep losing. Love it.",
">\n\nTruth does Prevail",
">\n\nI’m so proud of my state",
">\n\nYes Democrats still winning!!",
">\n\nI'm so tired of all this winning.",
">\n\nThe Meth politicians loose again. Yay!",
">\n\nOh, that won’t be the end of it. Lawsuit incoming in ten, nine, eight…",
">\n\nWe could probably get 200 people here on reddit who have voted for her, including myself.\nIt's so crazy it was that close.",
">\n\nStill crazy to me that you guys in the US get to elect state attorneys.",
">\n\nThe real problem with electing state attorneys is that they are completely independent and report to no one. An attorney is supposed to represent clients - but these elected attorneys get to pick what cases they want to be involved with and can act independently, even if everyone else in the state government disagrees with the positions they take.",
">\n\nYeah that makes sense…",
">\n\nLet’s hope she’s one of the good ones and not them woke ones.",
">\n\nwhat's your definition of woke?",
">\n\nThe one that makes you go broke",
">\n\nWhere are the Q ninjas?",
">\n\nDid you expect anything else?",
">\n\nHad plenty of time to pack those ballot boxes after legal voting closed. Gotta love it.",
">\n\nTake the w, now pay close attention, you team sport Republican voters- think about what you actually care about and focus on what gets done with these slimy Q fuckheads at the helm, and how much is addressed. This isn’t a fucking game.",
">\n\nI’m glad at the result, but I have to admit it bothers me a bit that we apparently suck so much at accounting for votes that our tally can change by hundreds during a recount.\nEspecially since a system that detail-blind could create opportunity for electoral fraud or other hanky panky.",
">\n\nMost places have automatic or offer recounts when the results are very close. Otherwise it doesn’t really matter. 100 of votes out of 100,000 or a million votes is a very low percentage. This is proof of the dedication to accuracy.",
">\n\n\n100 of votes out of 100,000 or a million votes is a very low percentage\n\n(1) It doesn’t really matter how low a percentage it is if you have majority races that are decided that narrowly. It will change an outcome in a race that’s 200 votes apart if you can’t keep track of votes to the nearest 200.\n(2) That’s not actually good accuracy compared to what should be reasonably achievable from moderately competent people running a well designed system.\nA house costs >$100,000. If your mortgage company charged you an extra hundred here or there would you think that was good accounting on their part? Would you be satisfied with their service if they kept reporting different numbers each time you asked your remaining balance for the month? It’s not like the technology doesn’t exist to be more accurate.",
">\n\nIt actually didn’t change the outcome in this case. It only confirmed the victory. 2.4 million people voted in Arizona in the last election, 100 votes is 0.000041666666667%. Its an imperfect world which is why we have recounts when it’s very close. It’s also important to note that very seldom do recounts change the results.",
">\n\nWhat about Second Recount? Or Recountsies? Do they know about mid afternoon Recounts?",
">\n\nIncoming republican firestorm of ‘sToLEn ElECtiOns’ in 3-2-1",
">\n\n\nno one cares who one it is or what they’ve done.\n\nNo, I'm pretty sure people are happy a trump endorsed moron didn't get the spot.",
">\n\n“That recount was rigged, we are going to do a re-recount to confirm that we actually won in the initial count” - whoever lost that attorney general race\nEdit: I didn’t read the article and assumed that the result was changed after the recount. But it was just reconfirmed. And if anything it was closer than it was before. Title is misleading. Could also say “democrat almost loses Arizona attorney general race after recount”",
">\n\nNah, title is accurate. I mean, it could also say \"democrat solidifies victory over political opponent who lost the initial count and the subsequent recount,\" but that'd be as uselessly editorial as your version.",
">\n\nJust what AZ needs: More support for illegal border crossings. But hey, it’s their state.",
">\n\nIf y'all actually cared about illegal immigrants, how come you guys never go after the ones who hire illegal immigrants?\nDon't want to go after your own party I bet",
">\n\nthis is a perfect example of what’s wrong with american politics. no one cares who one it is or what they’ve done. people just care about weather they are a democrat or a republican",
">\n\nI assume that Arizona cared enough to NOT elect a whacked out fascist, but ya know... reality and all that",
">\n\nFucking wink wink, I’ve been to Arizona, I know they didn’t vote Democratic",
">\n\nYeah well I live here and I think that trumps your shitty narrative. There are a LOT of young Democrats in Phoenix/Maricopa county and a lot of elderly folks in more rural or Republican strongholds and a good chunk of people probably died off due to conspiracy theories about masks and vaccines. Phoenix is the 5th largest city in the country population wise. Do the math.\nOh wait, you don't have to. They already did it twice for you!",
">\n\nPray tell why it was that I traversed the entire state via Route 66 and saw 100x the amount of Trump material than I did Biden or anyone democratic?",
">\n\nBecause putting political shit on your car is super cringe. Sounds like you answered your own question there?",
">\n\nI don’t recall saying anything about a car",
">\n\nA difference of 230 votes out of over 2 million is a bit better than normal, yeah."
] |
>
Simple minded recounts are just enough to convince simple minded people. | [
"This is why every vote matters\nCongratulations to the people of Arizona",
">\n\nThank goodness Katie Hobbs was in charge of her own election. It’s much easier to win for yourself and your party when you purposefully screw things up for voters causing 2+ hour lines and disenfranchising thousands of citizens voting on Election Day. With leadership like Katie I’m sure Democrats will keep winning for a long time!",
">\n\n\nwhen you purposefully screw things up for voters causing 2+ hour lines and disenfranchising thousands of citizens voting on Election Day. With leadership like Katie I’m sure Democrats will keep winning for a long time!\n\nCitation needed. You know who is to blame? Conservative mouthpieces telling their base to vote last minute when problems can arise. Newsflash to all: early voting works! :)\nAlso, should be noted that across the state there were major Republican election officials who corroborate the integrity of the election.",
">\n\nYou know you're grasping at straws when your argument is \"telling people to vote is disenfranchisement\" LOL you made me laugh",
">\n\nSo, to be clear:\n\nStill no source.\nNo recognition of the failed anti-early voting propaganda from the right that backfired amusingly. \nNo recognition to the numerous state election republican officials who backed the integrity of the elections. (I'd be surprised if you could name them). \nNo recognition to the countless failed court challenges.",
">\n\nI'm a fan of short voting lines across the board. That's why I encourage everyone to do the legal, safe, effective early-voting. Republicans should have done the same. \nLong lines disenfranchise all. I'm sure many dems were in those lines, too.\nAlso, this does not substantiate your claim that Hobbs intentionally did this lol.\nThe judge agrees with me: you can't make accusations about intention without evidence. That would be irresponsible and baseless. If it didn't matter, you and Lake wouldn't be trying to shoehorn in the intentional part. Especially considering this impacts all voters, not just Republicans.\nAlso wait, do you want Hobbs to be hands-on, or hands-off the election? Can't blame her for being in charge while running for governor and then also want her to run it closely and not delegate responsibilities to someone else (which she largely did; see Bill Gates).",
">\n\n\nAlso, this does not substantiate your claim that Hobbs intentionally did this lol.\n\nMaybe you're mistaking me with somebody else, but I never made this claim and I don't care if it was intentional or not.\nIf somebody unintentionally rigs an election... call me old fashioned but I say that's bad! I never said it was intentional. At best, it was negligence... but who knows if it was intentional or not!?",
">\n\nAgain, quoting you:\n\nwhen you purposefully screw things up for voters causing 2+ hour lines and disenfranchising thousands of citizens voting on Election Day. With leadership like Katie I’m sure Democrats will keep winning for a long time!\n\nSynonymous with intentional. Also, again: Republican election officials from Richter to Gates corroborate the integrity of the election. Also, again, no group was targeted since all groups were in those lines. \nAlso, voting lines are often long and yes should be addressed. There would be less lines if Republicans were encouraged to use the system in place in Arizona that is literally a model for the country. That's not the fault of Hobbs that misinformation among Republicans abounds and adds strain to a system that shouldn't need to be strained.",
">\n\nNegligence is purposeful, but that doesn’t mean it’s an intentional action.\nThe lines weren’t 2-3 hours because there were a lot of people. Those lines were there because of a failure in administration, oversight, testing, etc. (i.e. responsibilities of the SOS)",
">\n\n\nRepublican attorneys are going to look through the numbers again and see if there's any grounds to do anything going forward\n\nRelentless.",
">\n\nEhh.\nI support everyone's right to exhaust every legal avenue. If the Republican won by one vote, I'd support the Democrats' right to see if it can be legally overturned, too.\nThe problem is the extrajudicial bullshit the Republicans are trying, not legitimate legal challenges.",
">\n\nWhat legal avenues are there after the recount? Just keep recounting until they get a result they like?",
">\n\nI'm not a lawyer, so I don't know exactly.\nBut if--and that's a big hypothetical \"if\", not something I actually believe happened--for example there were an unusually large discrepancy in the recount, that might be worth challenging. If there's evidence that vote-counters were openly partisan, that might be worth challenging. Hell, if there's evidence that illegal voter suppression caused a significant shift from polling, that might be worth challenging.\nThe point is, if there are legal avenues, it's everyone's right to explore them. The problem is not challenging the results of the election through established legal means, it's challenging the results of the election outside of those established legal avenues.",
">\n\nEvery time they dig into investigating that stuff, they find more wrongdoing on the Republican side, and then try to brush the whole thing under the rug.",
">\n\nI'm not denying that. The point I'm trying to make is that the system must hold. If we want to be able to challenge Republican bullshit, we need to let the Republicans challenge whatever it's legal for them to challenge too. The moment we tell them no, we have zero defense against them telling us no too. In the meantime, the courts will throw out the bullshit.",
">\n\nOh, I wasn't disagreeing with you at all. The system must indeed hold. I was just pointing out that when they do fight it, it always ends up worse for them.",
">\n\n\n”My legal team will be assessing our options to make sure every vote is counted,” wrote Hamadeh, who hasn’t conceded to Mayes.\n\nFor fuck’s sake, THEY JUST COUNTED EVERY VOTE. That’s what a recount is, you absolute fucking DONKEY.",
">\n\nWell, the deficit was almost cut in half after the recount. At this rate, theyd have to recount it an infinite amount of times for it to be super close.",
">\n\nKnow your limits",
">\n\nMy understanding is that this is also the first state level election where the excess death rate of Covid on Republicans likely led to a Democratic victory. The more you know…",
">\n\nConsidering the margin she won by? Yeah, if the Republicans actually pushed their base to embrace proper health measures then they would have won.",
">\n\nThat could probably be said for a wider national look. Hopefully a study comes out in a couple of years on the Covid effect",
">\n\nI think that the Repubs could lose a substantial number of their older die-hard voters over just the next couple of years based on the resistance of many of them to masking and vaccinations. Plus in any year, you'll always have the expected mortality from heart disease, cancer, diabetes, Alzheimer's, accidents, etc. And even some of the younger ones look like health-disasters-waiting-to-happen, i.e. 'Gravy Seals' and 'Meal Team Six.'",
">\n\nWaiting for either evil or idiots to die doesn't usually go well. I've been hearing that far too long and know too many young conservatives, this is not something that just dies off. They must be fought or taught.",
">\n\nArizona has started realizing how much the GOP has screwed them. Unlike Texas, the state has started getting wise and sadly when John McCain died and Trump and company turned on his family and their narrative since he by one vote kept them from repelling the Affordable Health Care Act. When they didn't have a DAMN THING to replace it. Arizona didn't like that and while so many held on with the \"Big Lie\". Now with Lake and company losing so much and all the former GOP government pretty much trying to scorch Earth as they leave. I can see major change for the state. I know my family down there is very happy.",
">\n\nWell most people agree that the Affordable care act is a good thing. Even the red Republican. That's if you call it the ACA. But call it Obama Care no it's bad. What these people are doing is playing on the uneducated not knowing anything. The good thing is things should be going into the right direction. Especially after lake lost her election and election lawsuit.",
">\n\nI’ve literally seen people say Obamacare is bad but they’re glad they have the ACA to provide them health insurance\nThe cognitive dissonance in republicans is astounding",
">\n\nI work at the University monitoring classes. One the them was a history instructor. She said that they did a survey and highlighting everything that the ACA did. But what they did was changed the name. People viewed ACA more favorably when it was called the ACA over Obamacare. It is astonishing.",
">\n\nWell that was basically the point of that branding, wasn't it? \nBy branding the ACA as \"Obamacare,\" the GQP had a very easy time energizing and enraging their voters. They spent so much time to basically hammer in \"Obama bad\" so that by getting people to associate something fundamentally good with someone they hate, the GQP could gain power.\nThere are and were content-oriented critiques of the ACA. But those didn't matter much to the GQP because those critiques would require explaining nuances and their audience having a rudimentary understanding of healthcare law. It is much harder to get a primal reaction with that than it is to get one from saying \"this person bad and evil, this come from bad and evil person.\"",
">\n\nWell that's encouraging. Maybe AZ is rounding a corner and coming to it's senses?",
">\n\nNaw, shits gonna hit the fan now",
">\n\nHow so",
">\n\nRepublicans are going to raise holy hell",
">\n\nLol who cares, they get mad about fictional characters being the wrong race. Impotent outrage is their addiction.",
">\n\nWould help if the media quit covering their outrage as news.",
">\n\nTerrible headline. The Democrat won BEFORE the recount, and framing the story the way they did implies the recount was responsible for the win.",
">\n\nAZ lookin a Lil purplish nowadays",
">\n\n2 elections in a row Dems won, definitely purple.",
">\n\nGet in here, we’re using Republican tears to salt our margarita rims.",
">\n\nshe was also the winner before the recount:\n>Mayes (D) finished 280 votes ahead of Hamadeh (R), down from a lead of 511 in the original count. The reason for the discrepancy was not immediately clear.\nI only added the D and R for distinction in the above quote. So the recount narrowed her lead, but not enough to change anything.",
">\n\nI’m no conspiracy theorist, but if I were, I’d think the Biden administration backed off on Covid regulations knowing that it would cause a disproportionate number of republicans to die.",
">\n\nIf I were a conspiracy theorist, I’d speculate that democrats have been pushing idiocy on republicans for about 50 years, ensuring that democrat kids will outsurvive and outcompete republican kids. But I’m not, and in reality republicans did that for some reason.",
">\n\nat that point you are just admitting to being stupid and gullible with extra steps lol.",
">\n\nOne step at a time is how we move away from the brink.",
">\n\n\"StOp tHe sTeAL!!!1!!!\"",
">\n\nHave the snowflakes on the right started crying about a stolen election yet? Of course they have.",
">\n\nAll the usual bots are in Hamadeh's feed crying and accusing everyone of everything... So, typical GQP loss antics. I wonder if the SC didn't insert themselves into the Gore/Bush results, if the GQP would've adopted this as a strategy to every loss",
">\n\nThey won before the recount. The recount just confirms it.",
">\n\nI know it's really picky but she didn't win \"after\" the recount. She'd already won. The recount affirmed the victory.",
">\n\nThey now have a Democratic governor, attorney general, and Secretary of State, plus a Democratic Senator. Beautiful for a state that used to be considered a Republican stronghold.",
">\n\nMisleading headline.\nShe was already ahead by 511 votes before the recount. After the recount she was 208 votes ahead.\nSo she had already won, but due to how Arizona's election laws are, the small margin prompted a recount to affirm the winner.",
">\n\nThis is good news. Unfortunately it's only more imaginary ammunition for right wing nutjobs",
">\n\nI mean, she won it before the recount as well.",
">\n\nAs good as that news is, what a shame that the state’s new superintendent of public instruction is a raving right-winger who “promised to shut down any hint of ‘critical race theory’.”",
">\n\nThose of you who don't vote because you think it doesn't make any difference need to wake up!",
">\n\nHow is Arizona becoming better than Texas now?! Congrats AZ. From a jealous Texan.",
">\n\nI did my part but my district still has Gosar",
">\n\nI’m sorry for your loss",
">\n\nWe can all thank COVID-19 for this as the margin of Republicans vs. Democrats who unnecessarily died from the virus due to their suicidal politics is far larger than the margin here.\nCOVID-19 is the ultimate Republican self-own.",
">\n\nThe shucky ducky margin.",
">\n\nCue republican shrieking",
">\n\nNow go prosecute the fake electors and their abettors.",
">\n\ngood less power republicans have the better",
">\n\nWhoohooo!",
">\n\nGood on you Arizona.",
">\n\nI worked on some of her television ads! Good for her!",
">\n\nThis last election gave me a little hope that our country isn't yet sliding into fascism.",
">\n\nThe one race that was definitely decided by Republicans intentional antipathy to Covid vaccines.",
">\n\nYeah, well check out the founder of “body for life” bill Phillips. I have friends that train almost everyday, and almost died. Yes, being obese is a co-morbidity, but there are fit people that got hit hard also. I know orca-fat people that had mild symptoms also.",
">\n\nPhew! That should slow down their GOP's march to the middle ages.",
">\n\nRecounts. So hot right now.",
">\n\nAnother win for the good guys!",
">\n\nLawsuit in 5...4...3...",
">\n\nOnce again, no bamboo ballots were discovered.",
">\n\nNow root out the treason and traitors in your state",
">\n\nWho was she running against? A trump backed republican or?",
">\n\nArizona today, texas soon...",
">\n\nIt's going to be too late for a LOT of women/LGBTQ folks in Texas :(",
">\n\nSadly, too true.",
">\n\nWas that recount #1,2,or 3 ?",
">\n\nWon before it too",
">\n\nThank god",
">\n\nHAH! I was buds with the loser, Hamadeh in college and I have no idea what happened to him. It was a pleasure to vote against him and I like to fantasize I and my family may have been the ones to tip the race. \nGlad to see him lose but like most wealthy I'm betting we're going to see him fail upwards.",
">\n\nWinning it twice. She was ahead in the OG count too",
">\n\nDamn those Italian satellites are still working",
">\n\nThis is BS! Obviously the loser Kari Lake won, election fraud is everywhere how can't you see it?!??",
">\n\nEverybody should thank Kari Lake for the win.",
">\n\nThis drama would have not happened if they just used modern counting systems instead of people who looked like they haven’t been outside in days.",
">\n\nDoes this mean the student debt forgiveness lawsuit will get dropped?",
">\n\nOwned Republicons!",
">\n\nAnd the losers just keep losing. Love it.",
">\n\nTruth does Prevail",
">\n\nI’m so proud of my state",
">\n\nYes Democrats still winning!!",
">\n\nI'm so tired of all this winning.",
">\n\nThe Meth politicians loose again. Yay!",
">\n\nOh, that won’t be the end of it. Lawsuit incoming in ten, nine, eight…",
">\n\nWe could probably get 200 people here on reddit who have voted for her, including myself.\nIt's so crazy it was that close.",
">\n\nStill crazy to me that you guys in the US get to elect state attorneys.",
">\n\nThe real problem with electing state attorneys is that they are completely independent and report to no one. An attorney is supposed to represent clients - but these elected attorneys get to pick what cases they want to be involved with and can act independently, even if everyone else in the state government disagrees with the positions they take.",
">\n\nYeah that makes sense…",
">\n\nLet’s hope she’s one of the good ones and not them woke ones.",
">\n\nwhat's your definition of woke?",
">\n\nThe one that makes you go broke",
">\n\nWhere are the Q ninjas?",
">\n\nDid you expect anything else?",
">\n\nHad plenty of time to pack those ballot boxes after legal voting closed. Gotta love it.",
">\n\nTake the w, now pay close attention, you team sport Republican voters- think about what you actually care about and focus on what gets done with these slimy Q fuckheads at the helm, and how much is addressed. This isn’t a fucking game.",
">\n\nI’m glad at the result, but I have to admit it bothers me a bit that we apparently suck so much at accounting for votes that our tally can change by hundreds during a recount.\nEspecially since a system that detail-blind could create opportunity for electoral fraud or other hanky panky.",
">\n\nMost places have automatic or offer recounts when the results are very close. Otherwise it doesn’t really matter. 100 of votes out of 100,000 or a million votes is a very low percentage. This is proof of the dedication to accuracy.",
">\n\n\n100 of votes out of 100,000 or a million votes is a very low percentage\n\n(1) It doesn’t really matter how low a percentage it is if you have majority races that are decided that narrowly. It will change an outcome in a race that’s 200 votes apart if you can’t keep track of votes to the nearest 200.\n(2) That’s not actually good accuracy compared to what should be reasonably achievable from moderately competent people running a well designed system.\nA house costs >$100,000. If your mortgage company charged you an extra hundred here or there would you think that was good accounting on their part? Would you be satisfied with their service if they kept reporting different numbers each time you asked your remaining balance for the month? It’s not like the technology doesn’t exist to be more accurate.",
">\n\nIt actually didn’t change the outcome in this case. It only confirmed the victory. 2.4 million people voted in Arizona in the last election, 100 votes is 0.000041666666667%. Its an imperfect world which is why we have recounts when it’s very close. It’s also important to note that very seldom do recounts change the results.",
">\n\nWhat about Second Recount? Or Recountsies? Do they know about mid afternoon Recounts?",
">\n\nIncoming republican firestorm of ‘sToLEn ElECtiOns’ in 3-2-1",
">\n\n\nno one cares who one it is or what they’ve done.\n\nNo, I'm pretty sure people are happy a trump endorsed moron didn't get the spot.",
">\n\n“That recount was rigged, we are going to do a re-recount to confirm that we actually won in the initial count” - whoever lost that attorney general race\nEdit: I didn’t read the article and assumed that the result was changed after the recount. But it was just reconfirmed. And if anything it was closer than it was before. Title is misleading. Could also say “democrat almost loses Arizona attorney general race after recount”",
">\n\nNah, title is accurate. I mean, it could also say \"democrat solidifies victory over political opponent who lost the initial count and the subsequent recount,\" but that'd be as uselessly editorial as your version.",
">\n\nJust what AZ needs: More support for illegal border crossings. But hey, it’s their state.",
">\n\nIf y'all actually cared about illegal immigrants, how come you guys never go after the ones who hire illegal immigrants?\nDon't want to go after your own party I bet",
">\n\nthis is a perfect example of what’s wrong with american politics. no one cares who one it is or what they’ve done. people just care about weather they are a democrat or a republican",
">\n\nI assume that Arizona cared enough to NOT elect a whacked out fascist, but ya know... reality and all that",
">\n\nFucking wink wink, I’ve been to Arizona, I know they didn’t vote Democratic",
">\n\nYeah well I live here and I think that trumps your shitty narrative. There are a LOT of young Democrats in Phoenix/Maricopa county and a lot of elderly folks in more rural or Republican strongholds and a good chunk of people probably died off due to conspiracy theories about masks and vaccines. Phoenix is the 5th largest city in the country population wise. Do the math.\nOh wait, you don't have to. They already did it twice for you!",
">\n\nPray tell why it was that I traversed the entire state via Route 66 and saw 100x the amount of Trump material than I did Biden or anyone democratic?",
">\n\nBecause putting political shit on your car is super cringe. Sounds like you answered your own question there?",
">\n\nI don’t recall saying anything about a car",
">\n\nA difference of 230 votes out of over 2 million is a bit better than normal, yeah.",
">\n\nOMG RiGgEd"
] |
> | [
"This is why every vote matters\nCongratulations to the people of Arizona",
">\n\nThank goodness Katie Hobbs was in charge of her own election. It’s much easier to win for yourself and your party when you purposefully screw things up for voters causing 2+ hour lines and disenfranchising thousands of citizens voting on Election Day. With leadership like Katie I’m sure Democrats will keep winning for a long time!",
">\n\n\nwhen you purposefully screw things up for voters causing 2+ hour lines and disenfranchising thousands of citizens voting on Election Day. With leadership like Katie I’m sure Democrats will keep winning for a long time!\n\nCitation needed. You know who is to blame? Conservative mouthpieces telling their base to vote last minute when problems can arise. Newsflash to all: early voting works! :)\nAlso, should be noted that across the state there were major Republican election officials who corroborate the integrity of the election.",
">\n\nYou know you're grasping at straws when your argument is \"telling people to vote is disenfranchisement\" LOL you made me laugh",
">\n\nSo, to be clear:\n\nStill no source.\nNo recognition of the failed anti-early voting propaganda from the right that backfired amusingly. \nNo recognition to the numerous state election republican officials who backed the integrity of the elections. (I'd be surprised if you could name them). \nNo recognition to the countless failed court challenges.",
">\n\nI'm a fan of short voting lines across the board. That's why I encourage everyone to do the legal, safe, effective early-voting. Republicans should have done the same. \nLong lines disenfranchise all. I'm sure many dems were in those lines, too.\nAlso, this does not substantiate your claim that Hobbs intentionally did this lol.\nThe judge agrees with me: you can't make accusations about intention without evidence. That would be irresponsible and baseless. If it didn't matter, you and Lake wouldn't be trying to shoehorn in the intentional part. Especially considering this impacts all voters, not just Republicans.\nAlso wait, do you want Hobbs to be hands-on, or hands-off the election? Can't blame her for being in charge while running for governor and then also want her to run it closely and not delegate responsibilities to someone else (which she largely did; see Bill Gates).",
">\n\n\nAlso, this does not substantiate your claim that Hobbs intentionally did this lol.\n\nMaybe you're mistaking me with somebody else, but I never made this claim and I don't care if it was intentional or not.\nIf somebody unintentionally rigs an election... call me old fashioned but I say that's bad! I never said it was intentional. At best, it was negligence... but who knows if it was intentional or not!?",
">\n\nAgain, quoting you:\n\nwhen you purposefully screw things up for voters causing 2+ hour lines and disenfranchising thousands of citizens voting on Election Day. With leadership like Katie I’m sure Democrats will keep winning for a long time!\n\nSynonymous with intentional. Also, again: Republican election officials from Richter to Gates corroborate the integrity of the election. Also, again, no group was targeted since all groups were in those lines. \nAlso, voting lines are often long and yes should be addressed. There would be less lines if Republicans were encouraged to use the system in place in Arizona that is literally a model for the country. That's not the fault of Hobbs that misinformation among Republicans abounds and adds strain to a system that shouldn't need to be strained.",
">\n\nNegligence is purposeful, but that doesn’t mean it’s an intentional action.\nThe lines weren’t 2-3 hours because there were a lot of people. Those lines were there because of a failure in administration, oversight, testing, etc. (i.e. responsibilities of the SOS)",
">\n\n\nRepublican attorneys are going to look through the numbers again and see if there's any grounds to do anything going forward\n\nRelentless.",
">\n\nEhh.\nI support everyone's right to exhaust every legal avenue. If the Republican won by one vote, I'd support the Democrats' right to see if it can be legally overturned, too.\nThe problem is the extrajudicial bullshit the Republicans are trying, not legitimate legal challenges.",
">\n\nWhat legal avenues are there after the recount? Just keep recounting until they get a result they like?",
">\n\nI'm not a lawyer, so I don't know exactly.\nBut if--and that's a big hypothetical \"if\", not something I actually believe happened--for example there were an unusually large discrepancy in the recount, that might be worth challenging. If there's evidence that vote-counters were openly partisan, that might be worth challenging. Hell, if there's evidence that illegal voter suppression caused a significant shift from polling, that might be worth challenging.\nThe point is, if there are legal avenues, it's everyone's right to explore them. The problem is not challenging the results of the election through established legal means, it's challenging the results of the election outside of those established legal avenues.",
">\n\nEvery time they dig into investigating that stuff, they find more wrongdoing on the Republican side, and then try to brush the whole thing under the rug.",
">\n\nI'm not denying that. The point I'm trying to make is that the system must hold. If we want to be able to challenge Republican bullshit, we need to let the Republicans challenge whatever it's legal for them to challenge too. The moment we tell them no, we have zero defense against them telling us no too. In the meantime, the courts will throw out the bullshit.",
">\n\nOh, I wasn't disagreeing with you at all. The system must indeed hold. I was just pointing out that when they do fight it, it always ends up worse for them.",
">\n\n\n”My legal team will be assessing our options to make sure every vote is counted,” wrote Hamadeh, who hasn’t conceded to Mayes.\n\nFor fuck’s sake, THEY JUST COUNTED EVERY VOTE. That’s what a recount is, you absolute fucking DONKEY.",
">\n\nWell, the deficit was almost cut in half after the recount. At this rate, theyd have to recount it an infinite amount of times for it to be super close.",
">\n\nKnow your limits",
">\n\nMy understanding is that this is also the first state level election where the excess death rate of Covid on Republicans likely led to a Democratic victory. The more you know…",
">\n\nConsidering the margin she won by? Yeah, if the Republicans actually pushed their base to embrace proper health measures then they would have won.",
">\n\nThat could probably be said for a wider national look. Hopefully a study comes out in a couple of years on the Covid effect",
">\n\nI think that the Repubs could lose a substantial number of their older die-hard voters over just the next couple of years based on the resistance of many of them to masking and vaccinations. Plus in any year, you'll always have the expected mortality from heart disease, cancer, diabetes, Alzheimer's, accidents, etc. And even some of the younger ones look like health-disasters-waiting-to-happen, i.e. 'Gravy Seals' and 'Meal Team Six.'",
">\n\nWaiting for either evil or idiots to die doesn't usually go well. I've been hearing that far too long and know too many young conservatives, this is not something that just dies off. They must be fought or taught.",
">\n\nArizona has started realizing how much the GOP has screwed them. Unlike Texas, the state has started getting wise and sadly when John McCain died and Trump and company turned on his family and their narrative since he by one vote kept them from repelling the Affordable Health Care Act. When they didn't have a DAMN THING to replace it. Arizona didn't like that and while so many held on with the \"Big Lie\". Now with Lake and company losing so much and all the former GOP government pretty much trying to scorch Earth as they leave. I can see major change for the state. I know my family down there is very happy.",
">\n\nWell most people agree that the Affordable care act is a good thing. Even the red Republican. That's if you call it the ACA. But call it Obama Care no it's bad. What these people are doing is playing on the uneducated not knowing anything. The good thing is things should be going into the right direction. Especially after lake lost her election and election lawsuit.",
">\n\nI’ve literally seen people say Obamacare is bad but they’re glad they have the ACA to provide them health insurance\nThe cognitive dissonance in republicans is astounding",
">\n\nI work at the University monitoring classes. One the them was a history instructor. She said that they did a survey and highlighting everything that the ACA did. But what they did was changed the name. People viewed ACA more favorably when it was called the ACA over Obamacare. It is astonishing.",
">\n\nWell that was basically the point of that branding, wasn't it? \nBy branding the ACA as \"Obamacare,\" the GQP had a very easy time energizing and enraging their voters. They spent so much time to basically hammer in \"Obama bad\" so that by getting people to associate something fundamentally good with someone they hate, the GQP could gain power.\nThere are and were content-oriented critiques of the ACA. But those didn't matter much to the GQP because those critiques would require explaining nuances and their audience having a rudimentary understanding of healthcare law. It is much harder to get a primal reaction with that than it is to get one from saying \"this person bad and evil, this come from bad and evil person.\"",
">\n\nWell that's encouraging. Maybe AZ is rounding a corner and coming to it's senses?",
">\n\nNaw, shits gonna hit the fan now",
">\n\nHow so",
">\n\nRepublicans are going to raise holy hell",
">\n\nLol who cares, they get mad about fictional characters being the wrong race. Impotent outrage is their addiction.",
">\n\nWould help if the media quit covering their outrage as news.",
">\n\nTerrible headline. The Democrat won BEFORE the recount, and framing the story the way they did implies the recount was responsible for the win.",
">\n\nAZ lookin a Lil purplish nowadays",
">\n\n2 elections in a row Dems won, definitely purple.",
">\n\nGet in here, we’re using Republican tears to salt our margarita rims.",
">\n\nshe was also the winner before the recount:\n>Mayes (D) finished 280 votes ahead of Hamadeh (R), down from a lead of 511 in the original count. The reason for the discrepancy was not immediately clear.\nI only added the D and R for distinction in the above quote. So the recount narrowed her lead, but not enough to change anything.",
">\n\nI’m no conspiracy theorist, but if I were, I’d think the Biden administration backed off on Covid regulations knowing that it would cause a disproportionate number of republicans to die.",
">\n\nIf I were a conspiracy theorist, I’d speculate that democrats have been pushing idiocy on republicans for about 50 years, ensuring that democrat kids will outsurvive and outcompete republican kids. But I’m not, and in reality republicans did that for some reason.",
">\n\nat that point you are just admitting to being stupid and gullible with extra steps lol.",
">\n\nOne step at a time is how we move away from the brink.",
">\n\n\"StOp tHe sTeAL!!!1!!!\"",
">\n\nHave the snowflakes on the right started crying about a stolen election yet? Of course they have.",
">\n\nAll the usual bots are in Hamadeh's feed crying and accusing everyone of everything... So, typical GQP loss antics. I wonder if the SC didn't insert themselves into the Gore/Bush results, if the GQP would've adopted this as a strategy to every loss",
">\n\nThey won before the recount. The recount just confirms it.",
">\n\nI know it's really picky but she didn't win \"after\" the recount. She'd already won. The recount affirmed the victory.",
">\n\nThey now have a Democratic governor, attorney general, and Secretary of State, plus a Democratic Senator. Beautiful for a state that used to be considered a Republican stronghold.",
">\n\nMisleading headline.\nShe was already ahead by 511 votes before the recount. After the recount she was 208 votes ahead.\nSo she had already won, but due to how Arizona's election laws are, the small margin prompted a recount to affirm the winner.",
">\n\nThis is good news. Unfortunately it's only more imaginary ammunition for right wing nutjobs",
">\n\nI mean, she won it before the recount as well.",
">\n\nAs good as that news is, what a shame that the state’s new superintendent of public instruction is a raving right-winger who “promised to shut down any hint of ‘critical race theory’.”",
">\n\nThose of you who don't vote because you think it doesn't make any difference need to wake up!",
">\n\nHow is Arizona becoming better than Texas now?! Congrats AZ. From a jealous Texan.",
">\n\nI did my part but my district still has Gosar",
">\n\nI’m sorry for your loss",
">\n\nWe can all thank COVID-19 for this as the margin of Republicans vs. Democrats who unnecessarily died from the virus due to their suicidal politics is far larger than the margin here.\nCOVID-19 is the ultimate Republican self-own.",
">\n\nThe shucky ducky margin.",
">\n\nCue republican shrieking",
">\n\nNow go prosecute the fake electors and their abettors.",
">\n\ngood less power republicans have the better",
">\n\nWhoohooo!",
">\n\nGood on you Arizona.",
">\n\nI worked on some of her television ads! Good for her!",
">\n\nThis last election gave me a little hope that our country isn't yet sliding into fascism.",
">\n\nThe one race that was definitely decided by Republicans intentional antipathy to Covid vaccines.",
">\n\nYeah, well check out the founder of “body for life” bill Phillips. I have friends that train almost everyday, and almost died. Yes, being obese is a co-morbidity, but there are fit people that got hit hard also. I know orca-fat people that had mild symptoms also.",
">\n\nPhew! That should slow down their GOP's march to the middle ages.",
">\n\nRecounts. So hot right now.",
">\n\nAnother win for the good guys!",
">\n\nLawsuit in 5...4...3...",
">\n\nOnce again, no bamboo ballots were discovered.",
">\n\nNow root out the treason and traitors in your state",
">\n\nWho was she running against? A trump backed republican or?",
">\n\nArizona today, texas soon...",
">\n\nIt's going to be too late for a LOT of women/LGBTQ folks in Texas :(",
">\n\nSadly, too true.",
">\n\nWas that recount #1,2,or 3 ?",
">\n\nWon before it too",
">\n\nThank god",
">\n\nHAH! I was buds with the loser, Hamadeh in college and I have no idea what happened to him. It was a pleasure to vote against him and I like to fantasize I and my family may have been the ones to tip the race. \nGlad to see him lose but like most wealthy I'm betting we're going to see him fail upwards.",
">\n\nWinning it twice. She was ahead in the OG count too",
">\n\nDamn those Italian satellites are still working",
">\n\nThis is BS! Obviously the loser Kari Lake won, election fraud is everywhere how can't you see it?!??",
">\n\nEverybody should thank Kari Lake for the win.",
">\n\nThis drama would have not happened if they just used modern counting systems instead of people who looked like they haven’t been outside in days.",
">\n\nDoes this mean the student debt forgiveness lawsuit will get dropped?",
">\n\nOwned Republicons!",
">\n\nAnd the losers just keep losing. Love it.",
">\n\nTruth does Prevail",
">\n\nI’m so proud of my state",
">\n\nYes Democrats still winning!!",
">\n\nI'm so tired of all this winning.",
">\n\nThe Meth politicians loose again. Yay!",
">\n\nOh, that won’t be the end of it. Lawsuit incoming in ten, nine, eight…",
">\n\nWe could probably get 200 people here on reddit who have voted for her, including myself.\nIt's so crazy it was that close.",
">\n\nStill crazy to me that you guys in the US get to elect state attorneys.",
">\n\nThe real problem with electing state attorneys is that they are completely independent and report to no one. An attorney is supposed to represent clients - but these elected attorneys get to pick what cases they want to be involved with and can act independently, even if everyone else in the state government disagrees with the positions they take.",
">\n\nYeah that makes sense…",
">\n\nLet’s hope she’s one of the good ones and not them woke ones.",
">\n\nwhat's your definition of woke?",
">\n\nThe one that makes you go broke",
">\n\nWhere are the Q ninjas?",
">\n\nDid you expect anything else?",
">\n\nHad plenty of time to pack those ballot boxes after legal voting closed. Gotta love it.",
">\n\nTake the w, now pay close attention, you team sport Republican voters- think about what you actually care about and focus on what gets done with these slimy Q fuckheads at the helm, and how much is addressed. This isn’t a fucking game.",
">\n\nI’m glad at the result, but I have to admit it bothers me a bit that we apparently suck so much at accounting for votes that our tally can change by hundreds during a recount.\nEspecially since a system that detail-blind could create opportunity for electoral fraud or other hanky panky.",
">\n\nMost places have automatic or offer recounts when the results are very close. Otherwise it doesn’t really matter. 100 of votes out of 100,000 or a million votes is a very low percentage. This is proof of the dedication to accuracy.",
">\n\n\n100 of votes out of 100,000 or a million votes is a very low percentage\n\n(1) It doesn’t really matter how low a percentage it is if you have majority races that are decided that narrowly. It will change an outcome in a race that’s 200 votes apart if you can’t keep track of votes to the nearest 200.\n(2) That’s not actually good accuracy compared to what should be reasonably achievable from moderately competent people running a well designed system.\nA house costs >$100,000. If your mortgage company charged you an extra hundred here or there would you think that was good accounting on their part? Would you be satisfied with their service if they kept reporting different numbers each time you asked your remaining balance for the month? It’s not like the technology doesn’t exist to be more accurate.",
">\n\nIt actually didn’t change the outcome in this case. It only confirmed the victory. 2.4 million people voted in Arizona in the last election, 100 votes is 0.000041666666667%. Its an imperfect world which is why we have recounts when it’s very close. It’s also important to note that very seldom do recounts change the results.",
">\n\nWhat about Second Recount? Or Recountsies? Do they know about mid afternoon Recounts?",
">\n\nIncoming republican firestorm of ‘sToLEn ElECtiOns’ in 3-2-1",
">\n\n\nno one cares who one it is or what they’ve done.\n\nNo, I'm pretty sure people are happy a trump endorsed moron didn't get the spot.",
">\n\n“That recount was rigged, we are going to do a re-recount to confirm that we actually won in the initial count” - whoever lost that attorney general race\nEdit: I didn’t read the article and assumed that the result was changed after the recount. But it was just reconfirmed. And if anything it was closer than it was before. Title is misleading. Could also say “democrat almost loses Arizona attorney general race after recount”",
">\n\nNah, title is accurate. I mean, it could also say \"democrat solidifies victory over political opponent who lost the initial count and the subsequent recount,\" but that'd be as uselessly editorial as your version.",
">\n\nJust what AZ needs: More support for illegal border crossings. But hey, it’s their state.",
">\n\nIf y'all actually cared about illegal immigrants, how come you guys never go after the ones who hire illegal immigrants?\nDon't want to go after your own party I bet",
">\n\nthis is a perfect example of what’s wrong with american politics. no one cares who one it is or what they’ve done. people just care about weather they are a democrat or a republican",
">\n\nI assume that Arizona cared enough to NOT elect a whacked out fascist, but ya know... reality and all that",
">\n\nFucking wink wink, I’ve been to Arizona, I know they didn’t vote Democratic",
">\n\nYeah well I live here and I think that trumps your shitty narrative. There are a LOT of young Democrats in Phoenix/Maricopa county and a lot of elderly folks in more rural or Republican strongholds and a good chunk of people probably died off due to conspiracy theories about masks and vaccines. Phoenix is the 5th largest city in the country population wise. Do the math.\nOh wait, you don't have to. They already did it twice for you!",
">\n\nPray tell why it was that I traversed the entire state via Route 66 and saw 100x the amount of Trump material than I did Biden or anyone democratic?",
">\n\nBecause putting political shit on your car is super cringe. Sounds like you answered your own question there?",
">\n\nI don’t recall saying anything about a car",
">\n\nA difference of 230 votes out of over 2 million is a bit better than normal, yeah.",
">\n\nOMG RiGgEd",
">\n\nSimple minded recounts are just enough to convince simple minded people."
] |
/u/PNKRTN (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards | [] |
>
Showing evidence/argument that work ethic isn't correlated with talent would CMV.
this is a tricky stance b/c a lot of it is subjective.
what if "having a strong work ethic" is a talent in and of itself. the special forces operators talk about this all the time: they aren't inherently talented, but they have a talent for gaining talents quickly.
what if i have a terrible work ethic (for things are difficult difficult for me) but the things that i pursue as fun are extremely valuable in the market? i never wash the dishes b/c that feels like work, but i constantly refine my quantum computing theories, (just a made up example). is it really work ethic if i don't feel burdened by the pursuit of the talent?
"success" is determined by market demand. today we have professional video game players (either competitively or things like twitch, youtube, etc.). a generation ago the pursuit of these talents was not "work ethic". today, it is / could be considered. the only thing that changed was the market dynamics. | [
"/u/PNKRTN (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards"
] |
>
what if "having a strong work ethic" is a talent in and of itself
Only if being able to speak is a talent(not all people can do that). Most people are capable of learning good work ethics.
in the market
Success is not determined by the market. Success is being able to complete your goal. Any goal. You can successfully brush teeth.
It's just that usually we imply that the goal is supposed do be hard to achieve. Otherwise we wouldn't talk about it. | [
"/u/PNKRTN (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\n\nShowing evidence/argument that work ethic isn't correlated with talent would CMV.\n\nthis is a tricky stance b/c a lot of it is subjective. \n\nwhat if \"having a strong work ethic\" is a talent in and of itself. the special forces operators talk about this all the time: they aren't inherently talented, but they have a talent for gaining talents quickly. \nwhat if i have a terrible work ethic (for things are difficult difficult for me) but the things that i pursue as fun are extremely valuable in the market? i never wash the dishes b/c that feels like work, but i constantly refine my quantum computing theories, (just a made up example). is it really work ethic if i don't feel burdened by the pursuit of the talent? \n\"success\" is determined by market demand. today we have professional video game players (either competitively or things like twitch, youtube, etc.). a generation ago the pursuit of these talents was not \"work ethic\". today, it is / could be considered. the only thing that changed was the market dynamics."
] |
>
I think natural talent can be a helping factor in someone's success, but doesn't necessarily say anything about higher work ethic.
Someone with learned skill is likely to have built more resilience to their pursuit when they're used to the grind and have practiced the skill for hours and hours, therefore may have spent more time than someone who has it easier.
Someone with natural talent could be spooked way more easily when hitting a roadblock in terms of skill, or they could find their lack of challenge monotonous in itself, and it depends on the kind of person they are.
In various conditions the opposite could be true for both of these, so I don't believe there's any concrete correlation at all, but I can argue that hard work is a valuable asset since endurance when facing challenges is essential for success in work, so it's pretty unreasonable to assume that natural talent = better work ethic. | [
"/u/PNKRTN (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\n\nShowing evidence/argument that work ethic isn't correlated with talent would CMV.\n\nthis is a tricky stance b/c a lot of it is subjective. \n\nwhat if \"having a strong work ethic\" is a talent in and of itself. the special forces operators talk about this all the time: they aren't inherently talented, but they have a talent for gaining talents quickly. \nwhat if i have a terrible work ethic (for things are difficult difficult for me) but the things that i pursue as fun are extremely valuable in the market? i never wash the dishes b/c that feels like work, but i constantly refine my quantum computing theories, (just a made up example). is it really work ethic if i don't feel burdened by the pursuit of the talent? \n\"success\" is determined by market demand. today we have professional video game players (either competitively or things like twitch, youtube, etc.). a generation ago the pursuit of these talents was not \"work ethic\". today, it is / could be considered. the only thing that changed was the market dynamics.",
">\n\n\nwhat if \"having a strong work ethic\" is a talent in and of itself\n\nOnly if being able to speak is a talent(not all people can do that). Most people are capable of learning good work ethics.\n\nin the market\n\nSuccess is not determined by the market. Success is being able to complete your goal. Any goal. You can successfully brush teeth.\nIt's just that usually we imply that the goal is supposed do be hard to achieve. Otherwise we wouldn't talk about it."
] |
>
Someone with learned skill is likely to have built more resilience to their pursuit when they're used to the grind and have practiced the skill for hours and hours, therefore may have spent more time than someone who has it easier.
Yes, but the idea here is that those who have the drive and opportunity build learned skill in the first place are usually also those with talent.
Someone with natural talent could be spooked way more easily when hitting a roadblock in terms of skill, or they could find their lack of challenge monotonous in itself, and it depends on the kind of person they are.
Ah, that's something I hadn't thought too much about. I've seen people leave a field of study for another because they though their previous field of study was too easy. So in contexts where lots of work is needed but little improvement can be made, it could backfire. That would put a limit in how general of a context I can make that assumption.
!delta
I haven't actually met anyone who was spooked out by hitting a roadblock before, though. Definitely many more bored people. Also people who were held back because being too far ahead of one's peers causes problems for other people, and ended up losing their passion for the subject... | [
"/u/PNKRTN (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\n\nShowing evidence/argument that work ethic isn't correlated with talent would CMV.\n\nthis is a tricky stance b/c a lot of it is subjective. \n\nwhat if \"having a strong work ethic\" is a talent in and of itself. the special forces operators talk about this all the time: they aren't inherently talented, but they have a talent for gaining talents quickly. \nwhat if i have a terrible work ethic (for things are difficult difficult for me) but the things that i pursue as fun are extremely valuable in the market? i never wash the dishes b/c that feels like work, but i constantly refine my quantum computing theories, (just a made up example). is it really work ethic if i don't feel burdened by the pursuit of the talent? \n\"success\" is determined by market demand. today we have professional video game players (either competitively or things like twitch, youtube, etc.). a generation ago the pursuit of these talents was not \"work ethic\". today, it is / could be considered. the only thing that changed was the market dynamics.",
">\n\n\nwhat if \"having a strong work ethic\" is a talent in and of itself\n\nOnly if being able to speak is a talent(not all people can do that). Most people are capable of learning good work ethics.\n\nin the market\n\nSuccess is not determined by the market. Success is being able to complete your goal. Any goal. You can successfully brush teeth.\nIt's just that usually we imply that the goal is supposed do be hard to achieve. Otherwise we wouldn't talk about it.",
">\n\nI think natural talent can be a helping factor in someone's success, but doesn't necessarily say anything about higher work ethic.\nSomeone with learned skill is likely to have built more resilience to their pursuit when they're used to the grind and have practiced the skill for hours and hours, therefore may have spent more time than someone who has it easier. \nSomeone with natural talent could be spooked way more easily when hitting a roadblock in terms of skill, or they could find their lack of challenge monotonous in itself, and it depends on the kind of person they are.\nIn various conditions the opposite could be true for both of these, so I don't believe there's any concrete correlation at all, but I can argue that hard work is a valuable asset since endurance when facing challenges is essential for success in work, so it's pretty unreasonable to assume that natural talent = better work ethic."
] |
>
Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/mulberry-hunter (1∆).
^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards | [
"/u/PNKRTN (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\n\nShowing evidence/argument that work ethic isn't correlated with talent would CMV.\n\nthis is a tricky stance b/c a lot of it is subjective. \n\nwhat if \"having a strong work ethic\" is a talent in and of itself. the special forces operators talk about this all the time: they aren't inherently talented, but they have a talent for gaining talents quickly. \nwhat if i have a terrible work ethic (for things are difficult difficult for me) but the things that i pursue as fun are extremely valuable in the market? i never wash the dishes b/c that feels like work, but i constantly refine my quantum computing theories, (just a made up example). is it really work ethic if i don't feel burdened by the pursuit of the talent? \n\"success\" is determined by market demand. today we have professional video game players (either competitively or things like twitch, youtube, etc.). a generation ago the pursuit of these talents was not \"work ethic\". today, it is / could be considered. the only thing that changed was the market dynamics.",
">\n\n\nwhat if \"having a strong work ethic\" is a talent in and of itself\n\nOnly if being able to speak is a talent(not all people can do that). Most people are capable of learning good work ethics.\n\nin the market\n\nSuccess is not determined by the market. Success is being able to complete your goal. Any goal. You can successfully brush teeth.\nIt's just that usually we imply that the goal is supposed do be hard to achieve. Otherwise we wouldn't talk about it.",
">\n\nI think natural talent can be a helping factor in someone's success, but doesn't necessarily say anything about higher work ethic.\nSomeone with learned skill is likely to have built more resilience to their pursuit when they're used to the grind and have practiced the skill for hours and hours, therefore may have spent more time than someone who has it easier. \nSomeone with natural talent could be spooked way more easily when hitting a roadblock in terms of skill, or they could find their lack of challenge monotonous in itself, and it depends on the kind of person they are.\nIn various conditions the opposite could be true for both of these, so I don't believe there's any concrete correlation at all, but I can argue that hard work is a valuable asset since endurance when facing challenges is essential for success in work, so it's pretty unreasonable to assume that natural talent = better work ethic.",
">\n\n\nSomeone with learned skill is likely to have built more resilience to their pursuit when they're used to the grind and have practiced the skill for hours and hours, therefore may have spent more time than someone who has it easier.\n\nYes, but the idea here is that those who have the drive and opportunity build learned skill in the first place are usually also those with talent. \n\nSomeone with natural talent could be spooked way more easily when hitting a roadblock in terms of skill, or they could find their lack of challenge monotonous in itself, and it depends on the kind of person they are.\n\nAh, that's something I hadn't thought too much about. I've seen people leave a field of study for another because they though their previous field of study was too easy. So in contexts where lots of work is needed but little improvement can be made, it could backfire. That would put a limit in how general of a context I can make that assumption.\n!delta\nI haven't actually met anyone who was spooked out by hitting a roadblock before, though. Definitely many more bored people. Also people who were held back because being too far ahead of one's peers causes problems for other people, and ended up losing their passion for the subject..."
] |
>
of course talent is a thing, not really debatable. | [
"/u/PNKRTN (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\n\nShowing evidence/argument that work ethic isn't correlated with talent would CMV.\n\nthis is a tricky stance b/c a lot of it is subjective. \n\nwhat if \"having a strong work ethic\" is a talent in and of itself. the special forces operators talk about this all the time: they aren't inherently talented, but they have a talent for gaining talents quickly. \nwhat if i have a terrible work ethic (for things are difficult difficult for me) but the things that i pursue as fun are extremely valuable in the market? i never wash the dishes b/c that feels like work, but i constantly refine my quantum computing theories, (just a made up example). is it really work ethic if i don't feel burdened by the pursuit of the talent? \n\"success\" is determined by market demand. today we have professional video game players (either competitively or things like twitch, youtube, etc.). a generation ago the pursuit of these talents was not \"work ethic\". today, it is / could be considered. the only thing that changed was the market dynamics.",
">\n\n\nwhat if \"having a strong work ethic\" is a talent in and of itself\n\nOnly if being able to speak is a talent(not all people can do that). Most people are capable of learning good work ethics.\n\nin the market\n\nSuccess is not determined by the market. Success is being able to complete your goal. Any goal. You can successfully brush teeth.\nIt's just that usually we imply that the goal is supposed do be hard to achieve. Otherwise we wouldn't talk about it.",
">\n\nI think natural talent can be a helping factor in someone's success, but doesn't necessarily say anything about higher work ethic.\nSomeone with learned skill is likely to have built more resilience to their pursuit when they're used to the grind and have practiced the skill for hours and hours, therefore may have spent more time than someone who has it easier. \nSomeone with natural talent could be spooked way more easily when hitting a roadblock in terms of skill, or they could find their lack of challenge monotonous in itself, and it depends on the kind of person they are.\nIn various conditions the opposite could be true for both of these, so I don't believe there's any concrete correlation at all, but I can argue that hard work is a valuable asset since endurance when facing challenges is essential for success in work, so it's pretty unreasonable to assume that natural talent = better work ethic.",
">\n\n\nSomeone with learned skill is likely to have built more resilience to their pursuit when they're used to the grind and have practiced the skill for hours and hours, therefore may have spent more time than someone who has it easier.\n\nYes, but the idea here is that those who have the drive and opportunity build learned skill in the first place are usually also those with talent. \n\nSomeone with natural talent could be spooked way more easily when hitting a roadblock in terms of skill, or they could find their lack of challenge monotonous in itself, and it depends on the kind of person they are.\n\nAh, that's something I hadn't thought too much about. I've seen people leave a field of study for another because they though their previous field of study was too easy. So in contexts where lots of work is needed but little improvement can be made, it could backfire. That would put a limit in how general of a context I can make that assumption.\n!delta\nI haven't actually met anyone who was spooked out by hitting a roadblock before, though. Definitely many more bored people. Also people who were held back because being too far ahead of one's peers causes problems for other people, and ended up losing their passion for the subject...",
">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/mulberry-hunter (1∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards"
] |
>
Showing evidence/argument that work ethic isn't correlated with talent would CMV.
I didnt get work ethic from "talent" I got it through parental discipline. As in I was beaten bloody if I said "no" to feeding cows when it was -30 outside.
So now I own a construction company as a 26 year old and make a decent income. | [
"/u/PNKRTN (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\n\nShowing evidence/argument that work ethic isn't correlated with talent would CMV.\n\nthis is a tricky stance b/c a lot of it is subjective. \n\nwhat if \"having a strong work ethic\" is a talent in and of itself. the special forces operators talk about this all the time: they aren't inherently talented, but they have a talent for gaining talents quickly. \nwhat if i have a terrible work ethic (for things are difficult difficult for me) but the things that i pursue as fun are extremely valuable in the market? i never wash the dishes b/c that feels like work, but i constantly refine my quantum computing theories, (just a made up example). is it really work ethic if i don't feel burdened by the pursuit of the talent? \n\"success\" is determined by market demand. today we have professional video game players (either competitively or things like twitch, youtube, etc.). a generation ago the pursuit of these talents was not \"work ethic\". today, it is / could be considered. the only thing that changed was the market dynamics.",
">\n\n\nwhat if \"having a strong work ethic\" is a talent in and of itself\n\nOnly if being able to speak is a talent(not all people can do that). Most people are capable of learning good work ethics.\n\nin the market\n\nSuccess is not determined by the market. Success is being able to complete your goal. Any goal. You can successfully brush teeth.\nIt's just that usually we imply that the goal is supposed do be hard to achieve. Otherwise we wouldn't talk about it.",
">\n\nI think natural talent can be a helping factor in someone's success, but doesn't necessarily say anything about higher work ethic.\nSomeone with learned skill is likely to have built more resilience to their pursuit when they're used to the grind and have practiced the skill for hours and hours, therefore may have spent more time than someone who has it easier. \nSomeone with natural talent could be spooked way more easily when hitting a roadblock in terms of skill, or they could find their lack of challenge monotonous in itself, and it depends on the kind of person they are.\nIn various conditions the opposite could be true for both of these, so I don't believe there's any concrete correlation at all, but I can argue that hard work is a valuable asset since endurance when facing challenges is essential for success in work, so it's pretty unreasonable to assume that natural talent = better work ethic.",
">\n\n\nSomeone with learned skill is likely to have built more resilience to their pursuit when they're used to the grind and have practiced the skill for hours and hours, therefore may have spent more time than someone who has it easier.\n\nYes, but the idea here is that those who have the drive and opportunity build learned skill in the first place are usually also those with talent. \n\nSomeone with natural talent could be spooked way more easily when hitting a roadblock in terms of skill, or they could find their lack of challenge monotonous in itself, and it depends on the kind of person they are.\n\nAh, that's something I hadn't thought too much about. I've seen people leave a field of study for another because they though their previous field of study was too easy. So in contexts where lots of work is needed but little improvement can be made, it could backfire. That would put a limit in how general of a context I can make that assumption.\n!delta\nI haven't actually met anyone who was spooked out by hitting a roadblock before, though. Definitely many more bored people. Also people who were held back because being too far ahead of one's peers causes problems for other people, and ended up losing their passion for the subject...",
">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/mulberry-hunter (1∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nof course talent is a thing, not really debatable."
] |
>
First, parental discipline happens regardless of talent. This wouldn't affect the correlation much.
Second, while it may have worked for you, it's not clear to me that parental discipline usually leads to having a better work ethic. Many people end up depressed and with a worse work ethic, or develop a fear of certain types of work. | [
"/u/PNKRTN (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\n\nShowing evidence/argument that work ethic isn't correlated with talent would CMV.\n\nthis is a tricky stance b/c a lot of it is subjective. \n\nwhat if \"having a strong work ethic\" is a talent in and of itself. the special forces operators talk about this all the time: they aren't inherently talented, but they have a talent for gaining talents quickly. \nwhat if i have a terrible work ethic (for things are difficult difficult for me) but the things that i pursue as fun are extremely valuable in the market? i never wash the dishes b/c that feels like work, but i constantly refine my quantum computing theories, (just a made up example). is it really work ethic if i don't feel burdened by the pursuit of the talent? \n\"success\" is determined by market demand. today we have professional video game players (either competitively or things like twitch, youtube, etc.). a generation ago the pursuit of these talents was not \"work ethic\". today, it is / could be considered. the only thing that changed was the market dynamics.",
">\n\n\nwhat if \"having a strong work ethic\" is a talent in and of itself\n\nOnly if being able to speak is a talent(not all people can do that). Most people are capable of learning good work ethics.\n\nin the market\n\nSuccess is not determined by the market. Success is being able to complete your goal. Any goal. You can successfully brush teeth.\nIt's just that usually we imply that the goal is supposed do be hard to achieve. Otherwise we wouldn't talk about it.",
">\n\nI think natural talent can be a helping factor in someone's success, but doesn't necessarily say anything about higher work ethic.\nSomeone with learned skill is likely to have built more resilience to their pursuit when they're used to the grind and have practiced the skill for hours and hours, therefore may have spent more time than someone who has it easier. \nSomeone with natural talent could be spooked way more easily when hitting a roadblock in terms of skill, or they could find their lack of challenge monotonous in itself, and it depends on the kind of person they are.\nIn various conditions the opposite could be true for both of these, so I don't believe there's any concrete correlation at all, but I can argue that hard work is a valuable asset since endurance when facing challenges is essential for success in work, so it's pretty unreasonable to assume that natural talent = better work ethic.",
">\n\n\nSomeone with learned skill is likely to have built more resilience to their pursuit when they're used to the grind and have practiced the skill for hours and hours, therefore may have spent more time than someone who has it easier.\n\nYes, but the idea here is that those who have the drive and opportunity build learned skill in the first place are usually also those with talent. \n\nSomeone with natural talent could be spooked way more easily when hitting a roadblock in terms of skill, or they could find their lack of challenge monotonous in itself, and it depends on the kind of person they are.\n\nAh, that's something I hadn't thought too much about. I've seen people leave a field of study for another because they though their previous field of study was too easy. So in contexts where lots of work is needed but little improvement can be made, it could backfire. That would put a limit in how general of a context I can make that assumption.\n!delta\nI haven't actually met anyone who was spooked out by hitting a roadblock before, though. Definitely many more bored people. Also people who were held back because being too far ahead of one's peers causes problems for other people, and ended up losing their passion for the subject...",
">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/mulberry-hunter (1∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nof course talent is a thing, not really debatable.",
">\n\n\nShowing evidence/argument that work ethic isn't correlated with talent would CMV.\n\nI didnt get work ethic from \"talent\" I got it through parental discipline. As in I was beaten bloody if I said \"no\" to feeding cows when it was -30 outside.\nSo now I own a construction company as a 26 year old and make a decent income."
] |
>
First, parental discipline happens regardless of talent. This wouldn't affect the correlation much.
Parental discipline happens regardless of talent, and parental discipline is associated with success, showing parental discipline to be vital to success regardless of natural talent
Second, while it may have worked for you, it's not clear to me that parental discipline usually leads to having a better work ethic. Many people end up depressed and with a worse work ethic, or develop a fear of certain types of work.
The type of discipline I am talking about doesnt allow for that. | [
"/u/PNKRTN (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\n\nShowing evidence/argument that work ethic isn't correlated with talent would CMV.\n\nthis is a tricky stance b/c a lot of it is subjective. \n\nwhat if \"having a strong work ethic\" is a talent in and of itself. the special forces operators talk about this all the time: they aren't inherently talented, but they have a talent for gaining talents quickly. \nwhat if i have a terrible work ethic (for things are difficult difficult for me) but the things that i pursue as fun are extremely valuable in the market? i never wash the dishes b/c that feels like work, but i constantly refine my quantum computing theories, (just a made up example). is it really work ethic if i don't feel burdened by the pursuit of the talent? \n\"success\" is determined by market demand. today we have professional video game players (either competitively or things like twitch, youtube, etc.). a generation ago the pursuit of these talents was not \"work ethic\". today, it is / could be considered. the only thing that changed was the market dynamics.",
">\n\n\nwhat if \"having a strong work ethic\" is a talent in and of itself\n\nOnly if being able to speak is a talent(not all people can do that). Most people are capable of learning good work ethics.\n\nin the market\n\nSuccess is not determined by the market. Success is being able to complete your goal. Any goal. You can successfully brush teeth.\nIt's just that usually we imply that the goal is supposed do be hard to achieve. Otherwise we wouldn't talk about it.",
">\n\nI think natural talent can be a helping factor in someone's success, but doesn't necessarily say anything about higher work ethic.\nSomeone with learned skill is likely to have built more resilience to their pursuit when they're used to the grind and have practiced the skill for hours and hours, therefore may have spent more time than someone who has it easier. \nSomeone with natural talent could be spooked way more easily when hitting a roadblock in terms of skill, or they could find their lack of challenge monotonous in itself, and it depends on the kind of person they are.\nIn various conditions the opposite could be true for both of these, so I don't believe there's any concrete correlation at all, but I can argue that hard work is a valuable asset since endurance when facing challenges is essential for success in work, so it's pretty unreasonable to assume that natural talent = better work ethic.",
">\n\n\nSomeone with learned skill is likely to have built more resilience to their pursuit when they're used to the grind and have practiced the skill for hours and hours, therefore may have spent more time than someone who has it easier.\n\nYes, but the idea here is that those who have the drive and opportunity build learned skill in the first place are usually also those with talent. \n\nSomeone with natural talent could be spooked way more easily when hitting a roadblock in terms of skill, or they could find their lack of challenge monotonous in itself, and it depends on the kind of person they are.\n\nAh, that's something I hadn't thought too much about. I've seen people leave a field of study for another because they though their previous field of study was too easy. So in contexts where lots of work is needed but little improvement can be made, it could backfire. That would put a limit in how general of a context I can make that assumption.\n!delta\nI haven't actually met anyone who was spooked out by hitting a roadblock before, though. Definitely many more bored people. Also people who were held back because being too far ahead of one's peers causes problems for other people, and ended up losing their passion for the subject...",
">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/mulberry-hunter (1∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nof course talent is a thing, not really debatable.",
">\n\n\nShowing evidence/argument that work ethic isn't correlated with talent would CMV.\n\nI didnt get work ethic from \"talent\" I got it through parental discipline. As in I was beaten bloody if I said \"no\" to feeding cows when it was -30 outside.\nSo now I own a construction company as a 26 year old and make a decent income.",
">\n\nFirst, parental discipline happens regardless of talent. This wouldn't affect the correlation much.\nSecond, while it may have worked for you, it's not clear to me that parental discipline usually leads to having a better work ethic. Many people end up depressed and with a worse work ethic, or develop a fear of certain types of work."
] |
>
Parental discipline happens regardless of talent, and parental discipline is associated with success, showing parental discipline to be vital to success regardless of natural talent
Right, so is it relevant here? Parental discipline is one of many factors of success that is independent of talent. That I entirely agree with.
Talent is a different major factor of success. My post is an argument about why talent is a major factor of success. Does parental discipline have any bearing on that? | [
"/u/PNKRTN (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\n\nShowing evidence/argument that work ethic isn't correlated with talent would CMV.\n\nthis is a tricky stance b/c a lot of it is subjective. \n\nwhat if \"having a strong work ethic\" is a talent in and of itself. the special forces operators talk about this all the time: they aren't inherently talented, but they have a talent for gaining talents quickly. \nwhat if i have a terrible work ethic (for things are difficult difficult for me) but the things that i pursue as fun are extremely valuable in the market? i never wash the dishes b/c that feels like work, but i constantly refine my quantum computing theories, (just a made up example). is it really work ethic if i don't feel burdened by the pursuit of the talent? \n\"success\" is determined by market demand. today we have professional video game players (either competitively or things like twitch, youtube, etc.). a generation ago the pursuit of these talents was not \"work ethic\". today, it is / could be considered. the only thing that changed was the market dynamics.",
">\n\n\nwhat if \"having a strong work ethic\" is a talent in and of itself\n\nOnly if being able to speak is a talent(not all people can do that). Most people are capable of learning good work ethics.\n\nin the market\n\nSuccess is not determined by the market. Success is being able to complete your goal. Any goal. You can successfully brush teeth.\nIt's just that usually we imply that the goal is supposed do be hard to achieve. Otherwise we wouldn't talk about it.",
">\n\nI think natural talent can be a helping factor in someone's success, but doesn't necessarily say anything about higher work ethic.\nSomeone with learned skill is likely to have built more resilience to their pursuit when they're used to the grind and have practiced the skill for hours and hours, therefore may have spent more time than someone who has it easier. \nSomeone with natural talent could be spooked way more easily when hitting a roadblock in terms of skill, or they could find their lack of challenge monotonous in itself, and it depends on the kind of person they are.\nIn various conditions the opposite could be true for both of these, so I don't believe there's any concrete correlation at all, but I can argue that hard work is a valuable asset since endurance when facing challenges is essential for success in work, so it's pretty unreasonable to assume that natural talent = better work ethic.",
">\n\n\nSomeone with learned skill is likely to have built more resilience to their pursuit when they're used to the grind and have practiced the skill for hours and hours, therefore may have spent more time than someone who has it easier.\n\nYes, but the idea here is that those who have the drive and opportunity build learned skill in the first place are usually also those with talent. \n\nSomeone with natural talent could be spooked way more easily when hitting a roadblock in terms of skill, or they could find their lack of challenge monotonous in itself, and it depends on the kind of person they are.\n\nAh, that's something I hadn't thought too much about. I've seen people leave a field of study for another because they though their previous field of study was too easy. So in contexts where lots of work is needed but little improvement can be made, it could backfire. That would put a limit in how general of a context I can make that assumption.\n!delta\nI haven't actually met anyone who was spooked out by hitting a roadblock before, though. Definitely many more bored people. Also people who were held back because being too far ahead of one's peers causes problems for other people, and ended up losing their passion for the subject...",
">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/mulberry-hunter (1∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nof course talent is a thing, not really debatable.",
">\n\n\nShowing evidence/argument that work ethic isn't correlated with talent would CMV.\n\nI didnt get work ethic from \"talent\" I got it through parental discipline. As in I was beaten bloody if I said \"no\" to feeding cows when it was -30 outside.\nSo now I own a construction company as a 26 year old and make a decent income.",
">\n\nFirst, parental discipline happens regardless of talent. This wouldn't affect the correlation much.\nSecond, while it may have worked for you, it's not clear to me that parental discipline usually leads to having a better work ethic. Many people end up depressed and with a worse work ethic, or develop a fear of certain types of work.",
">\n\n\nFirst, parental discipline happens regardless of talent. This wouldn't affect the correlation much.\n\nParental discipline happens regardless of talent, and parental discipline is associated with success, showing parental discipline to be vital to success regardless of natural talent\n\nSecond, while it may have worked for you, it's not clear to me that parental discipline usually leads to having a better work ethic. Many people end up depressed and with a worse work ethic, or develop a fear of certain types of work.\n\nThe type of discipline I am talking about doesnt allow for that."
] |
>
you confuse willpower with talent, willpower is needed to persist in any activity regardless of how successful,
people with ocd will practice skills more then a talented person simply because of obsessive behavior, so mental illness or willpower are the main driving forces, talent is merely an effort multiplier | [
"/u/PNKRTN (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\n\nShowing evidence/argument that work ethic isn't correlated with talent would CMV.\n\nthis is a tricky stance b/c a lot of it is subjective. \n\nwhat if \"having a strong work ethic\" is a talent in and of itself. the special forces operators talk about this all the time: they aren't inherently talented, but they have a talent for gaining talents quickly. \nwhat if i have a terrible work ethic (for things are difficult difficult for me) but the things that i pursue as fun are extremely valuable in the market? i never wash the dishes b/c that feels like work, but i constantly refine my quantum computing theories, (just a made up example). is it really work ethic if i don't feel burdened by the pursuit of the talent? \n\"success\" is determined by market demand. today we have professional video game players (either competitively or things like twitch, youtube, etc.). a generation ago the pursuit of these talents was not \"work ethic\". today, it is / could be considered. the only thing that changed was the market dynamics.",
">\n\n\nwhat if \"having a strong work ethic\" is a talent in and of itself\n\nOnly if being able to speak is a talent(not all people can do that). Most people are capable of learning good work ethics.\n\nin the market\n\nSuccess is not determined by the market. Success is being able to complete your goal. Any goal. You can successfully brush teeth.\nIt's just that usually we imply that the goal is supposed do be hard to achieve. Otherwise we wouldn't talk about it.",
">\n\nI think natural talent can be a helping factor in someone's success, but doesn't necessarily say anything about higher work ethic.\nSomeone with learned skill is likely to have built more resilience to their pursuit when they're used to the grind and have practiced the skill for hours and hours, therefore may have spent more time than someone who has it easier. \nSomeone with natural talent could be spooked way more easily when hitting a roadblock in terms of skill, or they could find their lack of challenge monotonous in itself, and it depends on the kind of person they are.\nIn various conditions the opposite could be true for both of these, so I don't believe there's any concrete correlation at all, but I can argue that hard work is a valuable asset since endurance when facing challenges is essential for success in work, so it's pretty unreasonable to assume that natural talent = better work ethic.",
">\n\n\nSomeone with learned skill is likely to have built more resilience to their pursuit when they're used to the grind and have practiced the skill for hours and hours, therefore may have spent more time than someone who has it easier.\n\nYes, but the idea here is that those who have the drive and opportunity build learned skill in the first place are usually also those with talent. \n\nSomeone with natural talent could be spooked way more easily when hitting a roadblock in terms of skill, or they could find their lack of challenge monotonous in itself, and it depends on the kind of person they are.\n\nAh, that's something I hadn't thought too much about. I've seen people leave a field of study for another because they though their previous field of study was too easy. So in contexts where lots of work is needed but little improvement can be made, it could backfire. That would put a limit in how general of a context I can make that assumption.\n!delta\nI haven't actually met anyone who was spooked out by hitting a roadblock before, though. Definitely many more bored people. Also people who were held back because being too far ahead of one's peers causes problems for other people, and ended up losing their passion for the subject...",
">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/mulberry-hunter (1∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nof course talent is a thing, not really debatable.",
">\n\n\nShowing evidence/argument that work ethic isn't correlated with talent would CMV.\n\nI didnt get work ethic from \"talent\" I got it through parental discipline. As in I was beaten bloody if I said \"no\" to feeding cows when it was -30 outside.\nSo now I own a construction company as a 26 year old and make a decent income.",
">\n\nFirst, parental discipline happens regardless of talent. This wouldn't affect the correlation much.\nSecond, while it may have worked for you, it's not clear to me that parental discipline usually leads to having a better work ethic. Many people end up depressed and with a worse work ethic, or develop a fear of certain types of work.",
">\n\n\nFirst, parental discipline happens regardless of talent. This wouldn't affect the correlation much.\n\nParental discipline happens regardless of talent, and parental discipline is associated with success, showing parental discipline to be vital to success regardless of natural talent\n\nSecond, while it may have worked for you, it's not clear to me that parental discipline usually leads to having a better work ethic. Many people end up depressed and with a worse work ethic, or develop a fear of certain types of work.\n\nThe type of discipline I am talking about doesnt allow for that.",
">\n\n\nParental discipline happens regardless of talent, and parental discipline is associated with success, showing parental discipline to be vital to success regardless of natural talent\n\nRight, so is it relevant here? Parental discipline is one of many factors of success that is independent of talent. That I entirely agree with.\nTalent is a different major factor of success. My post is an argument about why talent is a major factor of success. Does parental discipline have any bearing on that?"
] |
>
I am not confusing talent with willpower. You should probably read my second section, which is the core of the argument:
Having talent usually makes it easier and more enjoyable to work on a skill. At any one point in their lives a person has to make a choice between doing a number of tasks. With talent, a smaller amount of effort towards learning something can lead to a greater reward, and hence learning about/practicing one's skills would be a more attractive decision to make at any time. So people with talent would naturally have more of an incentive to spend more time on their skills.
I am arguing that not only does it multiply the effect of effort, but it also encourages a person to spend more effort. And I believe the latter to be a much stronger effect than the former. | [
"/u/PNKRTN (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\n\nShowing evidence/argument that work ethic isn't correlated with talent would CMV.\n\nthis is a tricky stance b/c a lot of it is subjective. \n\nwhat if \"having a strong work ethic\" is a talent in and of itself. the special forces operators talk about this all the time: they aren't inherently talented, but they have a talent for gaining talents quickly. \nwhat if i have a terrible work ethic (for things are difficult difficult for me) but the things that i pursue as fun are extremely valuable in the market? i never wash the dishes b/c that feels like work, but i constantly refine my quantum computing theories, (just a made up example). is it really work ethic if i don't feel burdened by the pursuit of the talent? \n\"success\" is determined by market demand. today we have professional video game players (either competitively or things like twitch, youtube, etc.). a generation ago the pursuit of these talents was not \"work ethic\". today, it is / could be considered. the only thing that changed was the market dynamics.",
">\n\n\nwhat if \"having a strong work ethic\" is a talent in and of itself\n\nOnly if being able to speak is a talent(not all people can do that). Most people are capable of learning good work ethics.\n\nin the market\n\nSuccess is not determined by the market. Success is being able to complete your goal. Any goal. You can successfully brush teeth.\nIt's just that usually we imply that the goal is supposed do be hard to achieve. Otherwise we wouldn't talk about it.",
">\n\nI think natural talent can be a helping factor in someone's success, but doesn't necessarily say anything about higher work ethic.\nSomeone with learned skill is likely to have built more resilience to their pursuit when they're used to the grind and have practiced the skill for hours and hours, therefore may have spent more time than someone who has it easier. \nSomeone with natural talent could be spooked way more easily when hitting a roadblock in terms of skill, or they could find their lack of challenge monotonous in itself, and it depends on the kind of person they are.\nIn various conditions the opposite could be true for both of these, so I don't believe there's any concrete correlation at all, but I can argue that hard work is a valuable asset since endurance when facing challenges is essential for success in work, so it's pretty unreasonable to assume that natural talent = better work ethic.",
">\n\n\nSomeone with learned skill is likely to have built more resilience to their pursuit when they're used to the grind and have practiced the skill for hours and hours, therefore may have spent more time than someone who has it easier.\n\nYes, but the idea here is that those who have the drive and opportunity build learned skill in the first place are usually also those with talent. \n\nSomeone with natural talent could be spooked way more easily when hitting a roadblock in terms of skill, or they could find their lack of challenge monotonous in itself, and it depends on the kind of person they are.\n\nAh, that's something I hadn't thought too much about. I've seen people leave a field of study for another because they though their previous field of study was too easy. So in contexts where lots of work is needed but little improvement can be made, it could backfire. That would put a limit in how general of a context I can make that assumption.\n!delta\nI haven't actually met anyone who was spooked out by hitting a roadblock before, though. Definitely many more bored people. Also people who were held back because being too far ahead of one's peers causes problems for other people, and ended up losing their passion for the subject...",
">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/mulberry-hunter (1∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nof course talent is a thing, not really debatable.",
">\n\n\nShowing evidence/argument that work ethic isn't correlated with talent would CMV.\n\nI didnt get work ethic from \"talent\" I got it through parental discipline. As in I was beaten bloody if I said \"no\" to feeding cows when it was -30 outside.\nSo now I own a construction company as a 26 year old and make a decent income.",
">\n\nFirst, parental discipline happens regardless of talent. This wouldn't affect the correlation much.\nSecond, while it may have worked for you, it's not clear to me that parental discipline usually leads to having a better work ethic. Many people end up depressed and with a worse work ethic, or develop a fear of certain types of work.",
">\n\n\nFirst, parental discipline happens regardless of talent. This wouldn't affect the correlation much.\n\nParental discipline happens regardless of talent, and parental discipline is associated with success, showing parental discipline to be vital to success regardless of natural talent\n\nSecond, while it may have worked for you, it's not clear to me that parental discipline usually leads to having a better work ethic. Many people end up depressed and with a worse work ethic, or develop a fear of certain types of work.\n\nThe type of discipline I am talking about doesnt allow for that.",
">\n\n\nParental discipline happens regardless of talent, and parental discipline is associated with success, showing parental discipline to be vital to success regardless of natural talent\n\nRight, so is it relevant here? Parental discipline is one of many factors of success that is independent of talent. That I entirely agree with.\nTalent is a different major factor of success. My post is an argument about why talent is a major factor of success. Does parental discipline have any bearing on that?",
">\n\nyou confuse willpower with talent, willpower is needed to persist in any activity regardless of how successful, \n\npeople with ocd will practice skills more then a talented person simply because of obsessive behavior, so mental illness or willpower are the main driving forces, talent is merely an effort multiplier"
] |
>
I'd just argue that talent is subjective. People will say Kurk Cobain was the greatest musician of all time. Others will say he sucks. Just an example. | [
"/u/PNKRTN (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\n\nShowing evidence/argument that work ethic isn't correlated with talent would CMV.\n\nthis is a tricky stance b/c a lot of it is subjective. \n\nwhat if \"having a strong work ethic\" is a talent in and of itself. the special forces operators talk about this all the time: they aren't inherently talented, but they have a talent for gaining talents quickly. \nwhat if i have a terrible work ethic (for things are difficult difficult for me) but the things that i pursue as fun are extremely valuable in the market? i never wash the dishes b/c that feels like work, but i constantly refine my quantum computing theories, (just a made up example). is it really work ethic if i don't feel burdened by the pursuit of the talent? \n\"success\" is determined by market demand. today we have professional video game players (either competitively or things like twitch, youtube, etc.). a generation ago the pursuit of these talents was not \"work ethic\". today, it is / could be considered. the only thing that changed was the market dynamics.",
">\n\n\nwhat if \"having a strong work ethic\" is a talent in and of itself\n\nOnly if being able to speak is a talent(not all people can do that). Most people are capable of learning good work ethics.\n\nin the market\n\nSuccess is not determined by the market. Success is being able to complete your goal. Any goal. You can successfully brush teeth.\nIt's just that usually we imply that the goal is supposed do be hard to achieve. Otherwise we wouldn't talk about it.",
">\n\nI think natural talent can be a helping factor in someone's success, but doesn't necessarily say anything about higher work ethic.\nSomeone with learned skill is likely to have built more resilience to their pursuit when they're used to the grind and have practiced the skill for hours and hours, therefore may have spent more time than someone who has it easier. \nSomeone with natural talent could be spooked way more easily when hitting a roadblock in terms of skill, or they could find their lack of challenge monotonous in itself, and it depends on the kind of person they are.\nIn various conditions the opposite could be true for both of these, so I don't believe there's any concrete correlation at all, but I can argue that hard work is a valuable asset since endurance when facing challenges is essential for success in work, so it's pretty unreasonable to assume that natural talent = better work ethic.",
">\n\n\nSomeone with learned skill is likely to have built more resilience to their pursuit when they're used to the grind and have practiced the skill for hours and hours, therefore may have spent more time than someone who has it easier.\n\nYes, but the idea here is that those who have the drive and opportunity build learned skill in the first place are usually also those with talent. \n\nSomeone with natural talent could be spooked way more easily when hitting a roadblock in terms of skill, or they could find their lack of challenge monotonous in itself, and it depends on the kind of person they are.\n\nAh, that's something I hadn't thought too much about. I've seen people leave a field of study for another because they though their previous field of study was too easy. So in contexts where lots of work is needed but little improvement can be made, it could backfire. That would put a limit in how general of a context I can make that assumption.\n!delta\nI haven't actually met anyone who was spooked out by hitting a roadblock before, though. Definitely many more bored people. Also people who were held back because being too far ahead of one's peers causes problems for other people, and ended up losing their passion for the subject...",
">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/mulberry-hunter (1∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nof course talent is a thing, not really debatable.",
">\n\n\nShowing evidence/argument that work ethic isn't correlated with talent would CMV.\n\nI didnt get work ethic from \"talent\" I got it through parental discipline. As in I was beaten bloody if I said \"no\" to feeding cows when it was -30 outside.\nSo now I own a construction company as a 26 year old and make a decent income.",
">\n\nFirst, parental discipline happens regardless of talent. This wouldn't affect the correlation much.\nSecond, while it may have worked for you, it's not clear to me that parental discipline usually leads to having a better work ethic. Many people end up depressed and with a worse work ethic, or develop a fear of certain types of work.",
">\n\n\nFirst, parental discipline happens regardless of talent. This wouldn't affect the correlation much.\n\nParental discipline happens regardless of talent, and parental discipline is associated with success, showing parental discipline to be vital to success regardless of natural talent\n\nSecond, while it may have worked for you, it's not clear to me that parental discipline usually leads to having a better work ethic. Many people end up depressed and with a worse work ethic, or develop a fear of certain types of work.\n\nThe type of discipline I am talking about doesnt allow for that.",
">\n\n\nParental discipline happens regardless of talent, and parental discipline is associated with success, showing parental discipline to be vital to success regardless of natural talent\n\nRight, so is it relevant here? Parental discipline is one of many factors of success that is independent of talent. That I entirely agree with.\nTalent is a different major factor of success. My post is an argument about why talent is a major factor of success. Does parental discipline have any bearing on that?",
">\n\nyou confuse willpower with talent, willpower is needed to persist in any activity regardless of how successful, \n\npeople with ocd will practice skills more then a talented person simply because of obsessive behavior, so mental illness or willpower are the main driving forces, talent is merely an effort multiplier",
">\n\nI am not confusing talent with willpower. You should probably read my second section, which is the core of the argument:\n\nHaving talent usually makes it easier and more enjoyable to work on a skill. At any one point in their lives a person has to make a choice between doing a number of tasks. With talent, a smaller amount of effort towards learning something can lead to a greater reward, and hence learning about/practicing one's skills would be a more attractive decision to make at any time. So people with talent would naturally have more of an incentive to spend more time on their skills.\n\nI am arguing that not only does it multiply the effect of effort, but it also encourages a person to spend more effort. And I believe the latter to be a much stronger effect than the former."
] |
>
As a person with "natural born talent" I definitely disagree.
It completely depends on the area of talent. My reasoning? It's true that talented skills are things you have to work at. But that "work ethic" may or may not transcend the specific talent the person has. Natural talent doesn't mean natural work ethic. If their specific talent isn't useful... well they just have a talent.
Even if I have a talent specific to a job that would make me successful, no job is going to hire me that way. I have to prove I have the skills. This proof is normally a college degree or a certificate of a trade. If you don't have those even if you'd be perfect for the job, they don't know that, and they're not going to take a chance when you can't prove you know what you're talking about.
Hard work is more important than talent. Hell, all natural talent is, is working on something from a very early age. If you look at an artist's artwork at 5, generally, it looks like a 5 year old drew it. But someone who's been drawing since that age might make masterpieces at 17, it doesn't mean they're special, it just means they've studied and practiced a lot more in one area.
Work ethic is a basic skill everyone needs to possess to be successful but having a natural talent doesn't necessarily equal good work ethic or get you there faster. | [
"/u/PNKRTN (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\n\nShowing evidence/argument that work ethic isn't correlated with talent would CMV.\n\nthis is a tricky stance b/c a lot of it is subjective. \n\nwhat if \"having a strong work ethic\" is a talent in and of itself. the special forces operators talk about this all the time: they aren't inherently talented, but they have a talent for gaining talents quickly. \nwhat if i have a terrible work ethic (for things are difficult difficult for me) but the things that i pursue as fun are extremely valuable in the market? i never wash the dishes b/c that feels like work, but i constantly refine my quantum computing theories, (just a made up example). is it really work ethic if i don't feel burdened by the pursuit of the talent? \n\"success\" is determined by market demand. today we have professional video game players (either competitively or things like twitch, youtube, etc.). a generation ago the pursuit of these talents was not \"work ethic\". today, it is / could be considered. the only thing that changed was the market dynamics.",
">\n\n\nwhat if \"having a strong work ethic\" is a talent in and of itself\n\nOnly if being able to speak is a talent(not all people can do that). Most people are capable of learning good work ethics.\n\nin the market\n\nSuccess is not determined by the market. Success is being able to complete your goal. Any goal. You can successfully brush teeth.\nIt's just that usually we imply that the goal is supposed do be hard to achieve. Otherwise we wouldn't talk about it.",
">\n\nI think natural talent can be a helping factor in someone's success, but doesn't necessarily say anything about higher work ethic.\nSomeone with learned skill is likely to have built more resilience to their pursuit when they're used to the grind and have practiced the skill for hours and hours, therefore may have spent more time than someone who has it easier. \nSomeone with natural talent could be spooked way more easily when hitting a roadblock in terms of skill, or they could find their lack of challenge monotonous in itself, and it depends on the kind of person they are.\nIn various conditions the opposite could be true for both of these, so I don't believe there's any concrete correlation at all, but I can argue that hard work is a valuable asset since endurance when facing challenges is essential for success in work, so it's pretty unreasonable to assume that natural talent = better work ethic.",
">\n\n\nSomeone with learned skill is likely to have built more resilience to their pursuit when they're used to the grind and have practiced the skill for hours and hours, therefore may have spent more time than someone who has it easier.\n\nYes, but the idea here is that those who have the drive and opportunity build learned skill in the first place are usually also those with talent. \n\nSomeone with natural talent could be spooked way more easily when hitting a roadblock in terms of skill, or they could find their lack of challenge monotonous in itself, and it depends on the kind of person they are.\n\nAh, that's something I hadn't thought too much about. I've seen people leave a field of study for another because they though their previous field of study was too easy. So in contexts where lots of work is needed but little improvement can be made, it could backfire. That would put a limit in how general of a context I can make that assumption.\n!delta\nI haven't actually met anyone who was spooked out by hitting a roadblock before, though. Definitely many more bored people. Also people who were held back because being too far ahead of one's peers causes problems for other people, and ended up losing their passion for the subject...",
">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/mulberry-hunter (1∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nof course talent is a thing, not really debatable.",
">\n\n\nShowing evidence/argument that work ethic isn't correlated with talent would CMV.\n\nI didnt get work ethic from \"talent\" I got it through parental discipline. As in I was beaten bloody if I said \"no\" to feeding cows when it was -30 outside.\nSo now I own a construction company as a 26 year old and make a decent income.",
">\n\nFirst, parental discipline happens regardless of talent. This wouldn't affect the correlation much.\nSecond, while it may have worked for you, it's not clear to me that parental discipline usually leads to having a better work ethic. Many people end up depressed and with a worse work ethic, or develop a fear of certain types of work.",
">\n\n\nFirst, parental discipline happens regardless of talent. This wouldn't affect the correlation much.\n\nParental discipline happens regardless of talent, and parental discipline is associated with success, showing parental discipline to be vital to success regardless of natural talent\n\nSecond, while it may have worked for you, it's not clear to me that parental discipline usually leads to having a better work ethic. Many people end up depressed and with a worse work ethic, or develop a fear of certain types of work.\n\nThe type of discipline I am talking about doesnt allow for that.",
">\n\n\nParental discipline happens regardless of talent, and parental discipline is associated with success, showing parental discipline to be vital to success regardless of natural talent\n\nRight, so is it relevant here? Parental discipline is one of many factors of success that is independent of talent. That I entirely agree with.\nTalent is a different major factor of success. My post is an argument about why talent is a major factor of success. Does parental discipline have any bearing on that?",
">\n\nyou confuse willpower with talent, willpower is needed to persist in any activity regardless of how successful, \n\npeople with ocd will practice skills more then a talented person simply because of obsessive behavior, so mental illness or willpower are the main driving forces, talent is merely an effort multiplier",
">\n\nI am not confusing talent with willpower. You should probably read my second section, which is the core of the argument:\n\nHaving talent usually makes it easier and more enjoyable to work on a skill. At any one point in their lives a person has to make a choice between doing a number of tasks. With talent, a smaller amount of effort towards learning something can lead to a greater reward, and hence learning about/practicing one's skills would be a more attractive decision to make at any time. So people with talent would naturally have more of an incentive to spend more time on their skills.\n\nI am arguing that not only does it multiply the effect of effort, but it also encourages a person to spend more effort. And I believe the latter to be a much stronger effect than the former.",
">\n\nI'd just argue that talent is subjective. People will say Kurk Cobain was the greatest musician of all time. Others will say he sucks. Just an example."
] |
>
I'd like to dispute the idea that people are likelier to work on a skill just because they're talented at it. In my opinion, while there are numerous other factors (such as pressure from parents), the ability to keep working at a skill is itself a talent. | [
"/u/PNKRTN (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\n\nShowing evidence/argument that work ethic isn't correlated with talent would CMV.\n\nthis is a tricky stance b/c a lot of it is subjective. \n\nwhat if \"having a strong work ethic\" is a talent in and of itself. the special forces operators talk about this all the time: they aren't inherently talented, but they have a talent for gaining talents quickly. \nwhat if i have a terrible work ethic (for things are difficult difficult for me) but the things that i pursue as fun are extremely valuable in the market? i never wash the dishes b/c that feels like work, but i constantly refine my quantum computing theories, (just a made up example). is it really work ethic if i don't feel burdened by the pursuit of the talent? \n\"success\" is determined by market demand. today we have professional video game players (either competitively or things like twitch, youtube, etc.). a generation ago the pursuit of these talents was not \"work ethic\". today, it is / could be considered. the only thing that changed was the market dynamics.",
">\n\n\nwhat if \"having a strong work ethic\" is a talent in and of itself\n\nOnly if being able to speak is a talent(not all people can do that). Most people are capable of learning good work ethics.\n\nin the market\n\nSuccess is not determined by the market. Success is being able to complete your goal. Any goal. You can successfully brush teeth.\nIt's just that usually we imply that the goal is supposed do be hard to achieve. Otherwise we wouldn't talk about it.",
">\n\nI think natural talent can be a helping factor in someone's success, but doesn't necessarily say anything about higher work ethic.\nSomeone with learned skill is likely to have built more resilience to their pursuit when they're used to the grind and have practiced the skill for hours and hours, therefore may have spent more time than someone who has it easier. \nSomeone with natural talent could be spooked way more easily when hitting a roadblock in terms of skill, or they could find their lack of challenge monotonous in itself, and it depends on the kind of person they are.\nIn various conditions the opposite could be true for both of these, so I don't believe there's any concrete correlation at all, but I can argue that hard work is a valuable asset since endurance when facing challenges is essential for success in work, so it's pretty unreasonable to assume that natural talent = better work ethic.",
">\n\n\nSomeone with learned skill is likely to have built more resilience to their pursuit when they're used to the grind and have practiced the skill for hours and hours, therefore may have spent more time than someone who has it easier.\n\nYes, but the idea here is that those who have the drive and opportunity build learned skill in the first place are usually also those with talent. \n\nSomeone with natural talent could be spooked way more easily when hitting a roadblock in terms of skill, or they could find their lack of challenge monotonous in itself, and it depends on the kind of person they are.\n\nAh, that's something I hadn't thought too much about. I've seen people leave a field of study for another because they though their previous field of study was too easy. So in contexts where lots of work is needed but little improvement can be made, it could backfire. That would put a limit in how general of a context I can make that assumption.\n!delta\nI haven't actually met anyone who was spooked out by hitting a roadblock before, though. Definitely many more bored people. Also people who were held back because being too far ahead of one's peers causes problems for other people, and ended up losing their passion for the subject...",
">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/mulberry-hunter (1∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nof course talent is a thing, not really debatable.",
">\n\n\nShowing evidence/argument that work ethic isn't correlated with talent would CMV.\n\nI didnt get work ethic from \"talent\" I got it through parental discipline. As in I was beaten bloody if I said \"no\" to feeding cows when it was -30 outside.\nSo now I own a construction company as a 26 year old and make a decent income.",
">\n\nFirst, parental discipline happens regardless of talent. This wouldn't affect the correlation much.\nSecond, while it may have worked for you, it's not clear to me that parental discipline usually leads to having a better work ethic. Many people end up depressed and with a worse work ethic, or develop a fear of certain types of work.",
">\n\n\nFirst, parental discipline happens regardless of talent. This wouldn't affect the correlation much.\n\nParental discipline happens regardless of talent, and parental discipline is associated with success, showing parental discipline to be vital to success regardless of natural talent\n\nSecond, while it may have worked for you, it's not clear to me that parental discipline usually leads to having a better work ethic. Many people end up depressed and with a worse work ethic, or develop a fear of certain types of work.\n\nThe type of discipline I am talking about doesnt allow for that.",
">\n\n\nParental discipline happens regardless of talent, and parental discipline is associated with success, showing parental discipline to be vital to success regardless of natural talent\n\nRight, so is it relevant here? Parental discipline is one of many factors of success that is independent of talent. That I entirely agree with.\nTalent is a different major factor of success. My post is an argument about why talent is a major factor of success. Does parental discipline have any bearing on that?",
">\n\nyou confuse willpower with talent, willpower is needed to persist in any activity regardless of how successful, \n\npeople with ocd will practice skills more then a talented person simply because of obsessive behavior, so mental illness or willpower are the main driving forces, talent is merely an effort multiplier",
">\n\nI am not confusing talent with willpower. You should probably read my second section, which is the core of the argument:\n\nHaving talent usually makes it easier and more enjoyable to work on a skill. At any one point in their lives a person has to make a choice between doing a number of tasks. With talent, a smaller amount of effort towards learning something can lead to a greater reward, and hence learning about/practicing one's skills would be a more attractive decision to make at any time. So people with talent would naturally have more of an incentive to spend more time on their skills.\n\nI am arguing that not only does it multiply the effect of effort, but it also encourages a person to spend more effort. And I believe the latter to be a much stronger effect than the former.",
">\n\nI'd just argue that talent is subjective. People will say Kurk Cobain was the greatest musician of all time. Others will say he sucks. Just an example.",
">\n\nAs a person with \"natural born talent\" I definitely disagree.\nIt completely depends on the area of talent. My reasoning? It's true that talented skills are things you have to work at. But that \"work ethic\" may or may not transcend the specific talent the person has. Natural talent doesn't mean natural work ethic. If their specific talent isn't useful... well they just have a talent.\nEven if I have a talent specific to a job that would make me successful, no job is going to hire me that way. I have to prove I have the skills. This proof is normally a college degree or a certificate of a trade. If you don't have those even if you'd be perfect for the job, they don't know that, and they're not going to take a chance when you can't prove you know what you're talking about.\nHard work is more important than talent. Hell, all natural talent is, is working on something from a very early age. If you look at an artist's artwork at 5, generally, it looks like a 5 year old drew it. But someone who's been drawing since that age might make masterpieces at 17, it doesn't mean they're special, it just means they've studied and practiced a lot more in one area.\nWork ethic is a basic skill everyone needs to possess to be successful but having a natural talent doesn't necessarily equal good work ethic or get you there faster."
] |
>
I think knowing how to work effectively (as opposed working "hard") is a stronger predictor of success than talent.
An "untalented" person can become successful at something because:
- The person does the activity because it's fun. For example, a lot of people aren't talented runners. However if they run with a friend or with music then it's fun. Improvement because a side benefit rather than the sole objective. This approach more sustainable mentally.
- The person has easy access to high quality information about the activity. For example, YouTube has lots of videos on repairing stuff. People who never picked up a screwdriver can now fix things and save money. Even if the person still can't fix things, he/she at least has better information to make an informed decision on the repair.
- The person has access to quick high-quality feedback. This feedback can come from a person (like a coach, mentor, etc) or some tool. If a mentor mentions to a new manager that he/she tends to micromanage things when a project is under a tight deadline, that person is now aware of it and can avoid causing problems with the rest of the team. Feedback can eliminate a lot of beginner mistakes and save a lot of time.
- The person is able to look at the activity from different angles. For example, the Fosbury Flop in the High Jump event in Track and Field. Fosbury was not good at doing the high jump the "usual" way so he figured out a different way that worked for him. | [
"/u/PNKRTN (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\n\nShowing evidence/argument that work ethic isn't correlated with talent would CMV.\n\nthis is a tricky stance b/c a lot of it is subjective. \n\nwhat if \"having a strong work ethic\" is a talent in and of itself. the special forces operators talk about this all the time: they aren't inherently talented, but they have a talent for gaining talents quickly. \nwhat if i have a terrible work ethic (for things are difficult difficult for me) but the things that i pursue as fun are extremely valuable in the market? i never wash the dishes b/c that feels like work, but i constantly refine my quantum computing theories, (just a made up example). is it really work ethic if i don't feel burdened by the pursuit of the talent? \n\"success\" is determined by market demand. today we have professional video game players (either competitively or things like twitch, youtube, etc.). a generation ago the pursuit of these talents was not \"work ethic\". today, it is / could be considered. the only thing that changed was the market dynamics.",
">\n\n\nwhat if \"having a strong work ethic\" is a talent in and of itself\n\nOnly if being able to speak is a talent(not all people can do that). Most people are capable of learning good work ethics.\n\nin the market\n\nSuccess is not determined by the market. Success is being able to complete your goal. Any goal. You can successfully brush teeth.\nIt's just that usually we imply that the goal is supposed do be hard to achieve. Otherwise we wouldn't talk about it.",
">\n\nI think natural talent can be a helping factor in someone's success, but doesn't necessarily say anything about higher work ethic.\nSomeone with learned skill is likely to have built more resilience to their pursuit when they're used to the grind and have practiced the skill for hours and hours, therefore may have spent more time than someone who has it easier. \nSomeone with natural talent could be spooked way more easily when hitting a roadblock in terms of skill, or they could find their lack of challenge monotonous in itself, and it depends on the kind of person they are.\nIn various conditions the opposite could be true for both of these, so I don't believe there's any concrete correlation at all, but I can argue that hard work is a valuable asset since endurance when facing challenges is essential for success in work, so it's pretty unreasonable to assume that natural talent = better work ethic.",
">\n\n\nSomeone with learned skill is likely to have built more resilience to their pursuit when they're used to the grind and have practiced the skill for hours and hours, therefore may have spent more time than someone who has it easier.\n\nYes, but the idea here is that those who have the drive and opportunity build learned skill in the first place are usually also those with talent. \n\nSomeone with natural talent could be spooked way more easily when hitting a roadblock in terms of skill, or they could find their lack of challenge monotonous in itself, and it depends on the kind of person they are.\n\nAh, that's something I hadn't thought too much about. I've seen people leave a field of study for another because they though their previous field of study was too easy. So in contexts where lots of work is needed but little improvement can be made, it could backfire. That would put a limit in how general of a context I can make that assumption.\n!delta\nI haven't actually met anyone who was spooked out by hitting a roadblock before, though. Definitely many more bored people. Also people who were held back because being too far ahead of one's peers causes problems for other people, and ended up losing their passion for the subject...",
">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/mulberry-hunter (1∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nof course talent is a thing, not really debatable.",
">\n\n\nShowing evidence/argument that work ethic isn't correlated with talent would CMV.\n\nI didnt get work ethic from \"talent\" I got it through parental discipline. As in I was beaten bloody if I said \"no\" to feeding cows when it was -30 outside.\nSo now I own a construction company as a 26 year old and make a decent income.",
">\n\nFirst, parental discipline happens regardless of talent. This wouldn't affect the correlation much.\nSecond, while it may have worked for you, it's not clear to me that parental discipline usually leads to having a better work ethic. Many people end up depressed and with a worse work ethic, or develop a fear of certain types of work.",
">\n\n\nFirst, parental discipline happens regardless of talent. This wouldn't affect the correlation much.\n\nParental discipline happens regardless of talent, and parental discipline is associated with success, showing parental discipline to be vital to success regardless of natural talent\n\nSecond, while it may have worked for you, it's not clear to me that parental discipline usually leads to having a better work ethic. Many people end up depressed and with a worse work ethic, or develop a fear of certain types of work.\n\nThe type of discipline I am talking about doesnt allow for that.",
">\n\n\nParental discipline happens regardless of talent, and parental discipline is associated with success, showing parental discipline to be vital to success regardless of natural talent\n\nRight, so is it relevant here? Parental discipline is one of many factors of success that is independent of talent. That I entirely agree with.\nTalent is a different major factor of success. My post is an argument about why talent is a major factor of success. Does parental discipline have any bearing on that?",
">\n\nyou confuse willpower with talent, willpower is needed to persist in any activity regardless of how successful, \n\npeople with ocd will practice skills more then a talented person simply because of obsessive behavior, so mental illness or willpower are the main driving forces, talent is merely an effort multiplier",
">\n\nI am not confusing talent with willpower. You should probably read my second section, which is the core of the argument:\n\nHaving talent usually makes it easier and more enjoyable to work on a skill. At any one point in their lives a person has to make a choice between doing a number of tasks. With talent, a smaller amount of effort towards learning something can lead to a greater reward, and hence learning about/practicing one's skills would be a more attractive decision to make at any time. So people with talent would naturally have more of an incentive to spend more time on their skills.\n\nI am arguing that not only does it multiply the effect of effort, but it also encourages a person to spend more effort. And I believe the latter to be a much stronger effect than the former.",
">\n\nI'd just argue that talent is subjective. People will say Kurk Cobain was the greatest musician of all time. Others will say he sucks. Just an example.",
">\n\nAs a person with \"natural born talent\" I definitely disagree.\nIt completely depends on the area of talent. My reasoning? It's true that talented skills are things you have to work at. But that \"work ethic\" may or may not transcend the specific talent the person has. Natural talent doesn't mean natural work ethic. If their specific talent isn't useful... well they just have a talent.\nEven if I have a talent specific to a job that would make me successful, no job is going to hire me that way. I have to prove I have the skills. This proof is normally a college degree or a certificate of a trade. If you don't have those even if you'd be perfect for the job, they don't know that, and they're not going to take a chance when you can't prove you know what you're talking about.\nHard work is more important than talent. Hell, all natural talent is, is working on something from a very early age. If you look at an artist's artwork at 5, generally, it looks like a 5 year old drew it. But someone who's been drawing since that age might make masterpieces at 17, it doesn't mean they're special, it just means they've studied and practiced a lot more in one area.\nWork ethic is a basic skill everyone needs to possess to be successful but having a natural talent doesn't necessarily equal good work ethic or get you there faster.",
">\n\nI'd like to dispute the idea that people are likelier to work on a skill just because they're talented at it. In my opinion, while there are numerous other factors (such as pressure from parents), the ability to keep working at a skill is itself a talent."
] |
>
Improvement because a side benefit rather than the sole objective
It's not likely that people will improve if they are having fun, because in order to 'improve', you need to do something that you couldn't do before. That means you have to track what you were able to do before. And usually it means pushing yourself out of your comfort zone.
Access to high quality information
The person has access to quick high-quality feedback.
When people talk about talent, they imply equal training.
There are studies that show different muscle grows for people who are subjected to the same exercise in a controlled environment. Even if they take people with similar baselines, gains are different | [
"/u/PNKRTN (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\n\nShowing evidence/argument that work ethic isn't correlated with talent would CMV.\n\nthis is a tricky stance b/c a lot of it is subjective. \n\nwhat if \"having a strong work ethic\" is a talent in and of itself. the special forces operators talk about this all the time: they aren't inherently talented, but they have a talent for gaining talents quickly. \nwhat if i have a terrible work ethic (for things are difficult difficult for me) but the things that i pursue as fun are extremely valuable in the market? i never wash the dishes b/c that feels like work, but i constantly refine my quantum computing theories, (just a made up example). is it really work ethic if i don't feel burdened by the pursuit of the talent? \n\"success\" is determined by market demand. today we have professional video game players (either competitively or things like twitch, youtube, etc.). a generation ago the pursuit of these talents was not \"work ethic\". today, it is / could be considered. the only thing that changed was the market dynamics.",
">\n\n\nwhat if \"having a strong work ethic\" is a talent in and of itself\n\nOnly if being able to speak is a talent(not all people can do that). Most people are capable of learning good work ethics.\n\nin the market\n\nSuccess is not determined by the market. Success is being able to complete your goal. Any goal. You can successfully brush teeth.\nIt's just that usually we imply that the goal is supposed do be hard to achieve. Otherwise we wouldn't talk about it.",
">\n\nI think natural talent can be a helping factor in someone's success, but doesn't necessarily say anything about higher work ethic.\nSomeone with learned skill is likely to have built more resilience to their pursuit when they're used to the grind and have practiced the skill for hours and hours, therefore may have spent more time than someone who has it easier. \nSomeone with natural talent could be spooked way more easily when hitting a roadblock in terms of skill, or they could find their lack of challenge monotonous in itself, and it depends on the kind of person they are.\nIn various conditions the opposite could be true for both of these, so I don't believe there's any concrete correlation at all, but I can argue that hard work is a valuable asset since endurance when facing challenges is essential for success in work, so it's pretty unreasonable to assume that natural talent = better work ethic.",
">\n\n\nSomeone with learned skill is likely to have built more resilience to their pursuit when they're used to the grind and have practiced the skill for hours and hours, therefore may have spent more time than someone who has it easier.\n\nYes, but the idea here is that those who have the drive and opportunity build learned skill in the first place are usually also those with talent. \n\nSomeone with natural talent could be spooked way more easily when hitting a roadblock in terms of skill, or they could find their lack of challenge monotonous in itself, and it depends on the kind of person they are.\n\nAh, that's something I hadn't thought too much about. I've seen people leave a field of study for another because they though their previous field of study was too easy. So in contexts where lots of work is needed but little improvement can be made, it could backfire. That would put a limit in how general of a context I can make that assumption.\n!delta\nI haven't actually met anyone who was spooked out by hitting a roadblock before, though. Definitely many more bored people. Also people who were held back because being too far ahead of one's peers causes problems for other people, and ended up losing their passion for the subject...",
">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/mulberry-hunter (1∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nof course talent is a thing, not really debatable.",
">\n\n\nShowing evidence/argument that work ethic isn't correlated with talent would CMV.\n\nI didnt get work ethic from \"talent\" I got it through parental discipline. As in I was beaten bloody if I said \"no\" to feeding cows when it was -30 outside.\nSo now I own a construction company as a 26 year old and make a decent income.",
">\n\nFirst, parental discipline happens regardless of talent. This wouldn't affect the correlation much.\nSecond, while it may have worked for you, it's not clear to me that parental discipline usually leads to having a better work ethic. Many people end up depressed and with a worse work ethic, or develop a fear of certain types of work.",
">\n\n\nFirst, parental discipline happens regardless of talent. This wouldn't affect the correlation much.\n\nParental discipline happens regardless of talent, and parental discipline is associated with success, showing parental discipline to be vital to success regardless of natural talent\n\nSecond, while it may have worked for you, it's not clear to me that parental discipline usually leads to having a better work ethic. Many people end up depressed and with a worse work ethic, or develop a fear of certain types of work.\n\nThe type of discipline I am talking about doesnt allow for that.",
">\n\n\nParental discipline happens regardless of talent, and parental discipline is associated with success, showing parental discipline to be vital to success regardless of natural talent\n\nRight, so is it relevant here? Parental discipline is one of many factors of success that is independent of talent. That I entirely agree with.\nTalent is a different major factor of success. My post is an argument about why talent is a major factor of success. Does parental discipline have any bearing on that?",
">\n\nyou confuse willpower with talent, willpower is needed to persist in any activity regardless of how successful, \n\npeople with ocd will practice skills more then a talented person simply because of obsessive behavior, so mental illness or willpower are the main driving forces, talent is merely an effort multiplier",
">\n\nI am not confusing talent with willpower. You should probably read my second section, which is the core of the argument:\n\nHaving talent usually makes it easier and more enjoyable to work on a skill. At any one point in their lives a person has to make a choice between doing a number of tasks. With talent, a smaller amount of effort towards learning something can lead to a greater reward, and hence learning about/practicing one's skills would be a more attractive decision to make at any time. So people with talent would naturally have more of an incentive to spend more time on their skills.\n\nI am arguing that not only does it multiply the effect of effort, but it also encourages a person to spend more effort. And I believe the latter to be a much stronger effect than the former.",
">\n\nI'd just argue that talent is subjective. People will say Kurk Cobain was the greatest musician of all time. Others will say he sucks. Just an example.",
">\n\nAs a person with \"natural born talent\" I definitely disagree.\nIt completely depends on the area of talent. My reasoning? It's true that talented skills are things you have to work at. But that \"work ethic\" may or may not transcend the specific talent the person has. Natural talent doesn't mean natural work ethic. If their specific talent isn't useful... well they just have a talent.\nEven if I have a talent specific to a job that would make me successful, no job is going to hire me that way. I have to prove I have the skills. This proof is normally a college degree or a certificate of a trade. If you don't have those even if you'd be perfect for the job, they don't know that, and they're not going to take a chance when you can't prove you know what you're talking about.\nHard work is more important than talent. Hell, all natural talent is, is working on something from a very early age. If you look at an artist's artwork at 5, generally, it looks like a 5 year old drew it. But someone who's been drawing since that age might make masterpieces at 17, it doesn't mean they're special, it just means they've studied and practiced a lot more in one area.\nWork ethic is a basic skill everyone needs to possess to be successful but having a natural talent doesn't necessarily equal good work ethic or get you there faster.",
">\n\nI'd like to dispute the idea that people are likelier to work on a skill just because they're talented at it. In my opinion, while there are numerous other factors (such as pressure from parents), the ability to keep working at a skill is itself a talent.",
">\n\nI think knowing how to work effectively (as opposed working \"hard\") is a stronger predictor of success than talent.\nAn \"untalented\" person can become successful at something because:\n- The person does the activity because it's fun. For example, a lot of people aren't talented runners. However if they run with a friend or with music then it's fun. Improvement because a side benefit rather than the sole objective. This approach more sustainable mentally.\n- The person has easy access to high quality information about the activity. For example, YouTube has lots of videos on repairing stuff. People who never picked up a screwdriver can now fix things and save money. Even if the person still can't fix things, he/she at least has better information to make an informed decision on the repair.\n- The person has access to quick high-quality feedback. This feedback can come from a person (like a coach, mentor, etc) or some tool. If a mentor mentions to a new manager that he/she tends to micromanage things when a project is under a tight deadline, that person is now aware of it and can avoid causing problems with the rest of the team. Feedback can eliminate a lot of beginner mistakes and save a lot of time.\n- The person is able to look at the activity from different angles. For example, the Fosbury Flop in the High Jump event in Track and Field. Fosbury was not good at doing the high jump the \"usual\" way so he figured out a different way that worked for him."
] |
>
It's not likely that people will improve if they are having fun, because in order to 'improve', you need to do something that you couldn't do before. That means you have to track what you were able to do before. And usually it means pushing yourself out of your comfort zone.
Kids (and some young animals) often hone skills by challenging themselves or each other through play. For example, you can find groups kids who spend hours trying to do tricks with the skateboard. These kids get paid nothing and risk injury. They do it simply because it's fun to be with each other and to try new challenges. Not everyone will improve at the same rate, but people generally improve somewhat. Some talented people quit the activity because it's no longer fun.
When people talk about talent, they imply equal training.
There are studies that show different muscle grows for people who are subjected to the same exercise in a controlled environment. Even if they take people with similar baselines, gains are different
Yes this is true, so I guess it comes down to what is meant by "success." I interpreted success as a measure that was defined by each person. In other words, if one's proficiency is good enough for what they needed, then they're successful. The person does not need to be at the elite level. I wasn't defining it in absolute terms where a person is only successful if they are better than nearly everyone else in the world (e.g. a billionaire investor). | [
"/u/PNKRTN (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\n\nShowing evidence/argument that work ethic isn't correlated with talent would CMV.\n\nthis is a tricky stance b/c a lot of it is subjective. \n\nwhat if \"having a strong work ethic\" is a talent in and of itself. the special forces operators talk about this all the time: they aren't inherently talented, but they have a talent for gaining talents quickly. \nwhat if i have a terrible work ethic (for things are difficult difficult for me) but the things that i pursue as fun are extremely valuable in the market? i never wash the dishes b/c that feels like work, but i constantly refine my quantum computing theories, (just a made up example). is it really work ethic if i don't feel burdened by the pursuit of the talent? \n\"success\" is determined by market demand. today we have professional video game players (either competitively or things like twitch, youtube, etc.). a generation ago the pursuit of these talents was not \"work ethic\". today, it is / could be considered. the only thing that changed was the market dynamics.",
">\n\n\nwhat if \"having a strong work ethic\" is a talent in and of itself\n\nOnly if being able to speak is a talent(not all people can do that). Most people are capable of learning good work ethics.\n\nin the market\n\nSuccess is not determined by the market. Success is being able to complete your goal. Any goal. You can successfully brush teeth.\nIt's just that usually we imply that the goal is supposed do be hard to achieve. Otherwise we wouldn't talk about it.",
">\n\nI think natural talent can be a helping factor in someone's success, but doesn't necessarily say anything about higher work ethic.\nSomeone with learned skill is likely to have built more resilience to their pursuit when they're used to the grind and have practiced the skill for hours and hours, therefore may have spent more time than someone who has it easier. \nSomeone with natural talent could be spooked way more easily when hitting a roadblock in terms of skill, or they could find their lack of challenge monotonous in itself, and it depends on the kind of person they are.\nIn various conditions the opposite could be true for both of these, so I don't believe there's any concrete correlation at all, but I can argue that hard work is a valuable asset since endurance when facing challenges is essential for success in work, so it's pretty unreasonable to assume that natural talent = better work ethic.",
">\n\n\nSomeone with learned skill is likely to have built more resilience to their pursuit when they're used to the grind and have practiced the skill for hours and hours, therefore may have spent more time than someone who has it easier.\n\nYes, but the idea here is that those who have the drive and opportunity build learned skill in the first place are usually also those with talent. \n\nSomeone with natural talent could be spooked way more easily when hitting a roadblock in terms of skill, or they could find their lack of challenge monotonous in itself, and it depends on the kind of person they are.\n\nAh, that's something I hadn't thought too much about. I've seen people leave a field of study for another because they though their previous field of study was too easy. So in contexts where lots of work is needed but little improvement can be made, it could backfire. That would put a limit in how general of a context I can make that assumption.\n!delta\nI haven't actually met anyone who was spooked out by hitting a roadblock before, though. Definitely many more bored people. Also people who were held back because being too far ahead of one's peers causes problems for other people, and ended up losing their passion for the subject...",
">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/mulberry-hunter (1∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nof course talent is a thing, not really debatable.",
">\n\n\nShowing evidence/argument that work ethic isn't correlated with talent would CMV.\n\nI didnt get work ethic from \"talent\" I got it through parental discipline. As in I was beaten bloody if I said \"no\" to feeding cows when it was -30 outside.\nSo now I own a construction company as a 26 year old and make a decent income.",
">\n\nFirst, parental discipline happens regardless of talent. This wouldn't affect the correlation much.\nSecond, while it may have worked for you, it's not clear to me that parental discipline usually leads to having a better work ethic. Many people end up depressed and with a worse work ethic, or develop a fear of certain types of work.",
">\n\n\nFirst, parental discipline happens regardless of talent. This wouldn't affect the correlation much.\n\nParental discipline happens regardless of talent, and parental discipline is associated with success, showing parental discipline to be vital to success regardless of natural talent\n\nSecond, while it may have worked for you, it's not clear to me that parental discipline usually leads to having a better work ethic. Many people end up depressed and with a worse work ethic, or develop a fear of certain types of work.\n\nThe type of discipline I am talking about doesnt allow for that.",
">\n\n\nParental discipline happens regardless of talent, and parental discipline is associated with success, showing parental discipline to be vital to success regardless of natural talent\n\nRight, so is it relevant here? Parental discipline is one of many factors of success that is independent of talent. That I entirely agree with.\nTalent is a different major factor of success. My post is an argument about why talent is a major factor of success. Does parental discipline have any bearing on that?",
">\n\nyou confuse willpower with talent, willpower is needed to persist in any activity regardless of how successful, \n\npeople with ocd will practice skills more then a talented person simply because of obsessive behavior, so mental illness or willpower are the main driving forces, talent is merely an effort multiplier",
">\n\nI am not confusing talent with willpower. You should probably read my second section, which is the core of the argument:\n\nHaving talent usually makes it easier and more enjoyable to work on a skill. At any one point in their lives a person has to make a choice between doing a number of tasks. With talent, a smaller amount of effort towards learning something can lead to a greater reward, and hence learning about/practicing one's skills would be a more attractive decision to make at any time. So people with talent would naturally have more of an incentive to spend more time on their skills.\n\nI am arguing that not only does it multiply the effect of effort, but it also encourages a person to spend more effort. And I believe the latter to be a much stronger effect than the former.",
">\n\nI'd just argue that talent is subjective. People will say Kurk Cobain was the greatest musician of all time. Others will say he sucks. Just an example.",
">\n\nAs a person with \"natural born talent\" I definitely disagree.\nIt completely depends on the area of talent. My reasoning? It's true that talented skills are things you have to work at. But that \"work ethic\" may or may not transcend the specific talent the person has. Natural talent doesn't mean natural work ethic. If their specific talent isn't useful... well they just have a talent.\nEven if I have a talent specific to a job that would make me successful, no job is going to hire me that way. I have to prove I have the skills. This proof is normally a college degree or a certificate of a trade. If you don't have those even if you'd be perfect for the job, they don't know that, and they're not going to take a chance when you can't prove you know what you're talking about.\nHard work is more important than talent. Hell, all natural talent is, is working on something from a very early age. If you look at an artist's artwork at 5, generally, it looks like a 5 year old drew it. But someone who's been drawing since that age might make masterpieces at 17, it doesn't mean they're special, it just means they've studied and practiced a lot more in one area.\nWork ethic is a basic skill everyone needs to possess to be successful but having a natural talent doesn't necessarily equal good work ethic or get you there faster.",
">\n\nI'd like to dispute the idea that people are likelier to work on a skill just because they're talented at it. In my opinion, while there are numerous other factors (such as pressure from parents), the ability to keep working at a skill is itself a talent.",
">\n\nI think knowing how to work effectively (as opposed working \"hard\") is a stronger predictor of success than talent.\nAn \"untalented\" person can become successful at something because:\n- The person does the activity because it's fun. For example, a lot of people aren't talented runners. However if they run with a friend or with music then it's fun. Improvement because a side benefit rather than the sole objective. This approach more sustainable mentally.\n- The person has easy access to high quality information about the activity. For example, YouTube has lots of videos on repairing stuff. People who never picked up a screwdriver can now fix things and save money. Even if the person still can't fix things, he/she at least has better information to make an informed decision on the repair.\n- The person has access to quick high-quality feedback. This feedback can come from a person (like a coach, mentor, etc) or some tool. If a mentor mentions to a new manager that he/she tends to micromanage things when a project is under a tight deadline, that person is now aware of it and can avoid causing problems with the rest of the team. Feedback can eliminate a lot of beginner mistakes and save a lot of time.\n- The person is able to look at the activity from different angles. For example, the Fosbury Flop in the High Jump event in Track and Field. Fosbury was not good at doing the high jump the \"usual\" way so he figured out a different way that worked for him.",
">\n\n\nImprovement because a side benefit rather than the sole objective\n\nIt's not likely that people will improve if they are having fun, because in order to 'improve', you need to do something that you couldn't do before. That means you have to track what you were able to do before. And usually it means pushing yourself out of your comfort zone.\n\nAccess to high quality information \nThe person has access to quick high-quality feedback.\n\nWhen people talk about talent, they imply equal training.\nThere are studies that show different muscle grows for people who are subjected to the same exercise in a controlled environment. Even if they take people with similar baselines, gains are different"
] |
>
Kids (and some young animals) often hone skills by challenging themselves or each other through play.
Yes. But they don't achieve greatness. Early newbie gains are easy. It gets progressively harder though | [
"/u/PNKRTN (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\n\nShowing evidence/argument that work ethic isn't correlated with talent would CMV.\n\nthis is a tricky stance b/c a lot of it is subjective. \n\nwhat if \"having a strong work ethic\" is a talent in and of itself. the special forces operators talk about this all the time: they aren't inherently talented, but they have a talent for gaining talents quickly. \nwhat if i have a terrible work ethic (for things are difficult difficult for me) but the things that i pursue as fun are extremely valuable in the market? i never wash the dishes b/c that feels like work, but i constantly refine my quantum computing theories, (just a made up example). is it really work ethic if i don't feel burdened by the pursuit of the talent? \n\"success\" is determined by market demand. today we have professional video game players (either competitively or things like twitch, youtube, etc.). a generation ago the pursuit of these talents was not \"work ethic\". today, it is / could be considered. the only thing that changed was the market dynamics.",
">\n\n\nwhat if \"having a strong work ethic\" is a talent in and of itself\n\nOnly if being able to speak is a talent(not all people can do that). Most people are capable of learning good work ethics.\n\nin the market\n\nSuccess is not determined by the market. Success is being able to complete your goal. Any goal. You can successfully brush teeth.\nIt's just that usually we imply that the goal is supposed do be hard to achieve. Otherwise we wouldn't talk about it.",
">\n\nI think natural talent can be a helping factor in someone's success, but doesn't necessarily say anything about higher work ethic.\nSomeone with learned skill is likely to have built more resilience to their pursuit when they're used to the grind and have practiced the skill for hours and hours, therefore may have spent more time than someone who has it easier. \nSomeone with natural talent could be spooked way more easily when hitting a roadblock in terms of skill, or they could find their lack of challenge monotonous in itself, and it depends on the kind of person they are.\nIn various conditions the opposite could be true for both of these, so I don't believe there's any concrete correlation at all, but I can argue that hard work is a valuable asset since endurance when facing challenges is essential for success in work, so it's pretty unreasonable to assume that natural talent = better work ethic.",
">\n\n\nSomeone with learned skill is likely to have built more resilience to their pursuit when they're used to the grind and have practiced the skill for hours and hours, therefore may have spent more time than someone who has it easier.\n\nYes, but the idea here is that those who have the drive and opportunity build learned skill in the first place are usually also those with talent. \n\nSomeone with natural talent could be spooked way more easily when hitting a roadblock in terms of skill, or they could find their lack of challenge monotonous in itself, and it depends on the kind of person they are.\n\nAh, that's something I hadn't thought too much about. I've seen people leave a field of study for another because they though their previous field of study was too easy. So in contexts where lots of work is needed but little improvement can be made, it could backfire. That would put a limit in how general of a context I can make that assumption.\n!delta\nI haven't actually met anyone who was spooked out by hitting a roadblock before, though. Definitely many more bored people. Also people who were held back because being too far ahead of one's peers causes problems for other people, and ended up losing their passion for the subject...",
">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/mulberry-hunter (1∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nof course talent is a thing, not really debatable.",
">\n\n\nShowing evidence/argument that work ethic isn't correlated with talent would CMV.\n\nI didnt get work ethic from \"talent\" I got it through parental discipline. As in I was beaten bloody if I said \"no\" to feeding cows when it was -30 outside.\nSo now I own a construction company as a 26 year old and make a decent income.",
">\n\nFirst, parental discipline happens regardless of talent. This wouldn't affect the correlation much.\nSecond, while it may have worked for you, it's not clear to me that parental discipline usually leads to having a better work ethic. Many people end up depressed and with a worse work ethic, or develop a fear of certain types of work.",
">\n\n\nFirst, parental discipline happens regardless of talent. This wouldn't affect the correlation much.\n\nParental discipline happens regardless of talent, and parental discipline is associated with success, showing parental discipline to be vital to success regardless of natural talent\n\nSecond, while it may have worked for you, it's not clear to me that parental discipline usually leads to having a better work ethic. Many people end up depressed and with a worse work ethic, or develop a fear of certain types of work.\n\nThe type of discipline I am talking about doesnt allow for that.",
">\n\n\nParental discipline happens regardless of talent, and parental discipline is associated with success, showing parental discipline to be vital to success regardless of natural talent\n\nRight, so is it relevant here? Parental discipline is one of many factors of success that is independent of talent. That I entirely agree with.\nTalent is a different major factor of success. My post is an argument about why talent is a major factor of success. Does parental discipline have any bearing on that?",
">\n\nyou confuse willpower with talent, willpower is needed to persist in any activity regardless of how successful, \n\npeople with ocd will practice skills more then a talented person simply because of obsessive behavior, so mental illness or willpower are the main driving forces, talent is merely an effort multiplier",
">\n\nI am not confusing talent with willpower. You should probably read my second section, which is the core of the argument:\n\nHaving talent usually makes it easier and more enjoyable to work on a skill. At any one point in their lives a person has to make a choice between doing a number of tasks. With talent, a smaller amount of effort towards learning something can lead to a greater reward, and hence learning about/practicing one's skills would be a more attractive decision to make at any time. So people with talent would naturally have more of an incentive to spend more time on their skills.\n\nI am arguing that not only does it multiply the effect of effort, but it also encourages a person to spend more effort. And I believe the latter to be a much stronger effect than the former.",
">\n\nI'd just argue that talent is subjective. People will say Kurk Cobain was the greatest musician of all time. Others will say he sucks. Just an example.",
">\n\nAs a person with \"natural born talent\" I definitely disagree.\nIt completely depends on the area of talent. My reasoning? It's true that talented skills are things you have to work at. But that \"work ethic\" may or may not transcend the specific talent the person has. Natural talent doesn't mean natural work ethic. If their specific talent isn't useful... well they just have a talent.\nEven if I have a talent specific to a job that would make me successful, no job is going to hire me that way. I have to prove I have the skills. This proof is normally a college degree or a certificate of a trade. If you don't have those even if you'd be perfect for the job, they don't know that, and they're not going to take a chance when you can't prove you know what you're talking about.\nHard work is more important than talent. Hell, all natural talent is, is working on something from a very early age. If you look at an artist's artwork at 5, generally, it looks like a 5 year old drew it. But someone who's been drawing since that age might make masterpieces at 17, it doesn't mean they're special, it just means they've studied and practiced a lot more in one area.\nWork ethic is a basic skill everyone needs to possess to be successful but having a natural talent doesn't necessarily equal good work ethic or get you there faster.",
">\n\nI'd like to dispute the idea that people are likelier to work on a skill just because they're talented at it. In my opinion, while there are numerous other factors (such as pressure from parents), the ability to keep working at a skill is itself a talent.",
">\n\nI think knowing how to work effectively (as opposed working \"hard\") is a stronger predictor of success than talent.\nAn \"untalented\" person can become successful at something because:\n- The person does the activity because it's fun. For example, a lot of people aren't talented runners. However if they run with a friend or with music then it's fun. Improvement because a side benefit rather than the sole objective. This approach more sustainable mentally.\n- The person has easy access to high quality information about the activity. For example, YouTube has lots of videos on repairing stuff. People who never picked up a screwdriver can now fix things and save money. Even if the person still can't fix things, he/she at least has better information to make an informed decision on the repair.\n- The person has access to quick high-quality feedback. This feedback can come from a person (like a coach, mentor, etc) or some tool. If a mentor mentions to a new manager that he/she tends to micromanage things when a project is under a tight deadline, that person is now aware of it and can avoid causing problems with the rest of the team. Feedback can eliminate a lot of beginner mistakes and save a lot of time.\n- The person is able to look at the activity from different angles. For example, the Fosbury Flop in the High Jump event in Track and Field. Fosbury was not good at doing the high jump the \"usual\" way so he figured out a different way that worked for him.",
">\n\n\nImprovement because a side benefit rather than the sole objective\n\nIt's not likely that people will improve if they are having fun, because in order to 'improve', you need to do something that you couldn't do before. That means you have to track what you were able to do before. And usually it means pushing yourself out of your comfort zone.\n\nAccess to high quality information \nThe person has access to quick high-quality feedback.\n\nWhen people talk about talent, they imply equal training.\nThere are studies that show different muscle grows for people who are subjected to the same exercise in a controlled environment. Even if they take people with similar baselines, gains are different",
">\n\n\nIt's not likely that people will improve if they are having fun, because in order to 'improve', you need to do something that you couldn't do before. That means you have to track what you were able to do before. And usually it means pushing yourself out of your comfort zone.\n\nKids (and some young animals) often hone skills by challenging themselves or each other through play. For example, you can find groups kids who spend hours trying to do tricks with the skateboard. These kids get paid nothing and risk injury. They do it simply because it's fun to be with each other and to try new challenges. Not everyone will improve at the same rate, but people generally improve somewhat. Some talented people quit the activity because it's no longer fun.\n\n\nWhen people talk about talent, they imply equal training. \nThere are studies that show different muscle grows for people who are subjected to the same exercise in a controlled environment. Even if they take people with similar baselines, gains are different\n\nYes this is true, so I guess it comes down to what is meant by \"success.\" I interpreted success as a measure that was defined by each person. In other words, if one's proficiency is good enough for what they needed, then they're successful. The person does not need to be at the elite level. I wasn't defining it in absolute terms where a person is only successful if they are better than nearly everyone else in the world (e.g. a billionaire investor)."
] |
>
Yes. But they don't achieve greatness. Early newbie gains are easy. It gets progressively harder though
I see. We're working different definitions of success. For example, I can ride my bike to the park and to the other side of town. I consider that being successful because that's all the proficiency I require of that skill. I don't aspire to ride the Tour de France.
For the case of being an elite in a particular field or being "great," talent is important, but sacrifice and luck are not negligible. Greatness comes at a cost. It can be a burden on relationships, one's mental or physical health, or money for relatively small gains. Some talented people may see that cost and choose to go another way. These people might not become great, but they might lead healthier lives. Luck is also important. Talented people have had careers cut short because of injuries, sickness, or other hardships outside of their control. | [
"/u/PNKRTN (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\n\nShowing evidence/argument that work ethic isn't correlated with talent would CMV.\n\nthis is a tricky stance b/c a lot of it is subjective. \n\nwhat if \"having a strong work ethic\" is a talent in and of itself. the special forces operators talk about this all the time: they aren't inherently talented, but they have a talent for gaining talents quickly. \nwhat if i have a terrible work ethic (for things are difficult difficult for me) but the things that i pursue as fun are extremely valuable in the market? i never wash the dishes b/c that feels like work, but i constantly refine my quantum computing theories, (just a made up example). is it really work ethic if i don't feel burdened by the pursuit of the talent? \n\"success\" is determined by market demand. today we have professional video game players (either competitively or things like twitch, youtube, etc.). a generation ago the pursuit of these talents was not \"work ethic\". today, it is / could be considered. the only thing that changed was the market dynamics.",
">\n\n\nwhat if \"having a strong work ethic\" is a talent in and of itself\n\nOnly if being able to speak is a talent(not all people can do that). Most people are capable of learning good work ethics.\n\nin the market\n\nSuccess is not determined by the market. Success is being able to complete your goal. Any goal. You can successfully brush teeth.\nIt's just that usually we imply that the goal is supposed do be hard to achieve. Otherwise we wouldn't talk about it.",
">\n\nI think natural talent can be a helping factor in someone's success, but doesn't necessarily say anything about higher work ethic.\nSomeone with learned skill is likely to have built more resilience to their pursuit when they're used to the grind and have practiced the skill for hours and hours, therefore may have spent more time than someone who has it easier. \nSomeone with natural talent could be spooked way more easily when hitting a roadblock in terms of skill, or they could find their lack of challenge monotonous in itself, and it depends on the kind of person they are.\nIn various conditions the opposite could be true for both of these, so I don't believe there's any concrete correlation at all, but I can argue that hard work is a valuable asset since endurance when facing challenges is essential for success in work, so it's pretty unreasonable to assume that natural talent = better work ethic.",
">\n\n\nSomeone with learned skill is likely to have built more resilience to their pursuit when they're used to the grind and have practiced the skill for hours and hours, therefore may have spent more time than someone who has it easier.\n\nYes, but the idea here is that those who have the drive and opportunity build learned skill in the first place are usually also those with talent. \n\nSomeone with natural talent could be spooked way more easily when hitting a roadblock in terms of skill, or they could find their lack of challenge monotonous in itself, and it depends on the kind of person they are.\n\nAh, that's something I hadn't thought too much about. I've seen people leave a field of study for another because they though their previous field of study was too easy. So in contexts where lots of work is needed but little improvement can be made, it could backfire. That would put a limit in how general of a context I can make that assumption.\n!delta\nI haven't actually met anyone who was spooked out by hitting a roadblock before, though. Definitely many more bored people. Also people who were held back because being too far ahead of one's peers causes problems for other people, and ended up losing their passion for the subject...",
">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/mulberry-hunter (1∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nof course talent is a thing, not really debatable.",
">\n\n\nShowing evidence/argument that work ethic isn't correlated with talent would CMV.\n\nI didnt get work ethic from \"talent\" I got it through parental discipline. As in I was beaten bloody if I said \"no\" to feeding cows when it was -30 outside.\nSo now I own a construction company as a 26 year old and make a decent income.",
">\n\nFirst, parental discipline happens regardless of talent. This wouldn't affect the correlation much.\nSecond, while it may have worked for you, it's not clear to me that parental discipline usually leads to having a better work ethic. Many people end up depressed and with a worse work ethic, or develop a fear of certain types of work.",
">\n\n\nFirst, parental discipline happens regardless of talent. This wouldn't affect the correlation much.\n\nParental discipline happens regardless of talent, and parental discipline is associated with success, showing parental discipline to be vital to success regardless of natural talent\n\nSecond, while it may have worked for you, it's not clear to me that parental discipline usually leads to having a better work ethic. Many people end up depressed and with a worse work ethic, or develop a fear of certain types of work.\n\nThe type of discipline I am talking about doesnt allow for that.",
">\n\n\nParental discipline happens regardless of talent, and parental discipline is associated with success, showing parental discipline to be vital to success regardless of natural talent\n\nRight, so is it relevant here? Parental discipline is one of many factors of success that is independent of talent. That I entirely agree with.\nTalent is a different major factor of success. My post is an argument about why talent is a major factor of success. Does parental discipline have any bearing on that?",
">\n\nyou confuse willpower with talent, willpower is needed to persist in any activity regardless of how successful, \n\npeople with ocd will practice skills more then a talented person simply because of obsessive behavior, so mental illness or willpower are the main driving forces, talent is merely an effort multiplier",
">\n\nI am not confusing talent with willpower. You should probably read my second section, which is the core of the argument:\n\nHaving talent usually makes it easier and more enjoyable to work on a skill. At any one point in their lives a person has to make a choice between doing a number of tasks. With talent, a smaller amount of effort towards learning something can lead to a greater reward, and hence learning about/practicing one's skills would be a more attractive decision to make at any time. So people with talent would naturally have more of an incentive to spend more time on their skills.\n\nI am arguing that not only does it multiply the effect of effort, but it also encourages a person to spend more effort. And I believe the latter to be a much stronger effect than the former.",
">\n\nI'd just argue that talent is subjective. People will say Kurk Cobain was the greatest musician of all time. Others will say he sucks. Just an example.",
">\n\nAs a person with \"natural born talent\" I definitely disagree.\nIt completely depends on the area of talent. My reasoning? It's true that talented skills are things you have to work at. But that \"work ethic\" may or may not transcend the specific talent the person has. Natural talent doesn't mean natural work ethic. If their specific talent isn't useful... well they just have a talent.\nEven if I have a talent specific to a job that would make me successful, no job is going to hire me that way. I have to prove I have the skills. This proof is normally a college degree or a certificate of a trade. If you don't have those even if you'd be perfect for the job, they don't know that, and they're not going to take a chance when you can't prove you know what you're talking about.\nHard work is more important than talent. Hell, all natural talent is, is working on something from a very early age. If you look at an artist's artwork at 5, generally, it looks like a 5 year old drew it. But someone who's been drawing since that age might make masterpieces at 17, it doesn't mean they're special, it just means they've studied and practiced a lot more in one area.\nWork ethic is a basic skill everyone needs to possess to be successful but having a natural talent doesn't necessarily equal good work ethic or get you there faster.",
">\n\nI'd like to dispute the idea that people are likelier to work on a skill just because they're talented at it. In my opinion, while there are numerous other factors (such as pressure from parents), the ability to keep working at a skill is itself a talent.",
">\n\nI think knowing how to work effectively (as opposed working \"hard\") is a stronger predictor of success than talent.\nAn \"untalented\" person can become successful at something because:\n- The person does the activity because it's fun. For example, a lot of people aren't talented runners. However if they run with a friend or with music then it's fun. Improvement because a side benefit rather than the sole objective. This approach more sustainable mentally.\n- The person has easy access to high quality information about the activity. For example, YouTube has lots of videos on repairing stuff. People who never picked up a screwdriver can now fix things and save money. Even if the person still can't fix things, he/she at least has better information to make an informed decision on the repair.\n- The person has access to quick high-quality feedback. This feedback can come from a person (like a coach, mentor, etc) or some tool. If a mentor mentions to a new manager that he/she tends to micromanage things when a project is under a tight deadline, that person is now aware of it and can avoid causing problems with the rest of the team. Feedback can eliminate a lot of beginner mistakes and save a lot of time.\n- The person is able to look at the activity from different angles. For example, the Fosbury Flop in the High Jump event in Track and Field. Fosbury was not good at doing the high jump the \"usual\" way so he figured out a different way that worked for him.",
">\n\n\nImprovement because a side benefit rather than the sole objective\n\nIt's not likely that people will improve if they are having fun, because in order to 'improve', you need to do something that you couldn't do before. That means you have to track what you were able to do before. And usually it means pushing yourself out of your comfort zone.\n\nAccess to high quality information \nThe person has access to quick high-quality feedback.\n\nWhen people talk about talent, they imply equal training.\nThere are studies that show different muscle grows for people who are subjected to the same exercise in a controlled environment. Even if they take people with similar baselines, gains are different",
">\n\n\nIt's not likely that people will improve if they are having fun, because in order to 'improve', you need to do something that you couldn't do before. That means you have to track what you were able to do before. And usually it means pushing yourself out of your comfort zone.\n\nKids (and some young animals) often hone skills by challenging themselves or each other through play. For example, you can find groups kids who spend hours trying to do tricks with the skateboard. These kids get paid nothing and risk injury. They do it simply because it's fun to be with each other and to try new challenges. Not everyone will improve at the same rate, but people generally improve somewhat. Some talented people quit the activity because it's no longer fun.\n\n\nWhen people talk about talent, they imply equal training. \nThere are studies that show different muscle grows for people who are subjected to the same exercise in a controlled environment. Even if they take people with similar baselines, gains are different\n\nYes this is true, so I guess it comes down to what is meant by \"success.\" I interpreted success as a measure that was defined by each person. In other words, if one's proficiency is good enough for what they needed, then they're successful. The person does not need to be at the elite level. I wasn't defining it in absolute terms where a person is only successful if they are better than nearly everyone else in the world (e.g. a billionaire investor).",
">\n\n\nKids (and some young animals) often hone skills by challenging themselves or each other through play. \n\nYes. But they don't achieve greatness. Early newbie gains are easy. It gets progressively harder though"
] |
>
I think you are mis-labelling curiosity as talent.
I am a musician & singer. I wasn't born with an ability to sing better than the person next to me.
My brain enjoyed music. It was curious about it. So I listened more. I imitated more... I sang out of tune for a few pre teen years... And then it all started clicking. And continues to click the more I explore that idea space.
I'm not saying it's just work and practice. But I AM saying it is utilising brain power and time to even think about this thing.. will improve your ability.
It is curiosity that drives.... Not 'talent,' (which honestly I have never seen accurately defined anyway.) | [
"/u/PNKRTN (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\n\nShowing evidence/argument that work ethic isn't correlated with talent would CMV.\n\nthis is a tricky stance b/c a lot of it is subjective. \n\nwhat if \"having a strong work ethic\" is a talent in and of itself. the special forces operators talk about this all the time: they aren't inherently talented, but they have a talent for gaining talents quickly. \nwhat if i have a terrible work ethic (for things are difficult difficult for me) but the things that i pursue as fun are extremely valuable in the market? i never wash the dishes b/c that feels like work, but i constantly refine my quantum computing theories, (just a made up example). is it really work ethic if i don't feel burdened by the pursuit of the talent? \n\"success\" is determined by market demand. today we have professional video game players (either competitively or things like twitch, youtube, etc.). a generation ago the pursuit of these talents was not \"work ethic\". today, it is / could be considered. the only thing that changed was the market dynamics.",
">\n\n\nwhat if \"having a strong work ethic\" is a talent in and of itself\n\nOnly if being able to speak is a talent(not all people can do that). Most people are capable of learning good work ethics.\n\nin the market\n\nSuccess is not determined by the market. Success is being able to complete your goal. Any goal. You can successfully brush teeth.\nIt's just that usually we imply that the goal is supposed do be hard to achieve. Otherwise we wouldn't talk about it.",
">\n\nI think natural talent can be a helping factor in someone's success, but doesn't necessarily say anything about higher work ethic.\nSomeone with learned skill is likely to have built more resilience to their pursuit when they're used to the grind and have practiced the skill for hours and hours, therefore may have spent more time than someone who has it easier. \nSomeone with natural talent could be spooked way more easily when hitting a roadblock in terms of skill, or they could find their lack of challenge monotonous in itself, and it depends on the kind of person they are.\nIn various conditions the opposite could be true for both of these, so I don't believe there's any concrete correlation at all, but I can argue that hard work is a valuable asset since endurance when facing challenges is essential for success in work, so it's pretty unreasonable to assume that natural talent = better work ethic.",
">\n\n\nSomeone with learned skill is likely to have built more resilience to their pursuit when they're used to the grind and have practiced the skill for hours and hours, therefore may have spent more time than someone who has it easier.\n\nYes, but the idea here is that those who have the drive and opportunity build learned skill in the first place are usually also those with talent. \n\nSomeone with natural talent could be spooked way more easily when hitting a roadblock in terms of skill, or they could find their lack of challenge monotonous in itself, and it depends on the kind of person they are.\n\nAh, that's something I hadn't thought too much about. I've seen people leave a field of study for another because they though their previous field of study was too easy. So in contexts where lots of work is needed but little improvement can be made, it could backfire. That would put a limit in how general of a context I can make that assumption.\n!delta\nI haven't actually met anyone who was spooked out by hitting a roadblock before, though. Definitely many more bored people. Also people who were held back because being too far ahead of one's peers causes problems for other people, and ended up losing their passion for the subject...",
">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/mulberry-hunter (1∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nof course talent is a thing, not really debatable.",
">\n\n\nShowing evidence/argument that work ethic isn't correlated with talent would CMV.\n\nI didnt get work ethic from \"talent\" I got it through parental discipline. As in I was beaten bloody if I said \"no\" to feeding cows when it was -30 outside.\nSo now I own a construction company as a 26 year old and make a decent income.",
">\n\nFirst, parental discipline happens regardless of talent. This wouldn't affect the correlation much.\nSecond, while it may have worked for you, it's not clear to me that parental discipline usually leads to having a better work ethic. Many people end up depressed and with a worse work ethic, or develop a fear of certain types of work.",
">\n\n\nFirst, parental discipline happens regardless of talent. This wouldn't affect the correlation much.\n\nParental discipline happens regardless of talent, and parental discipline is associated with success, showing parental discipline to be vital to success regardless of natural talent\n\nSecond, while it may have worked for you, it's not clear to me that parental discipline usually leads to having a better work ethic. Many people end up depressed and with a worse work ethic, or develop a fear of certain types of work.\n\nThe type of discipline I am talking about doesnt allow for that.",
">\n\n\nParental discipline happens regardless of talent, and parental discipline is associated with success, showing parental discipline to be vital to success regardless of natural talent\n\nRight, so is it relevant here? Parental discipline is one of many factors of success that is independent of talent. That I entirely agree with.\nTalent is a different major factor of success. My post is an argument about why talent is a major factor of success. Does parental discipline have any bearing on that?",
">\n\nyou confuse willpower with talent, willpower is needed to persist in any activity regardless of how successful, \n\npeople with ocd will practice skills more then a talented person simply because of obsessive behavior, so mental illness or willpower are the main driving forces, talent is merely an effort multiplier",
">\n\nI am not confusing talent with willpower. You should probably read my second section, which is the core of the argument:\n\nHaving talent usually makes it easier and more enjoyable to work on a skill. At any one point in their lives a person has to make a choice between doing a number of tasks. With talent, a smaller amount of effort towards learning something can lead to a greater reward, and hence learning about/practicing one's skills would be a more attractive decision to make at any time. So people with talent would naturally have more of an incentive to spend more time on their skills.\n\nI am arguing that not only does it multiply the effect of effort, but it also encourages a person to spend more effort. And I believe the latter to be a much stronger effect than the former.",
">\n\nI'd just argue that talent is subjective. People will say Kurk Cobain was the greatest musician of all time. Others will say he sucks. Just an example.",
">\n\nAs a person with \"natural born talent\" I definitely disagree.\nIt completely depends on the area of talent. My reasoning? It's true that talented skills are things you have to work at. But that \"work ethic\" may or may not transcend the specific talent the person has. Natural talent doesn't mean natural work ethic. If their specific talent isn't useful... well they just have a talent.\nEven if I have a talent specific to a job that would make me successful, no job is going to hire me that way. I have to prove I have the skills. This proof is normally a college degree or a certificate of a trade. If you don't have those even if you'd be perfect for the job, they don't know that, and they're not going to take a chance when you can't prove you know what you're talking about.\nHard work is more important than talent. Hell, all natural talent is, is working on something from a very early age. If you look at an artist's artwork at 5, generally, it looks like a 5 year old drew it. But someone who's been drawing since that age might make masterpieces at 17, it doesn't mean they're special, it just means they've studied and practiced a lot more in one area.\nWork ethic is a basic skill everyone needs to possess to be successful but having a natural talent doesn't necessarily equal good work ethic or get you there faster.",
">\n\nI'd like to dispute the idea that people are likelier to work on a skill just because they're talented at it. In my opinion, while there are numerous other factors (such as pressure from parents), the ability to keep working at a skill is itself a talent.",
">\n\nI think knowing how to work effectively (as opposed working \"hard\") is a stronger predictor of success than talent.\nAn \"untalented\" person can become successful at something because:\n- The person does the activity because it's fun. For example, a lot of people aren't talented runners. However if they run with a friend or with music then it's fun. Improvement because a side benefit rather than the sole objective. This approach more sustainable mentally.\n- The person has easy access to high quality information about the activity. For example, YouTube has lots of videos on repairing stuff. People who never picked up a screwdriver can now fix things and save money. Even if the person still can't fix things, he/she at least has better information to make an informed decision on the repair.\n- The person has access to quick high-quality feedback. This feedback can come from a person (like a coach, mentor, etc) or some tool. If a mentor mentions to a new manager that he/she tends to micromanage things when a project is under a tight deadline, that person is now aware of it and can avoid causing problems with the rest of the team. Feedback can eliminate a lot of beginner mistakes and save a lot of time.\n- The person is able to look at the activity from different angles. For example, the Fosbury Flop in the High Jump event in Track and Field. Fosbury was not good at doing the high jump the \"usual\" way so he figured out a different way that worked for him.",
">\n\n\nImprovement because a side benefit rather than the sole objective\n\nIt's not likely that people will improve if they are having fun, because in order to 'improve', you need to do something that you couldn't do before. That means you have to track what you were able to do before. And usually it means pushing yourself out of your comfort zone.\n\nAccess to high quality information \nThe person has access to quick high-quality feedback.\n\nWhen people talk about talent, they imply equal training.\nThere are studies that show different muscle grows for people who are subjected to the same exercise in a controlled environment. Even if they take people with similar baselines, gains are different",
">\n\n\nIt's not likely that people will improve if they are having fun, because in order to 'improve', you need to do something that you couldn't do before. That means you have to track what you were able to do before. And usually it means pushing yourself out of your comfort zone.\n\nKids (and some young animals) often hone skills by challenging themselves or each other through play. For example, you can find groups kids who spend hours trying to do tricks with the skateboard. These kids get paid nothing and risk injury. They do it simply because it's fun to be with each other and to try new challenges. Not everyone will improve at the same rate, but people generally improve somewhat. Some talented people quit the activity because it's no longer fun.\n\n\nWhen people talk about talent, they imply equal training. \nThere are studies that show different muscle grows for people who are subjected to the same exercise in a controlled environment. Even if they take people with similar baselines, gains are different\n\nYes this is true, so I guess it comes down to what is meant by \"success.\" I interpreted success as a measure that was defined by each person. In other words, if one's proficiency is good enough for what they needed, then they're successful. The person does not need to be at the elite level. I wasn't defining it in absolute terms where a person is only successful if they are better than nearly everyone else in the world (e.g. a billionaire investor).",
">\n\n\nKids (and some young animals) often hone skills by challenging themselves or each other through play. \n\nYes. But they don't achieve greatness. Early newbie gains are easy. It gets progressively harder though",
">\n\n\nYes. But they don't achieve greatness. Early newbie gains are easy. It gets progressively harder though\n\nI see. We're working different definitions of success. For example, I can ride my bike to the park and to the other side of town. I consider that being successful because that's all the proficiency I require of that skill. I don't aspire to ride the Tour de France. \nFor the case of being an elite in a particular field or being \"great,\" talent is important, but sacrifice and luck are not negligible. Greatness comes at a cost. It can be a burden on relationships, one's mental or physical health, or money for relatively small gains. Some talented people may see that cost and choose to go another way. These people might not become great, but they might lead healthier lives. Luck is also important. Talented people have had careers cut short because of injuries, sickness, or other hardships outside of their control."
] |
>
Something your missing is the level of talent, low or medium talent with high work ethic will beat high talent.
Low talent will beat no talent even with hard work. Some people are just not good at something and cannot get better, but if you have talent to do the basics with a good work ethic then there is potential.
For example Micheal jordon didn’t make his school basket ball team. Obviously he has talent and with hard work he became better than just talent | [
"/u/PNKRTN (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\n\nShowing evidence/argument that work ethic isn't correlated with talent would CMV.\n\nthis is a tricky stance b/c a lot of it is subjective. \n\nwhat if \"having a strong work ethic\" is a talent in and of itself. the special forces operators talk about this all the time: they aren't inherently talented, but they have a talent for gaining talents quickly. \nwhat if i have a terrible work ethic (for things are difficult difficult for me) but the things that i pursue as fun are extremely valuable in the market? i never wash the dishes b/c that feels like work, but i constantly refine my quantum computing theories, (just a made up example). is it really work ethic if i don't feel burdened by the pursuit of the talent? \n\"success\" is determined by market demand. today we have professional video game players (either competitively or things like twitch, youtube, etc.). a generation ago the pursuit of these talents was not \"work ethic\". today, it is / could be considered. the only thing that changed was the market dynamics.",
">\n\n\nwhat if \"having a strong work ethic\" is a talent in and of itself\n\nOnly if being able to speak is a talent(not all people can do that). Most people are capable of learning good work ethics.\n\nin the market\n\nSuccess is not determined by the market. Success is being able to complete your goal. Any goal. You can successfully brush teeth.\nIt's just that usually we imply that the goal is supposed do be hard to achieve. Otherwise we wouldn't talk about it.",
">\n\nI think natural talent can be a helping factor in someone's success, but doesn't necessarily say anything about higher work ethic.\nSomeone with learned skill is likely to have built more resilience to their pursuit when they're used to the grind and have practiced the skill for hours and hours, therefore may have spent more time than someone who has it easier. \nSomeone with natural talent could be spooked way more easily when hitting a roadblock in terms of skill, or they could find their lack of challenge monotonous in itself, and it depends on the kind of person they are.\nIn various conditions the opposite could be true for both of these, so I don't believe there's any concrete correlation at all, but I can argue that hard work is a valuable asset since endurance when facing challenges is essential for success in work, so it's pretty unreasonable to assume that natural talent = better work ethic.",
">\n\n\nSomeone with learned skill is likely to have built more resilience to their pursuit when they're used to the grind and have practiced the skill for hours and hours, therefore may have spent more time than someone who has it easier.\n\nYes, but the idea here is that those who have the drive and opportunity build learned skill in the first place are usually also those with talent. \n\nSomeone with natural talent could be spooked way more easily when hitting a roadblock in terms of skill, or they could find their lack of challenge monotonous in itself, and it depends on the kind of person they are.\n\nAh, that's something I hadn't thought too much about. I've seen people leave a field of study for another because they though their previous field of study was too easy. So in contexts where lots of work is needed but little improvement can be made, it could backfire. That would put a limit in how general of a context I can make that assumption.\n!delta\nI haven't actually met anyone who was spooked out by hitting a roadblock before, though. Definitely many more bored people. Also people who were held back because being too far ahead of one's peers causes problems for other people, and ended up losing their passion for the subject...",
">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/mulberry-hunter (1∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nof course talent is a thing, not really debatable.",
">\n\n\nShowing evidence/argument that work ethic isn't correlated with talent would CMV.\n\nI didnt get work ethic from \"talent\" I got it through parental discipline. As in I was beaten bloody if I said \"no\" to feeding cows when it was -30 outside.\nSo now I own a construction company as a 26 year old and make a decent income.",
">\n\nFirst, parental discipline happens regardless of talent. This wouldn't affect the correlation much.\nSecond, while it may have worked for you, it's not clear to me that parental discipline usually leads to having a better work ethic. Many people end up depressed and with a worse work ethic, or develop a fear of certain types of work.",
">\n\n\nFirst, parental discipline happens regardless of talent. This wouldn't affect the correlation much.\n\nParental discipline happens regardless of talent, and parental discipline is associated with success, showing parental discipline to be vital to success regardless of natural talent\n\nSecond, while it may have worked for you, it's not clear to me that parental discipline usually leads to having a better work ethic. Many people end up depressed and with a worse work ethic, or develop a fear of certain types of work.\n\nThe type of discipline I am talking about doesnt allow for that.",
">\n\n\nParental discipline happens regardless of talent, and parental discipline is associated with success, showing parental discipline to be vital to success regardless of natural talent\n\nRight, so is it relevant here? Parental discipline is one of many factors of success that is independent of talent. That I entirely agree with.\nTalent is a different major factor of success. My post is an argument about why talent is a major factor of success. Does parental discipline have any bearing on that?",
">\n\nyou confuse willpower with talent, willpower is needed to persist in any activity regardless of how successful, \n\npeople with ocd will practice skills more then a talented person simply because of obsessive behavior, so mental illness or willpower are the main driving forces, talent is merely an effort multiplier",
">\n\nI am not confusing talent with willpower. You should probably read my second section, which is the core of the argument:\n\nHaving talent usually makes it easier and more enjoyable to work on a skill. At any one point in their lives a person has to make a choice between doing a number of tasks. With talent, a smaller amount of effort towards learning something can lead to a greater reward, and hence learning about/practicing one's skills would be a more attractive decision to make at any time. So people with talent would naturally have more of an incentive to spend more time on their skills.\n\nI am arguing that not only does it multiply the effect of effort, but it also encourages a person to spend more effort. And I believe the latter to be a much stronger effect than the former.",
">\n\nI'd just argue that talent is subjective. People will say Kurk Cobain was the greatest musician of all time. Others will say he sucks. Just an example.",
">\n\nAs a person with \"natural born talent\" I definitely disagree.\nIt completely depends on the area of talent. My reasoning? It's true that talented skills are things you have to work at. But that \"work ethic\" may or may not transcend the specific talent the person has. Natural talent doesn't mean natural work ethic. If their specific talent isn't useful... well they just have a talent.\nEven if I have a talent specific to a job that would make me successful, no job is going to hire me that way. I have to prove I have the skills. This proof is normally a college degree or a certificate of a trade. If you don't have those even if you'd be perfect for the job, they don't know that, and they're not going to take a chance when you can't prove you know what you're talking about.\nHard work is more important than talent. Hell, all natural talent is, is working on something from a very early age. If you look at an artist's artwork at 5, generally, it looks like a 5 year old drew it. But someone who's been drawing since that age might make masterpieces at 17, it doesn't mean they're special, it just means they've studied and practiced a lot more in one area.\nWork ethic is a basic skill everyone needs to possess to be successful but having a natural talent doesn't necessarily equal good work ethic or get you there faster.",
">\n\nI'd like to dispute the idea that people are likelier to work on a skill just because they're talented at it. In my opinion, while there are numerous other factors (such as pressure from parents), the ability to keep working at a skill is itself a talent.",
">\n\nI think knowing how to work effectively (as opposed working \"hard\") is a stronger predictor of success than talent.\nAn \"untalented\" person can become successful at something because:\n- The person does the activity because it's fun. For example, a lot of people aren't talented runners. However if they run with a friend or with music then it's fun. Improvement because a side benefit rather than the sole objective. This approach more sustainable mentally.\n- The person has easy access to high quality information about the activity. For example, YouTube has lots of videos on repairing stuff. People who never picked up a screwdriver can now fix things and save money. Even if the person still can't fix things, he/she at least has better information to make an informed decision on the repair.\n- The person has access to quick high-quality feedback. This feedback can come from a person (like a coach, mentor, etc) or some tool. If a mentor mentions to a new manager that he/she tends to micromanage things when a project is under a tight deadline, that person is now aware of it and can avoid causing problems with the rest of the team. Feedback can eliminate a lot of beginner mistakes and save a lot of time.\n- The person is able to look at the activity from different angles. For example, the Fosbury Flop in the High Jump event in Track and Field. Fosbury was not good at doing the high jump the \"usual\" way so he figured out a different way that worked for him.",
">\n\n\nImprovement because a side benefit rather than the sole objective\n\nIt's not likely that people will improve if they are having fun, because in order to 'improve', you need to do something that you couldn't do before. That means you have to track what you were able to do before. And usually it means pushing yourself out of your comfort zone.\n\nAccess to high quality information \nThe person has access to quick high-quality feedback.\n\nWhen people talk about talent, they imply equal training.\nThere are studies that show different muscle grows for people who are subjected to the same exercise in a controlled environment. Even if they take people with similar baselines, gains are different",
">\n\n\nIt's not likely that people will improve if they are having fun, because in order to 'improve', you need to do something that you couldn't do before. That means you have to track what you were able to do before. And usually it means pushing yourself out of your comfort zone.\n\nKids (and some young animals) often hone skills by challenging themselves or each other through play. For example, you can find groups kids who spend hours trying to do tricks with the skateboard. These kids get paid nothing and risk injury. They do it simply because it's fun to be with each other and to try new challenges. Not everyone will improve at the same rate, but people generally improve somewhat. Some talented people quit the activity because it's no longer fun.\n\n\nWhen people talk about talent, they imply equal training. \nThere are studies that show different muscle grows for people who are subjected to the same exercise in a controlled environment. Even if they take people with similar baselines, gains are different\n\nYes this is true, so I guess it comes down to what is meant by \"success.\" I interpreted success as a measure that was defined by each person. In other words, if one's proficiency is good enough for what they needed, then they're successful. The person does not need to be at the elite level. I wasn't defining it in absolute terms where a person is only successful if they are better than nearly everyone else in the world (e.g. a billionaire investor).",
">\n\n\nKids (and some young animals) often hone skills by challenging themselves or each other through play. \n\nYes. But they don't achieve greatness. Early newbie gains are easy. It gets progressively harder though",
">\n\n\nYes. But they don't achieve greatness. Early newbie gains are easy. It gets progressively harder though\n\nI see. We're working different definitions of success. For example, I can ride my bike to the park and to the other side of town. I consider that being successful because that's all the proficiency I require of that skill. I don't aspire to ride the Tour de France. \nFor the case of being an elite in a particular field or being \"great,\" talent is important, but sacrifice and luck are not negligible. Greatness comes at a cost. It can be a burden on relationships, one's mental or physical health, or money for relatively small gains. Some talented people may see that cost and choose to go another way. These people might not become great, but they might lead healthier lives. Luck is also important. Talented people have had careers cut short because of injuries, sickness, or other hardships outside of their control.",
">\n\nI think you are mis-labelling curiosity as talent. \nI am a musician & singer. I wasn't born with an ability to sing better than the person next to me. \nMy brain enjoyed music. It was curious about it. So I listened more. I imitated more... I sang out of tune for a few pre teen years... And then it all started clicking. And continues to click the more I explore that idea space. \nI'm not saying it's just work and practice. But I AM saying it is utilising brain power and time to even think about this thing.. will improve your ability. \nIt is curiosity that drives.... Not 'talent,' (which honestly I have never seen accurately defined anyway.)"
] |
>
It's incredibly difficult to quantify "natural talent."
Even toddlers that display affinity for certain skills have 2-3 years of exposure to their parents interests, from art on the walls to the sort of activities they use to keep the kid busy. Is he naturally musically talented, or did his parents play a whole lot of music all the time? Is she naturally inclined towards visual art and color, or did she grow up surrounded with paintings carefully arranged in a beautifully designed environment?
Who's actually talented?
And then comes "hard work," messing things up further. Because what we label "work" is often just play, combined with a willingness to fail. In the immortal words of Jake the Dog, "dude, sucking at something is the first step towards being sorta good at something." You don't need to work to develop skill. You don't need to be good already. You just need to do it.
So what separates the "hard workers" from the "talented hard workers?" Is it just their final product? The hard worker who makes a better painting is more talented than the hard worker who makes something trite? Or is the first hard worker better because they were more willing to fail along the way, to try a wide variety of things regardless of how badly they do, and learn from those mistakes as they move forward? Did the second one stick to the safe, known styles and refuse to experiment and grow?
There are just so many confounding variables that it's not worthwhile to debate where "talent" ends and "effort" begins. Because on top of all that, some popular art just sucks. It's not widely known because it's exceptional; it's widely known because the artists are good at marketing themselves. Like the duct tape banana or Take the Money and Run, success can be divorced from ability, effort, and talent all together. Get popular by doing something stupid for everyone to see, and parlay your popularity into financial success!
In the end, you may as well give up on distinguishing it. Successful people are successful, and they got there in all kinds of different ways. Maybe you can try being born rich, so your parents sycophantic "friends" will buy your sculptures at huge markups in an effort to suck up to them? Success! | [
"/u/PNKRTN (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\n\nShowing evidence/argument that work ethic isn't correlated with talent would CMV.\n\nthis is a tricky stance b/c a lot of it is subjective. \n\nwhat if \"having a strong work ethic\" is a talent in and of itself. the special forces operators talk about this all the time: they aren't inherently talented, but they have a talent for gaining talents quickly. \nwhat if i have a terrible work ethic (for things are difficult difficult for me) but the things that i pursue as fun are extremely valuable in the market? i never wash the dishes b/c that feels like work, but i constantly refine my quantum computing theories, (just a made up example). is it really work ethic if i don't feel burdened by the pursuit of the talent? \n\"success\" is determined by market demand. today we have professional video game players (either competitively or things like twitch, youtube, etc.). a generation ago the pursuit of these talents was not \"work ethic\". today, it is / could be considered. the only thing that changed was the market dynamics.",
">\n\n\nwhat if \"having a strong work ethic\" is a talent in and of itself\n\nOnly if being able to speak is a talent(not all people can do that). Most people are capable of learning good work ethics.\n\nin the market\n\nSuccess is not determined by the market. Success is being able to complete your goal. Any goal. You can successfully brush teeth.\nIt's just that usually we imply that the goal is supposed do be hard to achieve. Otherwise we wouldn't talk about it.",
">\n\nI think natural talent can be a helping factor in someone's success, but doesn't necessarily say anything about higher work ethic.\nSomeone with learned skill is likely to have built more resilience to their pursuit when they're used to the grind and have practiced the skill for hours and hours, therefore may have spent more time than someone who has it easier. \nSomeone with natural talent could be spooked way more easily when hitting a roadblock in terms of skill, or they could find their lack of challenge monotonous in itself, and it depends on the kind of person they are.\nIn various conditions the opposite could be true for both of these, so I don't believe there's any concrete correlation at all, but I can argue that hard work is a valuable asset since endurance when facing challenges is essential for success in work, so it's pretty unreasonable to assume that natural talent = better work ethic.",
">\n\n\nSomeone with learned skill is likely to have built more resilience to their pursuit when they're used to the grind and have practiced the skill for hours and hours, therefore may have spent more time than someone who has it easier.\n\nYes, but the idea here is that those who have the drive and opportunity build learned skill in the first place are usually also those with talent. \n\nSomeone with natural talent could be spooked way more easily when hitting a roadblock in terms of skill, or they could find their lack of challenge monotonous in itself, and it depends on the kind of person they are.\n\nAh, that's something I hadn't thought too much about. I've seen people leave a field of study for another because they though their previous field of study was too easy. So in contexts where lots of work is needed but little improvement can be made, it could backfire. That would put a limit in how general of a context I can make that assumption.\n!delta\nI haven't actually met anyone who was spooked out by hitting a roadblock before, though. Definitely many more bored people. Also people who were held back because being too far ahead of one's peers causes problems for other people, and ended up losing their passion for the subject...",
">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/mulberry-hunter (1∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nof course talent is a thing, not really debatable.",
">\n\n\nShowing evidence/argument that work ethic isn't correlated with talent would CMV.\n\nI didnt get work ethic from \"talent\" I got it through parental discipline. As in I was beaten bloody if I said \"no\" to feeding cows when it was -30 outside.\nSo now I own a construction company as a 26 year old and make a decent income.",
">\n\nFirst, parental discipline happens regardless of talent. This wouldn't affect the correlation much.\nSecond, while it may have worked for you, it's not clear to me that parental discipline usually leads to having a better work ethic. Many people end up depressed and with a worse work ethic, or develop a fear of certain types of work.",
">\n\n\nFirst, parental discipline happens regardless of talent. This wouldn't affect the correlation much.\n\nParental discipline happens regardless of talent, and parental discipline is associated with success, showing parental discipline to be vital to success regardless of natural talent\n\nSecond, while it may have worked for you, it's not clear to me that parental discipline usually leads to having a better work ethic. Many people end up depressed and with a worse work ethic, or develop a fear of certain types of work.\n\nThe type of discipline I am talking about doesnt allow for that.",
">\n\n\nParental discipline happens regardless of talent, and parental discipline is associated with success, showing parental discipline to be vital to success regardless of natural talent\n\nRight, so is it relevant here? Parental discipline is one of many factors of success that is independent of talent. That I entirely agree with.\nTalent is a different major factor of success. My post is an argument about why talent is a major factor of success. Does parental discipline have any bearing on that?",
">\n\nyou confuse willpower with talent, willpower is needed to persist in any activity regardless of how successful, \n\npeople with ocd will practice skills more then a talented person simply because of obsessive behavior, so mental illness or willpower are the main driving forces, talent is merely an effort multiplier",
">\n\nI am not confusing talent with willpower. You should probably read my second section, which is the core of the argument:\n\nHaving talent usually makes it easier and more enjoyable to work on a skill. At any one point in their lives a person has to make a choice between doing a number of tasks. With talent, a smaller amount of effort towards learning something can lead to a greater reward, and hence learning about/practicing one's skills would be a more attractive decision to make at any time. So people with talent would naturally have more of an incentive to spend more time on their skills.\n\nI am arguing that not only does it multiply the effect of effort, but it also encourages a person to spend more effort. And I believe the latter to be a much stronger effect than the former.",
">\n\nI'd just argue that talent is subjective. People will say Kurk Cobain was the greatest musician of all time. Others will say he sucks. Just an example.",
">\n\nAs a person with \"natural born talent\" I definitely disagree.\nIt completely depends on the area of talent. My reasoning? It's true that talented skills are things you have to work at. But that \"work ethic\" may or may not transcend the specific talent the person has. Natural talent doesn't mean natural work ethic. If their specific talent isn't useful... well they just have a talent.\nEven if I have a talent specific to a job that would make me successful, no job is going to hire me that way. I have to prove I have the skills. This proof is normally a college degree or a certificate of a trade. If you don't have those even if you'd be perfect for the job, they don't know that, and they're not going to take a chance when you can't prove you know what you're talking about.\nHard work is more important than talent. Hell, all natural talent is, is working on something from a very early age. If you look at an artist's artwork at 5, generally, it looks like a 5 year old drew it. But someone who's been drawing since that age might make masterpieces at 17, it doesn't mean they're special, it just means they've studied and practiced a lot more in one area.\nWork ethic is a basic skill everyone needs to possess to be successful but having a natural talent doesn't necessarily equal good work ethic or get you there faster.",
">\n\nI'd like to dispute the idea that people are likelier to work on a skill just because they're talented at it. In my opinion, while there are numerous other factors (such as pressure from parents), the ability to keep working at a skill is itself a talent.",
">\n\nI think knowing how to work effectively (as opposed working \"hard\") is a stronger predictor of success than talent.\nAn \"untalented\" person can become successful at something because:\n- The person does the activity because it's fun. For example, a lot of people aren't talented runners. However if they run with a friend or with music then it's fun. Improvement because a side benefit rather than the sole objective. This approach more sustainable mentally.\n- The person has easy access to high quality information about the activity. For example, YouTube has lots of videos on repairing stuff. People who never picked up a screwdriver can now fix things and save money. Even if the person still can't fix things, he/she at least has better information to make an informed decision on the repair.\n- The person has access to quick high-quality feedback. This feedback can come from a person (like a coach, mentor, etc) or some tool. If a mentor mentions to a new manager that he/she tends to micromanage things when a project is under a tight deadline, that person is now aware of it and can avoid causing problems with the rest of the team. Feedback can eliminate a lot of beginner mistakes and save a lot of time.\n- The person is able to look at the activity from different angles. For example, the Fosbury Flop in the High Jump event in Track and Field. Fosbury was not good at doing the high jump the \"usual\" way so he figured out a different way that worked for him.",
">\n\n\nImprovement because a side benefit rather than the sole objective\n\nIt's not likely that people will improve if they are having fun, because in order to 'improve', you need to do something that you couldn't do before. That means you have to track what you were able to do before. And usually it means pushing yourself out of your comfort zone.\n\nAccess to high quality information \nThe person has access to quick high-quality feedback.\n\nWhen people talk about talent, they imply equal training.\nThere are studies that show different muscle grows for people who are subjected to the same exercise in a controlled environment. Even if they take people with similar baselines, gains are different",
">\n\n\nIt's not likely that people will improve if they are having fun, because in order to 'improve', you need to do something that you couldn't do before. That means you have to track what you were able to do before. And usually it means pushing yourself out of your comfort zone.\n\nKids (and some young animals) often hone skills by challenging themselves or each other through play. For example, you can find groups kids who spend hours trying to do tricks with the skateboard. These kids get paid nothing and risk injury. They do it simply because it's fun to be with each other and to try new challenges. Not everyone will improve at the same rate, but people generally improve somewhat. Some talented people quit the activity because it's no longer fun.\n\n\nWhen people talk about talent, they imply equal training. \nThere are studies that show different muscle grows for people who are subjected to the same exercise in a controlled environment. Even if they take people with similar baselines, gains are different\n\nYes this is true, so I guess it comes down to what is meant by \"success.\" I interpreted success as a measure that was defined by each person. In other words, if one's proficiency is good enough for what they needed, then they're successful. The person does not need to be at the elite level. I wasn't defining it in absolute terms where a person is only successful if they are better than nearly everyone else in the world (e.g. a billionaire investor).",
">\n\n\nKids (and some young animals) often hone skills by challenging themselves or each other through play. \n\nYes. But they don't achieve greatness. Early newbie gains are easy. It gets progressively harder though",
">\n\n\nYes. But they don't achieve greatness. Early newbie gains are easy. It gets progressively harder though\n\nI see. We're working different definitions of success. For example, I can ride my bike to the park and to the other side of town. I consider that being successful because that's all the proficiency I require of that skill. I don't aspire to ride the Tour de France. \nFor the case of being an elite in a particular field or being \"great,\" talent is important, but sacrifice and luck are not negligible. Greatness comes at a cost. It can be a burden on relationships, one's mental or physical health, or money for relatively small gains. Some talented people may see that cost and choose to go another way. These people might not become great, but they might lead healthier lives. Luck is also important. Talented people have had careers cut short because of injuries, sickness, or other hardships outside of their control.",
">\n\nI think you are mis-labelling curiosity as talent. \nI am a musician & singer. I wasn't born with an ability to sing better than the person next to me. \nMy brain enjoyed music. It was curious about it. So I listened more. I imitated more... I sang out of tune for a few pre teen years... And then it all started clicking. And continues to click the more I explore that idea space. \nI'm not saying it's just work and practice. But I AM saying it is utilising brain power and time to even think about this thing.. will improve your ability. \nIt is curiosity that drives.... Not 'talent,' (which honestly I have never seen accurately defined anyway.)",
">\n\nSomething your missing is the level of talent, low or medium talent with high work ethic will beat high talent. \nLow talent will beat no talent even with hard work. Some people are just not good at something and cannot get better, but if you have talent to do the basics with a good work ethic then there is potential.\nFor example Micheal jordon didn’t make his school basket ball team. Obviously he has talent and with hard work he became better than just talent"
] |
>
This isn't relevant to the statement of my post?
I don't think it matters if we have one singular definition of "naturally talented" and "success". We have many different definitions of it, and that's completely fine. You can draw the cutoff at whatever age you want. I'm saying that we can plug in whatever definition of "naturally talented" and the corresponding measure of "success" we want and my statement would still hold.
In fact what I say in my argument is precisely one of the reasons why it's hard to draw the line between talent and effort. Because they're very strongly correlated; there is no clear line in the first place. | [
"/u/PNKRTN (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\n\nShowing evidence/argument that work ethic isn't correlated with talent would CMV.\n\nthis is a tricky stance b/c a lot of it is subjective. \n\nwhat if \"having a strong work ethic\" is a talent in and of itself. the special forces operators talk about this all the time: they aren't inherently talented, but they have a talent for gaining talents quickly. \nwhat if i have a terrible work ethic (for things are difficult difficult for me) but the things that i pursue as fun are extremely valuable in the market? i never wash the dishes b/c that feels like work, but i constantly refine my quantum computing theories, (just a made up example). is it really work ethic if i don't feel burdened by the pursuit of the talent? \n\"success\" is determined by market demand. today we have professional video game players (either competitively or things like twitch, youtube, etc.). a generation ago the pursuit of these talents was not \"work ethic\". today, it is / could be considered. the only thing that changed was the market dynamics.",
">\n\n\nwhat if \"having a strong work ethic\" is a talent in and of itself\n\nOnly if being able to speak is a talent(not all people can do that). Most people are capable of learning good work ethics.\n\nin the market\n\nSuccess is not determined by the market. Success is being able to complete your goal. Any goal. You can successfully brush teeth.\nIt's just that usually we imply that the goal is supposed do be hard to achieve. Otherwise we wouldn't talk about it.",
">\n\nI think natural talent can be a helping factor in someone's success, but doesn't necessarily say anything about higher work ethic.\nSomeone with learned skill is likely to have built more resilience to their pursuit when they're used to the grind and have practiced the skill for hours and hours, therefore may have spent more time than someone who has it easier. \nSomeone with natural talent could be spooked way more easily when hitting a roadblock in terms of skill, or they could find their lack of challenge monotonous in itself, and it depends on the kind of person they are.\nIn various conditions the opposite could be true for both of these, so I don't believe there's any concrete correlation at all, but I can argue that hard work is a valuable asset since endurance when facing challenges is essential for success in work, so it's pretty unreasonable to assume that natural talent = better work ethic.",
">\n\n\nSomeone with learned skill is likely to have built more resilience to their pursuit when they're used to the grind and have practiced the skill for hours and hours, therefore may have spent more time than someone who has it easier.\n\nYes, but the idea here is that those who have the drive and opportunity build learned skill in the first place are usually also those with talent. \n\nSomeone with natural talent could be spooked way more easily when hitting a roadblock in terms of skill, or they could find their lack of challenge monotonous in itself, and it depends on the kind of person they are.\n\nAh, that's something I hadn't thought too much about. I've seen people leave a field of study for another because they though their previous field of study was too easy. So in contexts where lots of work is needed but little improvement can be made, it could backfire. That would put a limit in how general of a context I can make that assumption.\n!delta\nI haven't actually met anyone who was spooked out by hitting a roadblock before, though. Definitely many more bored people. Also people who were held back because being too far ahead of one's peers causes problems for other people, and ended up losing their passion for the subject...",
">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/mulberry-hunter (1∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nof course talent is a thing, not really debatable.",
">\n\n\nShowing evidence/argument that work ethic isn't correlated with talent would CMV.\n\nI didnt get work ethic from \"talent\" I got it through parental discipline. As in I was beaten bloody if I said \"no\" to feeding cows when it was -30 outside.\nSo now I own a construction company as a 26 year old and make a decent income.",
">\n\nFirst, parental discipline happens regardless of talent. This wouldn't affect the correlation much.\nSecond, while it may have worked for you, it's not clear to me that parental discipline usually leads to having a better work ethic. Many people end up depressed and with a worse work ethic, or develop a fear of certain types of work.",
">\n\n\nFirst, parental discipline happens regardless of talent. This wouldn't affect the correlation much.\n\nParental discipline happens regardless of talent, and parental discipline is associated with success, showing parental discipline to be vital to success regardless of natural talent\n\nSecond, while it may have worked for you, it's not clear to me that parental discipline usually leads to having a better work ethic. Many people end up depressed and with a worse work ethic, or develop a fear of certain types of work.\n\nThe type of discipline I am talking about doesnt allow for that.",
">\n\n\nParental discipline happens regardless of talent, and parental discipline is associated with success, showing parental discipline to be vital to success regardless of natural talent\n\nRight, so is it relevant here? Parental discipline is one of many factors of success that is independent of talent. That I entirely agree with.\nTalent is a different major factor of success. My post is an argument about why talent is a major factor of success. Does parental discipline have any bearing on that?",
">\n\nyou confuse willpower with talent, willpower is needed to persist in any activity regardless of how successful, \n\npeople with ocd will practice skills more then a talented person simply because of obsessive behavior, so mental illness or willpower are the main driving forces, talent is merely an effort multiplier",
">\n\nI am not confusing talent with willpower. You should probably read my second section, which is the core of the argument:\n\nHaving talent usually makes it easier and more enjoyable to work on a skill. At any one point in their lives a person has to make a choice between doing a number of tasks. With talent, a smaller amount of effort towards learning something can lead to a greater reward, and hence learning about/practicing one's skills would be a more attractive decision to make at any time. So people with talent would naturally have more of an incentive to spend more time on their skills.\n\nI am arguing that not only does it multiply the effect of effort, but it also encourages a person to spend more effort. And I believe the latter to be a much stronger effect than the former.",
">\n\nI'd just argue that talent is subjective. People will say Kurk Cobain was the greatest musician of all time. Others will say he sucks. Just an example.",
">\n\nAs a person with \"natural born talent\" I definitely disagree.\nIt completely depends on the area of talent. My reasoning? It's true that talented skills are things you have to work at. But that \"work ethic\" may or may not transcend the specific talent the person has. Natural talent doesn't mean natural work ethic. If their specific talent isn't useful... well they just have a talent.\nEven if I have a talent specific to a job that would make me successful, no job is going to hire me that way. I have to prove I have the skills. This proof is normally a college degree or a certificate of a trade. If you don't have those even if you'd be perfect for the job, they don't know that, and they're not going to take a chance when you can't prove you know what you're talking about.\nHard work is more important than talent. Hell, all natural talent is, is working on something from a very early age. If you look at an artist's artwork at 5, generally, it looks like a 5 year old drew it. But someone who's been drawing since that age might make masterpieces at 17, it doesn't mean they're special, it just means they've studied and practiced a lot more in one area.\nWork ethic is a basic skill everyone needs to possess to be successful but having a natural talent doesn't necessarily equal good work ethic or get you there faster.",
">\n\nI'd like to dispute the idea that people are likelier to work on a skill just because they're talented at it. In my opinion, while there are numerous other factors (such as pressure from parents), the ability to keep working at a skill is itself a talent.",
">\n\nI think knowing how to work effectively (as opposed working \"hard\") is a stronger predictor of success than talent.\nAn \"untalented\" person can become successful at something because:\n- The person does the activity because it's fun. For example, a lot of people aren't talented runners. However if they run with a friend or with music then it's fun. Improvement because a side benefit rather than the sole objective. This approach more sustainable mentally.\n- The person has easy access to high quality information about the activity. For example, YouTube has lots of videos on repairing stuff. People who never picked up a screwdriver can now fix things and save money. Even if the person still can't fix things, he/she at least has better information to make an informed decision on the repair.\n- The person has access to quick high-quality feedback. This feedback can come from a person (like a coach, mentor, etc) or some tool. If a mentor mentions to a new manager that he/she tends to micromanage things when a project is under a tight deadline, that person is now aware of it and can avoid causing problems with the rest of the team. Feedback can eliminate a lot of beginner mistakes and save a lot of time.\n- The person is able to look at the activity from different angles. For example, the Fosbury Flop in the High Jump event in Track and Field. Fosbury was not good at doing the high jump the \"usual\" way so he figured out a different way that worked for him.",
">\n\n\nImprovement because a side benefit rather than the sole objective\n\nIt's not likely that people will improve if they are having fun, because in order to 'improve', you need to do something that you couldn't do before. That means you have to track what you were able to do before. And usually it means pushing yourself out of your comfort zone.\n\nAccess to high quality information \nThe person has access to quick high-quality feedback.\n\nWhen people talk about talent, they imply equal training.\nThere are studies that show different muscle grows for people who are subjected to the same exercise in a controlled environment. Even if they take people with similar baselines, gains are different",
">\n\n\nIt's not likely that people will improve if they are having fun, because in order to 'improve', you need to do something that you couldn't do before. That means you have to track what you were able to do before. And usually it means pushing yourself out of your comfort zone.\n\nKids (and some young animals) often hone skills by challenging themselves or each other through play. For example, you can find groups kids who spend hours trying to do tricks with the skateboard. These kids get paid nothing and risk injury. They do it simply because it's fun to be with each other and to try new challenges. Not everyone will improve at the same rate, but people generally improve somewhat. Some talented people quit the activity because it's no longer fun.\n\n\nWhen people talk about talent, they imply equal training. \nThere are studies that show different muscle grows for people who are subjected to the same exercise in a controlled environment. Even if they take people with similar baselines, gains are different\n\nYes this is true, so I guess it comes down to what is meant by \"success.\" I interpreted success as a measure that was defined by each person. In other words, if one's proficiency is good enough for what they needed, then they're successful. The person does not need to be at the elite level. I wasn't defining it in absolute terms where a person is only successful if they are better than nearly everyone else in the world (e.g. a billionaire investor).",
">\n\n\nKids (and some young animals) often hone skills by challenging themselves or each other through play. \n\nYes. But they don't achieve greatness. Early newbie gains are easy. It gets progressively harder though",
">\n\n\nYes. But they don't achieve greatness. Early newbie gains are easy. It gets progressively harder though\n\nI see. We're working different definitions of success. For example, I can ride my bike to the park and to the other side of town. I consider that being successful because that's all the proficiency I require of that skill. I don't aspire to ride the Tour de France. \nFor the case of being an elite in a particular field or being \"great,\" talent is important, but sacrifice and luck are not negligible. Greatness comes at a cost. It can be a burden on relationships, one's mental or physical health, or money for relatively small gains. Some talented people may see that cost and choose to go another way. These people might not become great, but they might lead healthier lives. Luck is also important. Talented people have had careers cut short because of injuries, sickness, or other hardships outside of their control.",
">\n\nI think you are mis-labelling curiosity as talent. \nI am a musician & singer. I wasn't born with an ability to sing better than the person next to me. \nMy brain enjoyed music. It was curious about it. So I listened more. I imitated more... I sang out of tune for a few pre teen years... And then it all started clicking. And continues to click the more I explore that idea space. \nI'm not saying it's just work and practice. But I AM saying it is utilising brain power and time to even think about this thing.. will improve your ability. \nIt is curiosity that drives.... Not 'talent,' (which honestly I have never seen accurately defined anyway.)",
">\n\nSomething your missing is the level of talent, low or medium talent with high work ethic will beat high talent. \nLow talent will beat no talent even with hard work. Some people are just not good at something and cannot get better, but if you have talent to do the basics with a good work ethic then there is potential.\nFor example Micheal jordon didn’t make his school basket ball team. Obviously he has talent and with hard work he became better than just talent",
">\n\nIt's incredibly difficult to quantify \"natural talent.\"\nEven toddlers that display affinity for certain skills have 2-3 years of exposure to their parents interests, from art on the walls to the sort of activities they use to keep the kid busy. Is he naturally musically talented, or did his parents play a whole lot of music all the time? Is she naturally inclined towards visual art and color, or did she grow up surrounded with paintings carefully arranged in a beautifully designed environment?\nWho's actually talented?\nAnd then comes \"hard work,\" messing things up further. Because what we label \"work\" is often just play, combined with a willingness to fail. In the immortal words of Jake the Dog, \"dude, sucking at something is the first step towards being sorta good at something.\" You don't need to work to develop skill. You don't need to be good already. You just need to do it. \nSo what separates the \"hard workers\" from the \"talented hard workers?\" Is it just their final product? The hard worker who makes a better painting is more talented than the hard worker who makes something trite? Or is the first hard worker better because they were more willing to fail along the way, to try a wide variety of things regardless of how badly they do, and learn from those mistakes as they move forward? Did the second one stick to the safe, known styles and refuse to experiment and grow?\nThere are just so many confounding variables that it's not worthwhile to debate where \"talent\" ends and \"effort\" begins. Because on top of all that, some popular art just sucks. It's not widely known because it's exceptional; it's widely known because the artists are good at marketing themselves. Like the duct tape banana or Take the Money and Run, success can be divorced from ability, effort, and talent all together. Get popular by doing something stupid for everyone to see, and parlay your popularity into financial success!\nIn the end, you may as well give up on distinguishing it. Successful people are successful, and they got there in all kinds of different ways. Maybe you can try being born rich, so your parents sycophantic \"friends\" will buy your sculptures at huge markups in an effort to suck up to them? Success!"
] |
>
The point is that you're drawing lines without knowing what it is you're delineating. You do not know and you're coming to conclusions anyway.
There are far more than three variables, and the way they're tied together makes isolating any one all but impossible. Did natural talent contribute to someone's success? Can you even tell? If you can't, how can you say that talent was important for them? That guy over there's a relentlessly hard worker, but is unsuccessful. Is his failure due to lack of natural talent, or has he used poor methods to cultivate his skill? Or is he just bad at self-promotion? Or in the wrong place at the wrong time?
You're trying to explain something, and I'm telling you not to bother. If some weird shoe designer can set up a factory where other people make screen prints of Campbell's Soup cans, slap his name on their mass produced replicas of a stolen design, and become a legend for it, why care about present talent at all? It just doesn't matter.
Produce to produce. Explore your interests for their own sake. And if you want success, marketing matters more than effort matters more than skill matters more than "natural talent." | [
"/u/PNKRTN (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\n\nShowing evidence/argument that work ethic isn't correlated with talent would CMV.\n\nthis is a tricky stance b/c a lot of it is subjective. \n\nwhat if \"having a strong work ethic\" is a talent in and of itself. the special forces operators talk about this all the time: they aren't inherently talented, but they have a talent for gaining talents quickly. \nwhat if i have a terrible work ethic (for things are difficult difficult for me) but the things that i pursue as fun are extremely valuable in the market? i never wash the dishes b/c that feels like work, but i constantly refine my quantum computing theories, (just a made up example). is it really work ethic if i don't feel burdened by the pursuit of the talent? \n\"success\" is determined by market demand. today we have professional video game players (either competitively or things like twitch, youtube, etc.). a generation ago the pursuit of these talents was not \"work ethic\". today, it is / could be considered. the only thing that changed was the market dynamics.",
">\n\n\nwhat if \"having a strong work ethic\" is a talent in and of itself\n\nOnly if being able to speak is a talent(not all people can do that). Most people are capable of learning good work ethics.\n\nin the market\n\nSuccess is not determined by the market. Success is being able to complete your goal. Any goal. You can successfully brush teeth.\nIt's just that usually we imply that the goal is supposed do be hard to achieve. Otherwise we wouldn't talk about it.",
">\n\nI think natural talent can be a helping factor in someone's success, but doesn't necessarily say anything about higher work ethic.\nSomeone with learned skill is likely to have built more resilience to their pursuit when they're used to the grind and have practiced the skill for hours and hours, therefore may have spent more time than someone who has it easier. \nSomeone with natural talent could be spooked way more easily when hitting a roadblock in terms of skill, or they could find their lack of challenge monotonous in itself, and it depends on the kind of person they are.\nIn various conditions the opposite could be true for both of these, so I don't believe there's any concrete correlation at all, but I can argue that hard work is a valuable asset since endurance when facing challenges is essential for success in work, so it's pretty unreasonable to assume that natural talent = better work ethic.",
">\n\n\nSomeone with learned skill is likely to have built more resilience to their pursuit when they're used to the grind and have practiced the skill for hours and hours, therefore may have spent more time than someone who has it easier.\n\nYes, but the idea here is that those who have the drive and opportunity build learned skill in the first place are usually also those with talent. \n\nSomeone with natural talent could be spooked way more easily when hitting a roadblock in terms of skill, or they could find their lack of challenge monotonous in itself, and it depends on the kind of person they are.\n\nAh, that's something I hadn't thought too much about. I've seen people leave a field of study for another because they though their previous field of study was too easy. So in contexts where lots of work is needed but little improvement can be made, it could backfire. That would put a limit in how general of a context I can make that assumption.\n!delta\nI haven't actually met anyone who was spooked out by hitting a roadblock before, though. Definitely many more bored people. Also people who were held back because being too far ahead of one's peers causes problems for other people, and ended up losing their passion for the subject...",
">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/mulberry-hunter (1∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nof course talent is a thing, not really debatable.",
">\n\n\nShowing evidence/argument that work ethic isn't correlated with talent would CMV.\n\nI didnt get work ethic from \"talent\" I got it through parental discipline. As in I was beaten bloody if I said \"no\" to feeding cows when it was -30 outside.\nSo now I own a construction company as a 26 year old and make a decent income.",
">\n\nFirst, parental discipline happens regardless of talent. This wouldn't affect the correlation much.\nSecond, while it may have worked for you, it's not clear to me that parental discipline usually leads to having a better work ethic. Many people end up depressed and with a worse work ethic, or develop a fear of certain types of work.",
">\n\n\nFirst, parental discipline happens regardless of talent. This wouldn't affect the correlation much.\n\nParental discipline happens regardless of talent, and parental discipline is associated with success, showing parental discipline to be vital to success regardless of natural talent\n\nSecond, while it may have worked for you, it's not clear to me that parental discipline usually leads to having a better work ethic. Many people end up depressed and with a worse work ethic, or develop a fear of certain types of work.\n\nThe type of discipline I am talking about doesnt allow for that.",
">\n\n\nParental discipline happens regardless of talent, and parental discipline is associated with success, showing parental discipline to be vital to success regardless of natural talent\n\nRight, so is it relevant here? Parental discipline is one of many factors of success that is independent of talent. That I entirely agree with.\nTalent is a different major factor of success. My post is an argument about why talent is a major factor of success. Does parental discipline have any bearing on that?",
">\n\nyou confuse willpower with talent, willpower is needed to persist in any activity regardless of how successful, \n\npeople with ocd will practice skills more then a talented person simply because of obsessive behavior, so mental illness or willpower are the main driving forces, talent is merely an effort multiplier",
">\n\nI am not confusing talent with willpower. You should probably read my second section, which is the core of the argument:\n\nHaving talent usually makes it easier and more enjoyable to work on a skill. At any one point in their lives a person has to make a choice between doing a number of tasks. With talent, a smaller amount of effort towards learning something can lead to a greater reward, and hence learning about/practicing one's skills would be a more attractive decision to make at any time. So people with talent would naturally have more of an incentive to spend more time on their skills.\n\nI am arguing that not only does it multiply the effect of effort, but it also encourages a person to spend more effort. And I believe the latter to be a much stronger effect than the former.",
">\n\nI'd just argue that talent is subjective. People will say Kurk Cobain was the greatest musician of all time. Others will say he sucks. Just an example.",
">\n\nAs a person with \"natural born talent\" I definitely disagree.\nIt completely depends on the area of talent. My reasoning? It's true that talented skills are things you have to work at. But that \"work ethic\" may or may not transcend the specific talent the person has. Natural talent doesn't mean natural work ethic. If their specific talent isn't useful... well they just have a talent.\nEven if I have a talent specific to a job that would make me successful, no job is going to hire me that way. I have to prove I have the skills. This proof is normally a college degree or a certificate of a trade. If you don't have those even if you'd be perfect for the job, they don't know that, and they're not going to take a chance when you can't prove you know what you're talking about.\nHard work is more important than talent. Hell, all natural talent is, is working on something from a very early age. If you look at an artist's artwork at 5, generally, it looks like a 5 year old drew it. But someone who's been drawing since that age might make masterpieces at 17, it doesn't mean they're special, it just means they've studied and practiced a lot more in one area.\nWork ethic is a basic skill everyone needs to possess to be successful but having a natural talent doesn't necessarily equal good work ethic or get you there faster.",
">\n\nI'd like to dispute the idea that people are likelier to work on a skill just because they're talented at it. In my opinion, while there are numerous other factors (such as pressure from parents), the ability to keep working at a skill is itself a talent.",
">\n\nI think knowing how to work effectively (as opposed working \"hard\") is a stronger predictor of success than talent.\nAn \"untalented\" person can become successful at something because:\n- The person does the activity because it's fun. For example, a lot of people aren't talented runners. However if they run with a friend or with music then it's fun. Improvement because a side benefit rather than the sole objective. This approach more sustainable mentally.\n- The person has easy access to high quality information about the activity. For example, YouTube has lots of videos on repairing stuff. People who never picked up a screwdriver can now fix things and save money. Even if the person still can't fix things, he/she at least has better information to make an informed decision on the repair.\n- The person has access to quick high-quality feedback. This feedback can come from a person (like a coach, mentor, etc) or some tool. If a mentor mentions to a new manager that he/she tends to micromanage things when a project is under a tight deadline, that person is now aware of it and can avoid causing problems with the rest of the team. Feedback can eliminate a lot of beginner mistakes and save a lot of time.\n- The person is able to look at the activity from different angles. For example, the Fosbury Flop in the High Jump event in Track and Field. Fosbury was not good at doing the high jump the \"usual\" way so he figured out a different way that worked for him.",
">\n\n\nImprovement because a side benefit rather than the sole objective\n\nIt's not likely that people will improve if they are having fun, because in order to 'improve', you need to do something that you couldn't do before. That means you have to track what you were able to do before. And usually it means pushing yourself out of your comfort zone.\n\nAccess to high quality information \nThe person has access to quick high-quality feedback.\n\nWhen people talk about talent, they imply equal training.\nThere are studies that show different muscle grows for people who are subjected to the same exercise in a controlled environment. Even if they take people with similar baselines, gains are different",
">\n\n\nIt's not likely that people will improve if they are having fun, because in order to 'improve', you need to do something that you couldn't do before. That means you have to track what you were able to do before. And usually it means pushing yourself out of your comfort zone.\n\nKids (and some young animals) often hone skills by challenging themselves or each other through play. For example, you can find groups kids who spend hours trying to do tricks with the skateboard. These kids get paid nothing and risk injury. They do it simply because it's fun to be with each other and to try new challenges. Not everyone will improve at the same rate, but people generally improve somewhat. Some talented people quit the activity because it's no longer fun.\n\n\nWhen people talk about talent, they imply equal training. \nThere are studies that show different muscle grows for people who are subjected to the same exercise in a controlled environment. Even if they take people with similar baselines, gains are different\n\nYes this is true, so I guess it comes down to what is meant by \"success.\" I interpreted success as a measure that was defined by each person. In other words, if one's proficiency is good enough for what they needed, then they're successful. The person does not need to be at the elite level. I wasn't defining it in absolute terms where a person is only successful if they are better than nearly everyone else in the world (e.g. a billionaire investor).",
">\n\n\nKids (and some young animals) often hone skills by challenging themselves or each other through play. \n\nYes. But they don't achieve greatness. Early newbie gains are easy. It gets progressively harder though",
">\n\n\nYes. But they don't achieve greatness. Early newbie gains are easy. It gets progressively harder though\n\nI see. We're working different definitions of success. For example, I can ride my bike to the park and to the other side of town. I consider that being successful because that's all the proficiency I require of that skill. I don't aspire to ride the Tour de France. \nFor the case of being an elite in a particular field or being \"great,\" talent is important, but sacrifice and luck are not negligible. Greatness comes at a cost. It can be a burden on relationships, one's mental or physical health, or money for relatively small gains. Some talented people may see that cost and choose to go another way. These people might not become great, but they might lead healthier lives. Luck is also important. Talented people have had careers cut short because of injuries, sickness, or other hardships outside of their control.",
">\n\nI think you are mis-labelling curiosity as talent. \nI am a musician & singer. I wasn't born with an ability to sing better than the person next to me. \nMy brain enjoyed music. It was curious about it. So I listened more. I imitated more... I sang out of tune for a few pre teen years... And then it all started clicking. And continues to click the more I explore that idea space. \nI'm not saying it's just work and practice. But I AM saying it is utilising brain power and time to even think about this thing.. will improve your ability. \nIt is curiosity that drives.... Not 'talent,' (which honestly I have never seen accurately defined anyway.)",
">\n\nSomething your missing is the level of talent, low or medium talent with high work ethic will beat high talent. \nLow talent will beat no talent even with hard work. Some people are just not good at something and cannot get better, but if you have talent to do the basics with a good work ethic then there is potential.\nFor example Micheal jordon didn’t make his school basket ball team. Obviously he has talent and with hard work he became better than just talent",
">\n\nIt's incredibly difficult to quantify \"natural talent.\"\nEven toddlers that display affinity for certain skills have 2-3 years of exposure to their parents interests, from art on the walls to the sort of activities they use to keep the kid busy. Is he naturally musically talented, or did his parents play a whole lot of music all the time? Is she naturally inclined towards visual art and color, or did she grow up surrounded with paintings carefully arranged in a beautifully designed environment?\nWho's actually talented?\nAnd then comes \"hard work,\" messing things up further. Because what we label \"work\" is often just play, combined with a willingness to fail. In the immortal words of Jake the Dog, \"dude, sucking at something is the first step towards being sorta good at something.\" You don't need to work to develop skill. You don't need to be good already. You just need to do it. \nSo what separates the \"hard workers\" from the \"talented hard workers?\" Is it just their final product? The hard worker who makes a better painting is more talented than the hard worker who makes something trite? Or is the first hard worker better because they were more willing to fail along the way, to try a wide variety of things regardless of how badly they do, and learn from those mistakes as they move forward? Did the second one stick to the safe, known styles and refuse to experiment and grow?\nThere are just so many confounding variables that it's not worthwhile to debate where \"talent\" ends and \"effort\" begins. Because on top of all that, some popular art just sucks. It's not widely known because it's exceptional; it's widely known because the artists are good at marketing themselves. Like the duct tape banana or Take the Money and Run, success can be divorced from ability, effort, and talent all together. Get popular by doing something stupid for everyone to see, and parlay your popularity into financial success!\nIn the end, you may as well give up on distinguishing it. Successful people are successful, and they got there in all kinds of different ways. Maybe you can try being born rich, so your parents sycophantic \"friends\" will buy your sculptures at huge markups in an effort to suck up to them? Success!",
">\n\nThis isn't relevant to the statement of my post?\nI don't think it matters if we have one singular definition of \"naturally talented\" and \"success\". We have many different definitions of it, and that's completely fine. You can draw the cutoff at whatever age you want. I'm saying that we can plug in whatever definition of \"naturally talented\" and the corresponding measure of \"success\" we want and my statement would still hold.\nIn fact what I say in my argument is precisely one of the reasons why it's hard to draw the line between talent and effort. Because they're very strongly correlated; there is no clear line in the first place."
] |
>
The point is that you're drawing lines without knowing what it is you're delineating. You do not know and you're coming to conclusions anyway.
Do I need to precisely draw the line between a sandwich and a not-sandwich in order to make the statement that "sandwiches are usually made with bread"? Many definitions of "talent" would suffice here, it doesn't matter which one I choose.
There are far more than three variables, and the way they're tied together makes isolating any one all but impossible. Did natural talent contribute to someone's success? Can you even tell? If you can't, how can you say that talent was important for them? That guy over there's a relentlessly hard worker, but is unsuccessful. Is his failure due to lack of natural talent, or has he used poor methods to cultivate his skill? Or is he just bad at self-promotion? Or in the wrong place at the wrong time?
Why would I need to be able to answer these questions to make my explanation work? | [
"/u/PNKRTN (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\n\nShowing evidence/argument that work ethic isn't correlated with talent would CMV.\n\nthis is a tricky stance b/c a lot of it is subjective. \n\nwhat if \"having a strong work ethic\" is a talent in and of itself. the special forces operators talk about this all the time: they aren't inherently talented, but they have a talent for gaining talents quickly. \nwhat if i have a terrible work ethic (for things are difficult difficult for me) but the things that i pursue as fun are extremely valuable in the market? i never wash the dishes b/c that feels like work, but i constantly refine my quantum computing theories, (just a made up example). is it really work ethic if i don't feel burdened by the pursuit of the talent? \n\"success\" is determined by market demand. today we have professional video game players (either competitively or things like twitch, youtube, etc.). a generation ago the pursuit of these talents was not \"work ethic\". today, it is / could be considered. the only thing that changed was the market dynamics.",
">\n\n\nwhat if \"having a strong work ethic\" is a talent in and of itself\n\nOnly if being able to speak is a talent(not all people can do that). Most people are capable of learning good work ethics.\n\nin the market\n\nSuccess is not determined by the market. Success is being able to complete your goal. Any goal. You can successfully brush teeth.\nIt's just that usually we imply that the goal is supposed do be hard to achieve. Otherwise we wouldn't talk about it.",
">\n\nI think natural talent can be a helping factor in someone's success, but doesn't necessarily say anything about higher work ethic.\nSomeone with learned skill is likely to have built more resilience to their pursuit when they're used to the grind and have practiced the skill for hours and hours, therefore may have spent more time than someone who has it easier. \nSomeone with natural talent could be spooked way more easily when hitting a roadblock in terms of skill, or they could find their lack of challenge monotonous in itself, and it depends on the kind of person they are.\nIn various conditions the opposite could be true for both of these, so I don't believe there's any concrete correlation at all, but I can argue that hard work is a valuable asset since endurance when facing challenges is essential for success in work, so it's pretty unreasonable to assume that natural talent = better work ethic.",
">\n\n\nSomeone with learned skill is likely to have built more resilience to their pursuit when they're used to the grind and have practiced the skill for hours and hours, therefore may have spent more time than someone who has it easier.\n\nYes, but the idea here is that those who have the drive and opportunity build learned skill in the first place are usually also those with talent. \n\nSomeone with natural talent could be spooked way more easily when hitting a roadblock in terms of skill, or they could find their lack of challenge monotonous in itself, and it depends on the kind of person they are.\n\nAh, that's something I hadn't thought too much about. I've seen people leave a field of study for another because they though their previous field of study was too easy. So in contexts where lots of work is needed but little improvement can be made, it could backfire. That would put a limit in how general of a context I can make that assumption.\n!delta\nI haven't actually met anyone who was spooked out by hitting a roadblock before, though. Definitely many more bored people. Also people who were held back because being too far ahead of one's peers causes problems for other people, and ended up losing their passion for the subject...",
">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/mulberry-hunter (1∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nof course talent is a thing, not really debatable.",
">\n\n\nShowing evidence/argument that work ethic isn't correlated with talent would CMV.\n\nI didnt get work ethic from \"talent\" I got it through parental discipline. As in I was beaten bloody if I said \"no\" to feeding cows when it was -30 outside.\nSo now I own a construction company as a 26 year old and make a decent income.",
">\n\nFirst, parental discipline happens regardless of talent. This wouldn't affect the correlation much.\nSecond, while it may have worked for you, it's not clear to me that parental discipline usually leads to having a better work ethic. Many people end up depressed and with a worse work ethic, or develop a fear of certain types of work.",
">\n\n\nFirst, parental discipline happens regardless of talent. This wouldn't affect the correlation much.\n\nParental discipline happens regardless of talent, and parental discipline is associated with success, showing parental discipline to be vital to success regardless of natural talent\n\nSecond, while it may have worked for you, it's not clear to me that parental discipline usually leads to having a better work ethic. Many people end up depressed and with a worse work ethic, or develop a fear of certain types of work.\n\nThe type of discipline I am talking about doesnt allow for that.",
">\n\n\nParental discipline happens regardless of talent, and parental discipline is associated with success, showing parental discipline to be vital to success regardless of natural talent\n\nRight, so is it relevant here? Parental discipline is one of many factors of success that is independent of talent. That I entirely agree with.\nTalent is a different major factor of success. My post is an argument about why talent is a major factor of success. Does parental discipline have any bearing on that?",
">\n\nyou confuse willpower with talent, willpower is needed to persist in any activity regardless of how successful, \n\npeople with ocd will practice skills more then a talented person simply because of obsessive behavior, so mental illness or willpower are the main driving forces, talent is merely an effort multiplier",
">\n\nI am not confusing talent with willpower. You should probably read my second section, which is the core of the argument:\n\nHaving talent usually makes it easier and more enjoyable to work on a skill. At any one point in their lives a person has to make a choice between doing a number of tasks. With talent, a smaller amount of effort towards learning something can lead to a greater reward, and hence learning about/practicing one's skills would be a more attractive decision to make at any time. So people with talent would naturally have more of an incentive to spend more time on their skills.\n\nI am arguing that not only does it multiply the effect of effort, but it also encourages a person to spend more effort. And I believe the latter to be a much stronger effect than the former.",
">\n\nI'd just argue that talent is subjective. People will say Kurk Cobain was the greatest musician of all time. Others will say he sucks. Just an example.",
">\n\nAs a person with \"natural born talent\" I definitely disagree.\nIt completely depends on the area of talent. My reasoning? It's true that talented skills are things you have to work at. But that \"work ethic\" may or may not transcend the specific talent the person has. Natural talent doesn't mean natural work ethic. If their specific talent isn't useful... well they just have a talent.\nEven if I have a talent specific to a job that would make me successful, no job is going to hire me that way. I have to prove I have the skills. This proof is normally a college degree or a certificate of a trade. If you don't have those even if you'd be perfect for the job, they don't know that, and they're not going to take a chance when you can't prove you know what you're talking about.\nHard work is more important than talent. Hell, all natural talent is, is working on something from a very early age. If you look at an artist's artwork at 5, generally, it looks like a 5 year old drew it. But someone who's been drawing since that age might make masterpieces at 17, it doesn't mean they're special, it just means they've studied and practiced a lot more in one area.\nWork ethic is a basic skill everyone needs to possess to be successful but having a natural talent doesn't necessarily equal good work ethic or get you there faster.",
">\n\nI'd like to dispute the idea that people are likelier to work on a skill just because they're talented at it. In my opinion, while there are numerous other factors (such as pressure from parents), the ability to keep working at a skill is itself a talent.",
">\n\nI think knowing how to work effectively (as opposed working \"hard\") is a stronger predictor of success than talent.\nAn \"untalented\" person can become successful at something because:\n- The person does the activity because it's fun. For example, a lot of people aren't talented runners. However if they run with a friend or with music then it's fun. Improvement because a side benefit rather than the sole objective. This approach more sustainable mentally.\n- The person has easy access to high quality information about the activity. For example, YouTube has lots of videos on repairing stuff. People who never picked up a screwdriver can now fix things and save money. Even if the person still can't fix things, he/she at least has better information to make an informed decision on the repair.\n- The person has access to quick high-quality feedback. This feedback can come from a person (like a coach, mentor, etc) or some tool. If a mentor mentions to a new manager that he/she tends to micromanage things when a project is under a tight deadline, that person is now aware of it and can avoid causing problems with the rest of the team. Feedback can eliminate a lot of beginner mistakes and save a lot of time.\n- The person is able to look at the activity from different angles. For example, the Fosbury Flop in the High Jump event in Track and Field. Fosbury was not good at doing the high jump the \"usual\" way so he figured out a different way that worked for him.",
">\n\n\nImprovement because a side benefit rather than the sole objective\n\nIt's not likely that people will improve if they are having fun, because in order to 'improve', you need to do something that you couldn't do before. That means you have to track what you were able to do before. And usually it means pushing yourself out of your comfort zone.\n\nAccess to high quality information \nThe person has access to quick high-quality feedback.\n\nWhen people talk about talent, they imply equal training.\nThere are studies that show different muscle grows for people who are subjected to the same exercise in a controlled environment. Even if they take people with similar baselines, gains are different",
">\n\n\nIt's not likely that people will improve if they are having fun, because in order to 'improve', you need to do something that you couldn't do before. That means you have to track what you were able to do before. And usually it means pushing yourself out of your comfort zone.\n\nKids (and some young animals) often hone skills by challenging themselves or each other through play. For example, you can find groups kids who spend hours trying to do tricks with the skateboard. These kids get paid nothing and risk injury. They do it simply because it's fun to be with each other and to try new challenges. Not everyone will improve at the same rate, but people generally improve somewhat. Some talented people quit the activity because it's no longer fun.\n\n\nWhen people talk about talent, they imply equal training. \nThere are studies that show different muscle grows for people who are subjected to the same exercise in a controlled environment. Even if they take people with similar baselines, gains are different\n\nYes this is true, so I guess it comes down to what is meant by \"success.\" I interpreted success as a measure that was defined by each person. In other words, if one's proficiency is good enough for what they needed, then they're successful. The person does not need to be at the elite level. I wasn't defining it in absolute terms where a person is only successful if they are better than nearly everyone else in the world (e.g. a billionaire investor).",
">\n\n\nKids (and some young animals) often hone skills by challenging themselves or each other through play. \n\nYes. But they don't achieve greatness. Early newbie gains are easy. It gets progressively harder though",
">\n\n\nYes. But they don't achieve greatness. Early newbie gains are easy. It gets progressively harder though\n\nI see. We're working different definitions of success. For example, I can ride my bike to the park and to the other side of town. I consider that being successful because that's all the proficiency I require of that skill. I don't aspire to ride the Tour de France. \nFor the case of being an elite in a particular field or being \"great,\" talent is important, but sacrifice and luck are not negligible. Greatness comes at a cost. It can be a burden on relationships, one's mental or physical health, or money for relatively small gains. Some talented people may see that cost and choose to go another way. These people might not become great, but they might lead healthier lives. Luck is also important. Talented people have had careers cut short because of injuries, sickness, or other hardships outside of their control.",
">\n\nI think you are mis-labelling curiosity as talent. \nI am a musician & singer. I wasn't born with an ability to sing better than the person next to me. \nMy brain enjoyed music. It was curious about it. So I listened more. I imitated more... I sang out of tune for a few pre teen years... And then it all started clicking. And continues to click the more I explore that idea space. \nI'm not saying it's just work and practice. But I AM saying it is utilising brain power and time to even think about this thing.. will improve your ability. \nIt is curiosity that drives.... Not 'talent,' (which honestly I have never seen accurately defined anyway.)",
">\n\nSomething your missing is the level of talent, low or medium talent with high work ethic will beat high talent. \nLow talent will beat no talent even with hard work. Some people are just not good at something and cannot get better, but if you have talent to do the basics with a good work ethic then there is potential.\nFor example Micheal jordon didn’t make his school basket ball team. Obviously he has talent and with hard work he became better than just talent",
">\n\nIt's incredibly difficult to quantify \"natural talent.\"\nEven toddlers that display affinity for certain skills have 2-3 years of exposure to their parents interests, from art on the walls to the sort of activities they use to keep the kid busy. Is he naturally musically talented, or did his parents play a whole lot of music all the time? Is she naturally inclined towards visual art and color, or did she grow up surrounded with paintings carefully arranged in a beautifully designed environment?\nWho's actually talented?\nAnd then comes \"hard work,\" messing things up further. Because what we label \"work\" is often just play, combined with a willingness to fail. In the immortal words of Jake the Dog, \"dude, sucking at something is the first step towards being sorta good at something.\" You don't need to work to develop skill. You don't need to be good already. You just need to do it. \nSo what separates the \"hard workers\" from the \"talented hard workers?\" Is it just their final product? The hard worker who makes a better painting is more talented than the hard worker who makes something trite? Or is the first hard worker better because they were more willing to fail along the way, to try a wide variety of things regardless of how badly they do, and learn from those mistakes as they move forward? Did the second one stick to the safe, known styles and refuse to experiment and grow?\nThere are just so many confounding variables that it's not worthwhile to debate where \"talent\" ends and \"effort\" begins. Because on top of all that, some popular art just sucks. It's not widely known because it's exceptional; it's widely known because the artists are good at marketing themselves. Like the duct tape banana or Take the Money and Run, success can be divorced from ability, effort, and talent all together. Get popular by doing something stupid for everyone to see, and parlay your popularity into financial success!\nIn the end, you may as well give up on distinguishing it. Successful people are successful, and they got there in all kinds of different ways. Maybe you can try being born rich, so your parents sycophantic \"friends\" will buy your sculptures at huge markups in an effort to suck up to them? Success!",
">\n\nThis isn't relevant to the statement of my post?\nI don't think it matters if we have one singular definition of \"naturally talented\" and \"success\". We have many different definitions of it, and that's completely fine. You can draw the cutoff at whatever age you want. I'm saying that we can plug in whatever definition of \"naturally talented\" and the corresponding measure of \"success\" we want and my statement would still hold.\nIn fact what I say in my argument is precisely one of the reasons why it's hard to draw the line between talent and effort. Because they're very strongly correlated; there is no clear line in the first place.",
">\n\nThe point is that you're drawing lines without knowing what it is you're delineating. You do not know and you're coming to conclusions anyway.\nThere are far more than three variables, and the way they're tied together makes isolating any one all but impossible. Did natural talent contribute to someone's success? Can you even tell? If you can't, how can you say that talent was important for them? That guy over there's a relentlessly hard worker, but is unsuccessful. Is his failure due to lack of natural talent, or has he used poor methods to cultivate his skill? Or is he just bad at self-promotion? Or in the wrong place at the wrong time?\nYou're trying to explain something, and I'm telling you not to bother. If some weird shoe designer can set up a factory where other people make screen prints of Campbell's Soup cans, slap his name on their mass produced replicas of a stolen design, and become a legend for it, why care about present talent at all? It just doesn't matter.\nProduce to produce. Explore your interests for their own sake. And if you want success, marketing matters more than effort matters more than skill matters more than \"natural talent.\""
] |
>
Why would I need to be able to answer these questions to make my explanation work?
Because if the first question they asked is literally your thesis statement. If someone has natural talent and it didn't contribute to their success at all, then your theory is incorrect.
As far as I've read in all your comments you're basically saying, natural talent= natural work ethic. That's just not true. You're also saying natural work ethic means success or more likely for success which is also just straight up untrue. What people consider success (mostly financial) is not more likely to be achieved just because they have a natural skill. Unless you can prove direct correlation... It just falls apart. | [
"/u/PNKRTN (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\n\nShowing evidence/argument that work ethic isn't correlated with talent would CMV.\n\nthis is a tricky stance b/c a lot of it is subjective. \n\nwhat if \"having a strong work ethic\" is a talent in and of itself. the special forces operators talk about this all the time: they aren't inherently talented, but they have a talent for gaining talents quickly. \nwhat if i have a terrible work ethic (for things are difficult difficult for me) but the things that i pursue as fun are extremely valuable in the market? i never wash the dishes b/c that feels like work, but i constantly refine my quantum computing theories, (just a made up example). is it really work ethic if i don't feel burdened by the pursuit of the talent? \n\"success\" is determined by market demand. today we have professional video game players (either competitively or things like twitch, youtube, etc.). a generation ago the pursuit of these talents was not \"work ethic\". today, it is / could be considered. the only thing that changed was the market dynamics.",
">\n\n\nwhat if \"having a strong work ethic\" is a talent in and of itself\n\nOnly if being able to speak is a talent(not all people can do that). Most people are capable of learning good work ethics.\n\nin the market\n\nSuccess is not determined by the market. Success is being able to complete your goal. Any goal. You can successfully brush teeth.\nIt's just that usually we imply that the goal is supposed do be hard to achieve. Otherwise we wouldn't talk about it.",
">\n\nI think natural talent can be a helping factor in someone's success, but doesn't necessarily say anything about higher work ethic.\nSomeone with learned skill is likely to have built more resilience to their pursuit when they're used to the grind and have practiced the skill for hours and hours, therefore may have spent more time than someone who has it easier. \nSomeone with natural talent could be spooked way more easily when hitting a roadblock in terms of skill, or they could find their lack of challenge monotonous in itself, and it depends on the kind of person they are.\nIn various conditions the opposite could be true for both of these, so I don't believe there's any concrete correlation at all, but I can argue that hard work is a valuable asset since endurance when facing challenges is essential for success in work, so it's pretty unreasonable to assume that natural talent = better work ethic.",
">\n\n\nSomeone with learned skill is likely to have built more resilience to their pursuit when they're used to the grind and have practiced the skill for hours and hours, therefore may have spent more time than someone who has it easier.\n\nYes, but the idea here is that those who have the drive and opportunity build learned skill in the first place are usually also those with talent. \n\nSomeone with natural talent could be spooked way more easily when hitting a roadblock in terms of skill, or they could find their lack of challenge monotonous in itself, and it depends on the kind of person they are.\n\nAh, that's something I hadn't thought too much about. I've seen people leave a field of study for another because they though their previous field of study was too easy. So in contexts where lots of work is needed but little improvement can be made, it could backfire. That would put a limit in how general of a context I can make that assumption.\n!delta\nI haven't actually met anyone who was spooked out by hitting a roadblock before, though. Definitely many more bored people. Also people who were held back because being too far ahead of one's peers causes problems for other people, and ended up losing their passion for the subject...",
">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/mulberry-hunter (1∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nof course talent is a thing, not really debatable.",
">\n\n\nShowing evidence/argument that work ethic isn't correlated with talent would CMV.\n\nI didnt get work ethic from \"talent\" I got it through parental discipline. As in I was beaten bloody if I said \"no\" to feeding cows when it was -30 outside.\nSo now I own a construction company as a 26 year old and make a decent income.",
">\n\nFirst, parental discipline happens regardless of talent. This wouldn't affect the correlation much.\nSecond, while it may have worked for you, it's not clear to me that parental discipline usually leads to having a better work ethic. Many people end up depressed and with a worse work ethic, or develop a fear of certain types of work.",
">\n\n\nFirst, parental discipline happens regardless of talent. This wouldn't affect the correlation much.\n\nParental discipline happens regardless of talent, and parental discipline is associated with success, showing parental discipline to be vital to success regardless of natural talent\n\nSecond, while it may have worked for you, it's not clear to me that parental discipline usually leads to having a better work ethic. Many people end up depressed and with a worse work ethic, or develop a fear of certain types of work.\n\nThe type of discipline I am talking about doesnt allow for that.",
">\n\n\nParental discipline happens regardless of talent, and parental discipline is associated with success, showing parental discipline to be vital to success regardless of natural talent\n\nRight, so is it relevant here? Parental discipline is one of many factors of success that is independent of talent. That I entirely agree with.\nTalent is a different major factor of success. My post is an argument about why talent is a major factor of success. Does parental discipline have any bearing on that?",
">\n\nyou confuse willpower with talent, willpower is needed to persist in any activity regardless of how successful, \n\npeople with ocd will practice skills more then a talented person simply because of obsessive behavior, so mental illness or willpower are the main driving forces, talent is merely an effort multiplier",
">\n\nI am not confusing talent with willpower. You should probably read my second section, which is the core of the argument:\n\nHaving talent usually makes it easier and more enjoyable to work on a skill. At any one point in their lives a person has to make a choice between doing a number of tasks. With talent, a smaller amount of effort towards learning something can lead to a greater reward, and hence learning about/practicing one's skills would be a more attractive decision to make at any time. So people with talent would naturally have more of an incentive to spend more time on their skills.\n\nI am arguing that not only does it multiply the effect of effort, but it also encourages a person to spend more effort. And I believe the latter to be a much stronger effect than the former.",
">\n\nI'd just argue that talent is subjective. People will say Kurk Cobain was the greatest musician of all time. Others will say he sucks. Just an example.",
">\n\nAs a person with \"natural born talent\" I definitely disagree.\nIt completely depends on the area of talent. My reasoning? It's true that talented skills are things you have to work at. But that \"work ethic\" may or may not transcend the specific talent the person has. Natural talent doesn't mean natural work ethic. If their specific talent isn't useful... well they just have a talent.\nEven if I have a talent specific to a job that would make me successful, no job is going to hire me that way. I have to prove I have the skills. This proof is normally a college degree or a certificate of a trade. If you don't have those even if you'd be perfect for the job, they don't know that, and they're not going to take a chance when you can't prove you know what you're talking about.\nHard work is more important than talent. Hell, all natural talent is, is working on something from a very early age. If you look at an artist's artwork at 5, generally, it looks like a 5 year old drew it. But someone who's been drawing since that age might make masterpieces at 17, it doesn't mean they're special, it just means they've studied and practiced a lot more in one area.\nWork ethic is a basic skill everyone needs to possess to be successful but having a natural talent doesn't necessarily equal good work ethic or get you there faster.",
">\n\nI'd like to dispute the idea that people are likelier to work on a skill just because they're talented at it. In my opinion, while there are numerous other factors (such as pressure from parents), the ability to keep working at a skill is itself a talent.",
">\n\nI think knowing how to work effectively (as opposed working \"hard\") is a stronger predictor of success than talent.\nAn \"untalented\" person can become successful at something because:\n- The person does the activity because it's fun. For example, a lot of people aren't talented runners. However if they run with a friend or with music then it's fun. Improvement because a side benefit rather than the sole objective. This approach more sustainable mentally.\n- The person has easy access to high quality information about the activity. For example, YouTube has lots of videos on repairing stuff. People who never picked up a screwdriver can now fix things and save money. Even if the person still can't fix things, he/she at least has better information to make an informed decision on the repair.\n- The person has access to quick high-quality feedback. This feedback can come from a person (like a coach, mentor, etc) or some tool. If a mentor mentions to a new manager that he/she tends to micromanage things when a project is under a tight deadline, that person is now aware of it and can avoid causing problems with the rest of the team. Feedback can eliminate a lot of beginner mistakes and save a lot of time.\n- The person is able to look at the activity from different angles. For example, the Fosbury Flop in the High Jump event in Track and Field. Fosbury was not good at doing the high jump the \"usual\" way so he figured out a different way that worked for him.",
">\n\n\nImprovement because a side benefit rather than the sole objective\n\nIt's not likely that people will improve if they are having fun, because in order to 'improve', you need to do something that you couldn't do before. That means you have to track what you were able to do before. And usually it means pushing yourself out of your comfort zone.\n\nAccess to high quality information \nThe person has access to quick high-quality feedback.\n\nWhen people talk about talent, they imply equal training.\nThere are studies that show different muscle grows for people who are subjected to the same exercise in a controlled environment. Even if they take people with similar baselines, gains are different",
">\n\n\nIt's not likely that people will improve if they are having fun, because in order to 'improve', you need to do something that you couldn't do before. That means you have to track what you were able to do before. And usually it means pushing yourself out of your comfort zone.\n\nKids (and some young animals) often hone skills by challenging themselves or each other through play. For example, you can find groups kids who spend hours trying to do tricks with the skateboard. These kids get paid nothing and risk injury. They do it simply because it's fun to be with each other and to try new challenges. Not everyone will improve at the same rate, but people generally improve somewhat. Some talented people quit the activity because it's no longer fun.\n\n\nWhen people talk about talent, they imply equal training. \nThere are studies that show different muscle grows for people who are subjected to the same exercise in a controlled environment. Even if they take people with similar baselines, gains are different\n\nYes this is true, so I guess it comes down to what is meant by \"success.\" I interpreted success as a measure that was defined by each person. In other words, if one's proficiency is good enough for what they needed, then they're successful. The person does not need to be at the elite level. I wasn't defining it in absolute terms where a person is only successful if they are better than nearly everyone else in the world (e.g. a billionaire investor).",
">\n\n\nKids (and some young animals) often hone skills by challenging themselves or each other through play. \n\nYes. But they don't achieve greatness. Early newbie gains are easy. It gets progressively harder though",
">\n\n\nYes. But they don't achieve greatness. Early newbie gains are easy. It gets progressively harder though\n\nI see. We're working different definitions of success. For example, I can ride my bike to the park and to the other side of town. I consider that being successful because that's all the proficiency I require of that skill. I don't aspire to ride the Tour de France. \nFor the case of being an elite in a particular field or being \"great,\" talent is important, but sacrifice and luck are not negligible. Greatness comes at a cost. It can be a burden on relationships, one's mental or physical health, or money for relatively small gains. Some talented people may see that cost and choose to go another way. These people might not become great, but they might lead healthier lives. Luck is also important. Talented people have had careers cut short because of injuries, sickness, or other hardships outside of their control.",
">\n\nI think you are mis-labelling curiosity as talent. \nI am a musician & singer. I wasn't born with an ability to sing better than the person next to me. \nMy brain enjoyed music. It was curious about it. So I listened more. I imitated more... I sang out of tune for a few pre teen years... And then it all started clicking. And continues to click the more I explore that idea space. \nI'm not saying it's just work and practice. But I AM saying it is utilising brain power and time to even think about this thing.. will improve your ability. \nIt is curiosity that drives.... Not 'talent,' (which honestly I have never seen accurately defined anyway.)",
">\n\nSomething your missing is the level of talent, low or medium talent with high work ethic will beat high talent. \nLow talent will beat no talent even with hard work. Some people are just not good at something and cannot get better, but if you have talent to do the basics with a good work ethic then there is potential.\nFor example Micheal jordon didn’t make his school basket ball team. Obviously he has talent and with hard work he became better than just talent",
">\n\nIt's incredibly difficult to quantify \"natural talent.\"\nEven toddlers that display affinity for certain skills have 2-3 years of exposure to their parents interests, from art on the walls to the sort of activities they use to keep the kid busy. Is he naturally musically talented, or did his parents play a whole lot of music all the time? Is she naturally inclined towards visual art and color, or did she grow up surrounded with paintings carefully arranged in a beautifully designed environment?\nWho's actually talented?\nAnd then comes \"hard work,\" messing things up further. Because what we label \"work\" is often just play, combined with a willingness to fail. In the immortal words of Jake the Dog, \"dude, sucking at something is the first step towards being sorta good at something.\" You don't need to work to develop skill. You don't need to be good already. You just need to do it. \nSo what separates the \"hard workers\" from the \"talented hard workers?\" Is it just their final product? The hard worker who makes a better painting is more talented than the hard worker who makes something trite? Or is the first hard worker better because they were more willing to fail along the way, to try a wide variety of things regardless of how badly they do, and learn from those mistakes as they move forward? Did the second one stick to the safe, known styles and refuse to experiment and grow?\nThere are just so many confounding variables that it's not worthwhile to debate where \"talent\" ends and \"effort\" begins. Because on top of all that, some popular art just sucks. It's not widely known because it's exceptional; it's widely known because the artists are good at marketing themselves. Like the duct tape banana or Take the Money and Run, success can be divorced from ability, effort, and talent all together. Get popular by doing something stupid for everyone to see, and parlay your popularity into financial success!\nIn the end, you may as well give up on distinguishing it. Successful people are successful, and they got there in all kinds of different ways. Maybe you can try being born rich, so your parents sycophantic \"friends\" will buy your sculptures at huge markups in an effort to suck up to them? Success!",
">\n\nThis isn't relevant to the statement of my post?\nI don't think it matters if we have one singular definition of \"naturally talented\" and \"success\". We have many different definitions of it, and that's completely fine. You can draw the cutoff at whatever age you want. I'm saying that we can plug in whatever definition of \"naturally talented\" and the corresponding measure of \"success\" we want and my statement would still hold.\nIn fact what I say in my argument is precisely one of the reasons why it's hard to draw the line between talent and effort. Because they're very strongly correlated; there is no clear line in the first place.",
">\n\nThe point is that you're drawing lines without knowing what it is you're delineating. You do not know and you're coming to conclusions anyway.\nThere are far more than three variables, and the way they're tied together makes isolating any one all but impossible. Did natural talent contribute to someone's success? Can you even tell? If you can't, how can you say that talent was important for them? That guy over there's a relentlessly hard worker, but is unsuccessful. Is his failure due to lack of natural talent, or has he used poor methods to cultivate his skill? Or is he just bad at self-promotion? Or in the wrong place at the wrong time?\nYou're trying to explain something, and I'm telling you not to bother. If some weird shoe designer can set up a factory where other people make screen prints of Campbell's Soup cans, slap his name on their mass produced replicas of a stolen design, and become a legend for it, why care about present talent at all? It just doesn't matter.\nProduce to produce. Explore your interests for their own sake. And if you want success, marketing matters more than effort matters more than skill matters more than \"natural talent.\"",
">\n\n\nThe point is that you're drawing lines without knowing what it is you're delineating. You do not know and you're coming to conclusions anyway.\n\nDo I need to precisely draw the line between a sandwich and a not-sandwich in order to make the statement that \"sandwiches are usually made with bread\"? Many definitions of \"talent\" would suffice here, it doesn't matter which one I choose.\n\nThere are far more than three variables, and the way they're tied together makes isolating any one all but impossible. Did natural talent contribute to someone's success? Can you even tell? If you can't, how can you say that talent was important for them? That guy over there's a relentlessly hard worker, but is unsuccessful. Is his failure due to lack of natural talent, or has he used poor methods to cultivate his skill? Or is he just bad at self-promotion? Or in the wrong place at the wrong time?\n\nWhy would I need to be able to answer these questions to make my explanation work?"
] |
>
It's all relative. I used to get super annoyed when some 6 foot 10 athletic giant would talk about "how hard he had to work" to make it to the NBA. But then I figured it out.
At any given time there is 10,000 men on planet earth with the physical gifts and the accessibility to be an NBA player (made up figure). Of those only about 500 are ever actually in the NBA.
The difference between the 175,000,000 men (assuming they are all in US) and the 10,000 is talent. Which makes them very rare outliers.
But the difference between the 9,500 who are not in the NBA and the 500 who are often does come down to work ethic.
From their point of view their work ethic is the reason they are in the NBA. Relative to other talented basketball players they are in the NBA because they out hustled them. Thus the statements about "how hard he had to work" are perfectly reasonable. Even though they sound tone deaf to guys with average height and athleticism. | [
"/u/PNKRTN (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\n\nShowing evidence/argument that work ethic isn't correlated with talent would CMV.\n\nthis is a tricky stance b/c a lot of it is subjective. \n\nwhat if \"having a strong work ethic\" is a talent in and of itself. the special forces operators talk about this all the time: they aren't inherently talented, but they have a talent for gaining talents quickly. \nwhat if i have a terrible work ethic (for things are difficult difficult for me) but the things that i pursue as fun are extremely valuable in the market? i never wash the dishes b/c that feels like work, but i constantly refine my quantum computing theories, (just a made up example). is it really work ethic if i don't feel burdened by the pursuit of the talent? \n\"success\" is determined by market demand. today we have professional video game players (either competitively or things like twitch, youtube, etc.). a generation ago the pursuit of these talents was not \"work ethic\". today, it is / could be considered. the only thing that changed was the market dynamics.",
">\n\n\nwhat if \"having a strong work ethic\" is a talent in and of itself\n\nOnly if being able to speak is a talent(not all people can do that). Most people are capable of learning good work ethics.\n\nin the market\n\nSuccess is not determined by the market. Success is being able to complete your goal. Any goal. You can successfully brush teeth.\nIt's just that usually we imply that the goal is supposed do be hard to achieve. Otherwise we wouldn't talk about it.",
">\n\nI think natural talent can be a helping factor in someone's success, but doesn't necessarily say anything about higher work ethic.\nSomeone with learned skill is likely to have built more resilience to their pursuit when they're used to the grind and have practiced the skill for hours and hours, therefore may have spent more time than someone who has it easier. \nSomeone with natural talent could be spooked way more easily when hitting a roadblock in terms of skill, or they could find their lack of challenge monotonous in itself, and it depends on the kind of person they are.\nIn various conditions the opposite could be true for both of these, so I don't believe there's any concrete correlation at all, but I can argue that hard work is a valuable asset since endurance when facing challenges is essential for success in work, so it's pretty unreasonable to assume that natural talent = better work ethic.",
">\n\n\nSomeone with learned skill is likely to have built more resilience to their pursuit when they're used to the grind and have practiced the skill for hours and hours, therefore may have spent more time than someone who has it easier.\n\nYes, but the idea here is that those who have the drive and opportunity build learned skill in the first place are usually also those with talent. \n\nSomeone with natural talent could be spooked way more easily when hitting a roadblock in terms of skill, or they could find their lack of challenge monotonous in itself, and it depends on the kind of person they are.\n\nAh, that's something I hadn't thought too much about. I've seen people leave a field of study for another because they though their previous field of study was too easy. So in contexts where lots of work is needed but little improvement can be made, it could backfire. That would put a limit in how general of a context I can make that assumption.\n!delta\nI haven't actually met anyone who was spooked out by hitting a roadblock before, though. Definitely many more bored people. Also people who were held back because being too far ahead of one's peers causes problems for other people, and ended up losing their passion for the subject...",
">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/mulberry-hunter (1∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nof course talent is a thing, not really debatable.",
">\n\n\nShowing evidence/argument that work ethic isn't correlated with talent would CMV.\n\nI didnt get work ethic from \"talent\" I got it through parental discipline. As in I was beaten bloody if I said \"no\" to feeding cows when it was -30 outside.\nSo now I own a construction company as a 26 year old and make a decent income.",
">\n\nFirst, parental discipline happens regardless of talent. This wouldn't affect the correlation much.\nSecond, while it may have worked for you, it's not clear to me that parental discipline usually leads to having a better work ethic. Many people end up depressed and with a worse work ethic, or develop a fear of certain types of work.",
">\n\n\nFirst, parental discipline happens regardless of talent. This wouldn't affect the correlation much.\n\nParental discipline happens regardless of talent, and parental discipline is associated with success, showing parental discipline to be vital to success regardless of natural talent\n\nSecond, while it may have worked for you, it's not clear to me that parental discipline usually leads to having a better work ethic. Many people end up depressed and with a worse work ethic, or develop a fear of certain types of work.\n\nThe type of discipline I am talking about doesnt allow for that.",
">\n\n\nParental discipline happens regardless of talent, and parental discipline is associated with success, showing parental discipline to be vital to success regardless of natural talent\n\nRight, so is it relevant here? Parental discipline is one of many factors of success that is independent of talent. That I entirely agree with.\nTalent is a different major factor of success. My post is an argument about why talent is a major factor of success. Does parental discipline have any bearing on that?",
">\n\nyou confuse willpower with talent, willpower is needed to persist in any activity regardless of how successful, \n\npeople with ocd will practice skills more then a talented person simply because of obsessive behavior, so mental illness or willpower are the main driving forces, talent is merely an effort multiplier",
">\n\nI am not confusing talent with willpower. You should probably read my second section, which is the core of the argument:\n\nHaving talent usually makes it easier and more enjoyable to work on a skill. At any one point in their lives a person has to make a choice between doing a number of tasks. With talent, a smaller amount of effort towards learning something can lead to a greater reward, and hence learning about/practicing one's skills would be a more attractive decision to make at any time. So people with talent would naturally have more of an incentive to spend more time on their skills.\n\nI am arguing that not only does it multiply the effect of effort, but it also encourages a person to spend more effort. And I believe the latter to be a much stronger effect than the former.",
">\n\nI'd just argue that talent is subjective. People will say Kurk Cobain was the greatest musician of all time. Others will say he sucks. Just an example.",
">\n\nAs a person with \"natural born talent\" I definitely disagree.\nIt completely depends on the area of talent. My reasoning? It's true that talented skills are things you have to work at. But that \"work ethic\" may or may not transcend the specific talent the person has. Natural talent doesn't mean natural work ethic. If their specific talent isn't useful... well they just have a talent.\nEven if I have a talent specific to a job that would make me successful, no job is going to hire me that way. I have to prove I have the skills. This proof is normally a college degree or a certificate of a trade. If you don't have those even if you'd be perfect for the job, they don't know that, and they're not going to take a chance when you can't prove you know what you're talking about.\nHard work is more important than talent. Hell, all natural talent is, is working on something from a very early age. If you look at an artist's artwork at 5, generally, it looks like a 5 year old drew it. But someone who's been drawing since that age might make masterpieces at 17, it doesn't mean they're special, it just means they've studied and practiced a lot more in one area.\nWork ethic is a basic skill everyone needs to possess to be successful but having a natural talent doesn't necessarily equal good work ethic or get you there faster.",
">\n\nI'd like to dispute the idea that people are likelier to work on a skill just because they're talented at it. In my opinion, while there are numerous other factors (such as pressure from parents), the ability to keep working at a skill is itself a talent.",
">\n\nI think knowing how to work effectively (as opposed working \"hard\") is a stronger predictor of success than talent.\nAn \"untalented\" person can become successful at something because:\n- The person does the activity because it's fun. For example, a lot of people aren't talented runners. However if they run with a friend or with music then it's fun. Improvement because a side benefit rather than the sole objective. This approach more sustainable mentally.\n- The person has easy access to high quality information about the activity. For example, YouTube has lots of videos on repairing stuff. People who never picked up a screwdriver can now fix things and save money. Even if the person still can't fix things, he/she at least has better information to make an informed decision on the repair.\n- The person has access to quick high-quality feedback. This feedback can come from a person (like a coach, mentor, etc) or some tool. If a mentor mentions to a new manager that he/she tends to micromanage things when a project is under a tight deadline, that person is now aware of it and can avoid causing problems with the rest of the team. Feedback can eliminate a lot of beginner mistakes and save a lot of time.\n- The person is able to look at the activity from different angles. For example, the Fosbury Flop in the High Jump event in Track and Field. Fosbury was not good at doing the high jump the \"usual\" way so he figured out a different way that worked for him.",
">\n\n\nImprovement because a side benefit rather than the sole objective\n\nIt's not likely that people will improve if they are having fun, because in order to 'improve', you need to do something that you couldn't do before. That means you have to track what you were able to do before. And usually it means pushing yourself out of your comfort zone.\n\nAccess to high quality information \nThe person has access to quick high-quality feedback.\n\nWhen people talk about talent, they imply equal training.\nThere are studies that show different muscle grows for people who are subjected to the same exercise in a controlled environment. Even if they take people with similar baselines, gains are different",
">\n\n\nIt's not likely that people will improve if they are having fun, because in order to 'improve', you need to do something that you couldn't do before. That means you have to track what you were able to do before. And usually it means pushing yourself out of your comfort zone.\n\nKids (and some young animals) often hone skills by challenging themselves or each other through play. For example, you can find groups kids who spend hours trying to do tricks with the skateboard. These kids get paid nothing and risk injury. They do it simply because it's fun to be with each other and to try new challenges. Not everyone will improve at the same rate, but people generally improve somewhat. Some talented people quit the activity because it's no longer fun.\n\n\nWhen people talk about talent, they imply equal training. \nThere are studies that show different muscle grows for people who are subjected to the same exercise in a controlled environment. Even if they take people with similar baselines, gains are different\n\nYes this is true, so I guess it comes down to what is meant by \"success.\" I interpreted success as a measure that was defined by each person. In other words, if one's proficiency is good enough for what they needed, then they're successful. The person does not need to be at the elite level. I wasn't defining it in absolute terms where a person is only successful if they are better than nearly everyone else in the world (e.g. a billionaire investor).",
">\n\n\nKids (and some young animals) often hone skills by challenging themselves or each other through play. \n\nYes. But they don't achieve greatness. Early newbie gains are easy. It gets progressively harder though",
">\n\n\nYes. But they don't achieve greatness. Early newbie gains are easy. It gets progressively harder though\n\nI see. We're working different definitions of success. For example, I can ride my bike to the park and to the other side of town. I consider that being successful because that's all the proficiency I require of that skill. I don't aspire to ride the Tour de France. \nFor the case of being an elite in a particular field or being \"great,\" talent is important, but sacrifice and luck are not negligible. Greatness comes at a cost. It can be a burden on relationships, one's mental or physical health, or money for relatively small gains. Some talented people may see that cost and choose to go another way. These people might not become great, but they might lead healthier lives. Luck is also important. Talented people have had careers cut short because of injuries, sickness, or other hardships outside of their control.",
">\n\nI think you are mis-labelling curiosity as talent. \nI am a musician & singer. I wasn't born with an ability to sing better than the person next to me. \nMy brain enjoyed music. It was curious about it. So I listened more. I imitated more... I sang out of tune for a few pre teen years... And then it all started clicking. And continues to click the more I explore that idea space. \nI'm not saying it's just work and practice. But I AM saying it is utilising brain power and time to even think about this thing.. will improve your ability. \nIt is curiosity that drives.... Not 'talent,' (which honestly I have never seen accurately defined anyway.)",
">\n\nSomething your missing is the level of talent, low or medium talent with high work ethic will beat high talent. \nLow talent will beat no talent even with hard work. Some people are just not good at something and cannot get better, but if you have talent to do the basics with a good work ethic then there is potential.\nFor example Micheal jordon didn’t make his school basket ball team. Obviously he has talent and with hard work he became better than just talent",
">\n\nIt's incredibly difficult to quantify \"natural talent.\"\nEven toddlers that display affinity for certain skills have 2-3 years of exposure to their parents interests, from art on the walls to the sort of activities they use to keep the kid busy. Is he naturally musically talented, or did his parents play a whole lot of music all the time? Is she naturally inclined towards visual art and color, or did she grow up surrounded with paintings carefully arranged in a beautifully designed environment?\nWho's actually talented?\nAnd then comes \"hard work,\" messing things up further. Because what we label \"work\" is often just play, combined with a willingness to fail. In the immortal words of Jake the Dog, \"dude, sucking at something is the first step towards being sorta good at something.\" You don't need to work to develop skill. You don't need to be good already. You just need to do it. \nSo what separates the \"hard workers\" from the \"talented hard workers?\" Is it just their final product? The hard worker who makes a better painting is more talented than the hard worker who makes something trite? Or is the first hard worker better because they were more willing to fail along the way, to try a wide variety of things regardless of how badly they do, and learn from those mistakes as they move forward? Did the second one stick to the safe, known styles and refuse to experiment and grow?\nThere are just so many confounding variables that it's not worthwhile to debate where \"talent\" ends and \"effort\" begins. Because on top of all that, some popular art just sucks. It's not widely known because it's exceptional; it's widely known because the artists are good at marketing themselves. Like the duct tape banana or Take the Money and Run, success can be divorced from ability, effort, and talent all together. Get popular by doing something stupid for everyone to see, and parlay your popularity into financial success!\nIn the end, you may as well give up on distinguishing it. Successful people are successful, and they got there in all kinds of different ways. Maybe you can try being born rich, so your parents sycophantic \"friends\" will buy your sculptures at huge markups in an effort to suck up to them? Success!",
">\n\nThis isn't relevant to the statement of my post?\nI don't think it matters if we have one singular definition of \"naturally talented\" and \"success\". We have many different definitions of it, and that's completely fine. You can draw the cutoff at whatever age you want. I'm saying that we can plug in whatever definition of \"naturally talented\" and the corresponding measure of \"success\" we want and my statement would still hold.\nIn fact what I say in my argument is precisely one of the reasons why it's hard to draw the line between talent and effort. Because they're very strongly correlated; there is no clear line in the first place.",
">\n\nThe point is that you're drawing lines without knowing what it is you're delineating. You do not know and you're coming to conclusions anyway.\nThere are far more than three variables, and the way they're tied together makes isolating any one all but impossible. Did natural talent contribute to someone's success? Can you even tell? If you can't, how can you say that talent was important for them? That guy over there's a relentlessly hard worker, but is unsuccessful. Is his failure due to lack of natural talent, or has he used poor methods to cultivate his skill? Or is he just bad at self-promotion? Or in the wrong place at the wrong time?\nYou're trying to explain something, and I'm telling you not to bother. If some weird shoe designer can set up a factory where other people make screen prints of Campbell's Soup cans, slap his name on their mass produced replicas of a stolen design, and become a legend for it, why care about present talent at all? It just doesn't matter.\nProduce to produce. Explore your interests for their own sake. And if you want success, marketing matters more than effort matters more than skill matters more than \"natural talent.\"",
">\n\n\nThe point is that you're drawing lines without knowing what it is you're delineating. You do not know and you're coming to conclusions anyway.\n\nDo I need to precisely draw the line between a sandwich and a not-sandwich in order to make the statement that \"sandwiches are usually made with bread\"? Many definitions of \"talent\" would suffice here, it doesn't matter which one I choose.\n\nThere are far more than three variables, and the way they're tied together makes isolating any one all but impossible. Did natural talent contribute to someone's success? Can you even tell? If you can't, how can you say that talent was important for them? That guy over there's a relentlessly hard worker, but is unsuccessful. Is his failure due to lack of natural talent, or has he used poor methods to cultivate his skill? Or is he just bad at self-promotion? Or in the wrong place at the wrong time?\n\nWhy would I need to be able to answer these questions to make my explanation work?",
">\n\n\nWhy would I need to be able to answer these questions to make my explanation work?\n\nBecause if the first question they asked is literally your thesis statement. If someone has natural talent and it didn't contribute to their success at all, then your theory is incorrect.\nAs far as I've read in all your comments you're basically saying, natural talent= natural work ethic. That's just not true. You're also saying natural work ethic means success or more likely for success which is also just straight up untrue. What people consider success (mostly financial) is not more likely to be achieved just because they have a natural skill. Unless you can prove direct correlation... It just falls apart."
] |
>
I believe I addressed this in the first paragraph of the second section of my post? | [
"/u/PNKRTN (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\n\nShowing evidence/argument that work ethic isn't correlated with talent would CMV.\n\nthis is a tricky stance b/c a lot of it is subjective. \n\nwhat if \"having a strong work ethic\" is a talent in and of itself. the special forces operators talk about this all the time: they aren't inherently talented, but they have a talent for gaining talents quickly. \nwhat if i have a terrible work ethic (for things are difficult difficult for me) but the things that i pursue as fun are extremely valuable in the market? i never wash the dishes b/c that feels like work, but i constantly refine my quantum computing theories, (just a made up example). is it really work ethic if i don't feel burdened by the pursuit of the talent? \n\"success\" is determined by market demand. today we have professional video game players (either competitively or things like twitch, youtube, etc.). a generation ago the pursuit of these talents was not \"work ethic\". today, it is / could be considered. the only thing that changed was the market dynamics.",
">\n\n\nwhat if \"having a strong work ethic\" is a talent in and of itself\n\nOnly if being able to speak is a talent(not all people can do that). Most people are capable of learning good work ethics.\n\nin the market\n\nSuccess is not determined by the market. Success is being able to complete your goal. Any goal. You can successfully brush teeth.\nIt's just that usually we imply that the goal is supposed do be hard to achieve. Otherwise we wouldn't talk about it.",
">\n\nI think natural talent can be a helping factor in someone's success, but doesn't necessarily say anything about higher work ethic.\nSomeone with learned skill is likely to have built more resilience to their pursuit when they're used to the grind and have practiced the skill for hours and hours, therefore may have spent more time than someone who has it easier. \nSomeone with natural talent could be spooked way more easily when hitting a roadblock in terms of skill, or they could find their lack of challenge monotonous in itself, and it depends on the kind of person they are.\nIn various conditions the opposite could be true for both of these, so I don't believe there's any concrete correlation at all, but I can argue that hard work is a valuable asset since endurance when facing challenges is essential for success in work, so it's pretty unreasonable to assume that natural talent = better work ethic.",
">\n\n\nSomeone with learned skill is likely to have built more resilience to their pursuit when they're used to the grind and have practiced the skill for hours and hours, therefore may have spent more time than someone who has it easier.\n\nYes, but the idea here is that those who have the drive and opportunity build learned skill in the first place are usually also those with talent. \n\nSomeone with natural talent could be spooked way more easily when hitting a roadblock in terms of skill, or they could find their lack of challenge monotonous in itself, and it depends on the kind of person they are.\n\nAh, that's something I hadn't thought too much about. I've seen people leave a field of study for another because they though their previous field of study was too easy. So in contexts where lots of work is needed but little improvement can be made, it could backfire. That would put a limit in how general of a context I can make that assumption.\n!delta\nI haven't actually met anyone who was spooked out by hitting a roadblock before, though. Definitely many more bored people. Also people who were held back because being too far ahead of one's peers causes problems for other people, and ended up losing their passion for the subject...",
">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/mulberry-hunter (1∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nof course talent is a thing, not really debatable.",
">\n\n\nShowing evidence/argument that work ethic isn't correlated with talent would CMV.\n\nI didnt get work ethic from \"talent\" I got it through parental discipline. As in I was beaten bloody if I said \"no\" to feeding cows when it was -30 outside.\nSo now I own a construction company as a 26 year old and make a decent income.",
">\n\nFirst, parental discipline happens regardless of talent. This wouldn't affect the correlation much.\nSecond, while it may have worked for you, it's not clear to me that parental discipline usually leads to having a better work ethic. Many people end up depressed and with a worse work ethic, or develop a fear of certain types of work.",
">\n\n\nFirst, parental discipline happens regardless of talent. This wouldn't affect the correlation much.\n\nParental discipline happens regardless of talent, and parental discipline is associated with success, showing parental discipline to be vital to success regardless of natural talent\n\nSecond, while it may have worked for you, it's not clear to me that parental discipline usually leads to having a better work ethic. Many people end up depressed and with a worse work ethic, or develop a fear of certain types of work.\n\nThe type of discipline I am talking about doesnt allow for that.",
">\n\n\nParental discipline happens regardless of talent, and parental discipline is associated with success, showing parental discipline to be vital to success regardless of natural talent\n\nRight, so is it relevant here? Parental discipline is one of many factors of success that is independent of talent. That I entirely agree with.\nTalent is a different major factor of success. My post is an argument about why talent is a major factor of success. Does parental discipline have any bearing on that?",
">\n\nyou confuse willpower with talent, willpower is needed to persist in any activity regardless of how successful, \n\npeople with ocd will practice skills more then a talented person simply because of obsessive behavior, so mental illness or willpower are the main driving forces, talent is merely an effort multiplier",
">\n\nI am not confusing talent with willpower. You should probably read my second section, which is the core of the argument:\n\nHaving talent usually makes it easier and more enjoyable to work on a skill. At any one point in their lives a person has to make a choice between doing a number of tasks. With talent, a smaller amount of effort towards learning something can lead to a greater reward, and hence learning about/practicing one's skills would be a more attractive decision to make at any time. So people with talent would naturally have more of an incentive to spend more time on their skills.\n\nI am arguing that not only does it multiply the effect of effort, but it also encourages a person to spend more effort. And I believe the latter to be a much stronger effect than the former.",
">\n\nI'd just argue that talent is subjective. People will say Kurk Cobain was the greatest musician of all time. Others will say he sucks. Just an example.",
">\n\nAs a person with \"natural born talent\" I definitely disagree.\nIt completely depends on the area of talent. My reasoning? It's true that talented skills are things you have to work at. But that \"work ethic\" may or may not transcend the specific talent the person has. Natural talent doesn't mean natural work ethic. If their specific talent isn't useful... well they just have a talent.\nEven if I have a talent specific to a job that would make me successful, no job is going to hire me that way. I have to prove I have the skills. This proof is normally a college degree or a certificate of a trade. If you don't have those even if you'd be perfect for the job, they don't know that, and they're not going to take a chance when you can't prove you know what you're talking about.\nHard work is more important than talent. Hell, all natural talent is, is working on something from a very early age. If you look at an artist's artwork at 5, generally, it looks like a 5 year old drew it. But someone who's been drawing since that age might make masterpieces at 17, it doesn't mean they're special, it just means they've studied and practiced a lot more in one area.\nWork ethic is a basic skill everyone needs to possess to be successful but having a natural talent doesn't necessarily equal good work ethic or get you there faster.",
">\n\nI'd like to dispute the idea that people are likelier to work on a skill just because they're talented at it. In my opinion, while there are numerous other factors (such as pressure from parents), the ability to keep working at a skill is itself a talent.",
">\n\nI think knowing how to work effectively (as opposed working \"hard\") is a stronger predictor of success than talent.\nAn \"untalented\" person can become successful at something because:\n- The person does the activity because it's fun. For example, a lot of people aren't talented runners. However if they run with a friend or with music then it's fun. Improvement because a side benefit rather than the sole objective. This approach more sustainable mentally.\n- The person has easy access to high quality information about the activity. For example, YouTube has lots of videos on repairing stuff. People who never picked up a screwdriver can now fix things and save money. Even if the person still can't fix things, he/she at least has better information to make an informed decision on the repair.\n- The person has access to quick high-quality feedback. This feedback can come from a person (like a coach, mentor, etc) or some tool. If a mentor mentions to a new manager that he/she tends to micromanage things when a project is under a tight deadline, that person is now aware of it and can avoid causing problems with the rest of the team. Feedback can eliminate a lot of beginner mistakes and save a lot of time.\n- The person is able to look at the activity from different angles. For example, the Fosbury Flop in the High Jump event in Track and Field. Fosbury was not good at doing the high jump the \"usual\" way so he figured out a different way that worked for him.",
">\n\n\nImprovement because a side benefit rather than the sole objective\n\nIt's not likely that people will improve if they are having fun, because in order to 'improve', you need to do something that you couldn't do before. That means you have to track what you were able to do before. And usually it means pushing yourself out of your comfort zone.\n\nAccess to high quality information \nThe person has access to quick high-quality feedback.\n\nWhen people talk about talent, they imply equal training.\nThere are studies that show different muscle grows for people who are subjected to the same exercise in a controlled environment. Even if they take people with similar baselines, gains are different",
">\n\n\nIt's not likely that people will improve if they are having fun, because in order to 'improve', you need to do something that you couldn't do before. That means you have to track what you were able to do before. And usually it means pushing yourself out of your comfort zone.\n\nKids (and some young animals) often hone skills by challenging themselves or each other through play. For example, you can find groups kids who spend hours trying to do tricks with the skateboard. These kids get paid nothing and risk injury. They do it simply because it's fun to be with each other and to try new challenges. Not everyone will improve at the same rate, but people generally improve somewhat. Some talented people quit the activity because it's no longer fun.\n\n\nWhen people talk about talent, they imply equal training. \nThere are studies that show different muscle grows for people who are subjected to the same exercise in a controlled environment. Even if they take people with similar baselines, gains are different\n\nYes this is true, so I guess it comes down to what is meant by \"success.\" I interpreted success as a measure that was defined by each person. In other words, if one's proficiency is good enough for what they needed, then they're successful. The person does not need to be at the elite level. I wasn't defining it in absolute terms where a person is only successful if they are better than nearly everyone else in the world (e.g. a billionaire investor).",
">\n\n\nKids (and some young animals) often hone skills by challenging themselves or each other through play. \n\nYes. But they don't achieve greatness. Early newbie gains are easy. It gets progressively harder though",
">\n\n\nYes. But they don't achieve greatness. Early newbie gains are easy. It gets progressively harder though\n\nI see. We're working different definitions of success. For example, I can ride my bike to the park and to the other side of town. I consider that being successful because that's all the proficiency I require of that skill. I don't aspire to ride the Tour de France. \nFor the case of being an elite in a particular field or being \"great,\" talent is important, but sacrifice and luck are not negligible. Greatness comes at a cost. It can be a burden on relationships, one's mental or physical health, or money for relatively small gains. Some talented people may see that cost and choose to go another way. These people might not become great, but they might lead healthier lives. Luck is also important. Talented people have had careers cut short because of injuries, sickness, or other hardships outside of their control.",
">\n\nI think you are mis-labelling curiosity as talent. \nI am a musician & singer. I wasn't born with an ability to sing better than the person next to me. \nMy brain enjoyed music. It was curious about it. So I listened more. I imitated more... I sang out of tune for a few pre teen years... And then it all started clicking. And continues to click the more I explore that idea space. \nI'm not saying it's just work and practice. But I AM saying it is utilising brain power and time to even think about this thing.. will improve your ability. \nIt is curiosity that drives.... Not 'talent,' (which honestly I have never seen accurately defined anyway.)",
">\n\nSomething your missing is the level of talent, low or medium talent with high work ethic will beat high talent. \nLow talent will beat no talent even with hard work. Some people are just not good at something and cannot get better, but if you have talent to do the basics with a good work ethic then there is potential.\nFor example Micheal jordon didn’t make his school basket ball team. Obviously he has talent and with hard work he became better than just talent",
">\n\nIt's incredibly difficult to quantify \"natural talent.\"\nEven toddlers that display affinity for certain skills have 2-3 years of exposure to their parents interests, from art on the walls to the sort of activities they use to keep the kid busy. Is he naturally musically talented, or did his parents play a whole lot of music all the time? Is she naturally inclined towards visual art and color, or did she grow up surrounded with paintings carefully arranged in a beautifully designed environment?\nWho's actually talented?\nAnd then comes \"hard work,\" messing things up further. Because what we label \"work\" is often just play, combined with a willingness to fail. In the immortal words of Jake the Dog, \"dude, sucking at something is the first step towards being sorta good at something.\" You don't need to work to develop skill. You don't need to be good already. You just need to do it. \nSo what separates the \"hard workers\" from the \"talented hard workers?\" Is it just their final product? The hard worker who makes a better painting is more talented than the hard worker who makes something trite? Or is the first hard worker better because they were more willing to fail along the way, to try a wide variety of things regardless of how badly they do, and learn from those mistakes as they move forward? Did the second one stick to the safe, known styles and refuse to experiment and grow?\nThere are just so many confounding variables that it's not worthwhile to debate where \"talent\" ends and \"effort\" begins. Because on top of all that, some popular art just sucks. It's not widely known because it's exceptional; it's widely known because the artists are good at marketing themselves. Like the duct tape banana or Take the Money and Run, success can be divorced from ability, effort, and talent all together. Get popular by doing something stupid for everyone to see, and parlay your popularity into financial success!\nIn the end, you may as well give up on distinguishing it. Successful people are successful, and they got there in all kinds of different ways. Maybe you can try being born rich, so your parents sycophantic \"friends\" will buy your sculptures at huge markups in an effort to suck up to them? Success!",
">\n\nThis isn't relevant to the statement of my post?\nI don't think it matters if we have one singular definition of \"naturally talented\" and \"success\". We have many different definitions of it, and that's completely fine. You can draw the cutoff at whatever age you want. I'm saying that we can plug in whatever definition of \"naturally talented\" and the corresponding measure of \"success\" we want and my statement would still hold.\nIn fact what I say in my argument is precisely one of the reasons why it's hard to draw the line between talent and effort. Because they're very strongly correlated; there is no clear line in the first place.",
">\n\nThe point is that you're drawing lines without knowing what it is you're delineating. You do not know and you're coming to conclusions anyway.\nThere are far more than three variables, and the way they're tied together makes isolating any one all but impossible. Did natural talent contribute to someone's success? Can you even tell? If you can't, how can you say that talent was important for them? That guy over there's a relentlessly hard worker, but is unsuccessful. Is his failure due to lack of natural talent, or has he used poor methods to cultivate his skill? Or is he just bad at self-promotion? Or in the wrong place at the wrong time?\nYou're trying to explain something, and I'm telling you not to bother. If some weird shoe designer can set up a factory where other people make screen prints of Campbell's Soup cans, slap his name on their mass produced replicas of a stolen design, and become a legend for it, why care about present talent at all? It just doesn't matter.\nProduce to produce. Explore your interests for their own sake. And if you want success, marketing matters more than effort matters more than skill matters more than \"natural talent.\"",
">\n\n\nThe point is that you're drawing lines without knowing what it is you're delineating. You do not know and you're coming to conclusions anyway.\n\nDo I need to precisely draw the line between a sandwich and a not-sandwich in order to make the statement that \"sandwiches are usually made with bread\"? Many definitions of \"talent\" would suffice here, it doesn't matter which one I choose.\n\nThere are far more than three variables, and the way they're tied together makes isolating any one all but impossible. Did natural talent contribute to someone's success? Can you even tell? If you can't, how can you say that talent was important for them? That guy over there's a relentlessly hard worker, but is unsuccessful. Is his failure due to lack of natural talent, or has he used poor methods to cultivate his skill? Or is he just bad at self-promotion? Or in the wrong place at the wrong time?\n\nWhy would I need to be able to answer these questions to make my explanation work?",
">\n\n\nWhy would I need to be able to answer these questions to make my explanation work?\n\nBecause if the first question they asked is literally your thesis statement. If someone has natural talent and it didn't contribute to their success at all, then your theory is incorrect.\nAs far as I've read in all your comments you're basically saying, natural talent= natural work ethic. That's just not true. You're also saying natural work ethic means success or more likely for success which is also just straight up untrue. What people consider success (mostly financial) is not more likely to be achieved just because they have a natural skill. Unless you can prove direct correlation... It just falls apart.",
">\n\nIt's all relative. I used to get super annoyed when some 6 foot 10 athletic giant would talk about \"how hard he had to work\" to make it to the NBA. But then I figured it out.\nAt any given time there is 10,000 men on planet earth with the physical gifts and the accessibility to be an NBA player (made up figure). Of those only about 500 are ever actually in the NBA.\nThe difference between the 175,000,000 men (assuming they are all in US) and the 10,000 is talent. Which makes them very rare outliers.\nBut the difference between the 9,500 who are not in the NBA and the 500 who are often does come down to work ethic.\nFrom their point of view their work ethic is the reason they are in the NBA. Relative to other talented basketball players they are in the NBA because they out hustled them. Thus the statements about \"how hard he had to work\" are perfectly reasonable. Even though they sound tone deaf to guys with average height and athleticism."
] |
>
Why would people with talent also work on their skills more in the first place?
Having talent usually makes it easier and more enjoyable to work on a skill. At any one point in their lives a person has to make a choice between doing a number of tasks. With talent, a smaller amount of effort towards learning something can lead to a greater reward, and hence learning about/practicing one's skills would be a more attractive decision to make at any time. So people with talent would naturally have more of an incentive to spend more time on their skills.
Are you talking about this?
I was saying that work ethic is often relative to people who are within the same talent range. An NBA player saying that he is there because of work ethic is not necessarily too dull to comprehend he is a massive outlier. He's just comparing himself to other tall athletic guys. | [
"/u/PNKRTN (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\n\nShowing evidence/argument that work ethic isn't correlated with talent would CMV.\n\nthis is a tricky stance b/c a lot of it is subjective. \n\nwhat if \"having a strong work ethic\" is a talent in and of itself. the special forces operators talk about this all the time: they aren't inherently talented, but they have a talent for gaining talents quickly. \nwhat if i have a terrible work ethic (for things are difficult difficult for me) but the things that i pursue as fun are extremely valuable in the market? i never wash the dishes b/c that feels like work, but i constantly refine my quantum computing theories, (just a made up example). is it really work ethic if i don't feel burdened by the pursuit of the talent? \n\"success\" is determined by market demand. today we have professional video game players (either competitively or things like twitch, youtube, etc.). a generation ago the pursuit of these talents was not \"work ethic\". today, it is / could be considered. the only thing that changed was the market dynamics.",
">\n\n\nwhat if \"having a strong work ethic\" is a talent in and of itself\n\nOnly if being able to speak is a talent(not all people can do that). Most people are capable of learning good work ethics.\n\nin the market\n\nSuccess is not determined by the market. Success is being able to complete your goal. Any goal. You can successfully brush teeth.\nIt's just that usually we imply that the goal is supposed do be hard to achieve. Otherwise we wouldn't talk about it.",
">\n\nI think natural talent can be a helping factor in someone's success, but doesn't necessarily say anything about higher work ethic.\nSomeone with learned skill is likely to have built more resilience to their pursuit when they're used to the grind and have practiced the skill for hours and hours, therefore may have spent more time than someone who has it easier. \nSomeone with natural talent could be spooked way more easily when hitting a roadblock in terms of skill, or they could find their lack of challenge monotonous in itself, and it depends on the kind of person they are.\nIn various conditions the opposite could be true for both of these, so I don't believe there's any concrete correlation at all, but I can argue that hard work is a valuable asset since endurance when facing challenges is essential for success in work, so it's pretty unreasonable to assume that natural talent = better work ethic.",
">\n\n\nSomeone with learned skill is likely to have built more resilience to their pursuit when they're used to the grind and have practiced the skill for hours and hours, therefore may have spent more time than someone who has it easier.\n\nYes, but the idea here is that those who have the drive and opportunity build learned skill in the first place are usually also those with talent. \n\nSomeone with natural talent could be spooked way more easily when hitting a roadblock in terms of skill, or they could find their lack of challenge monotonous in itself, and it depends on the kind of person they are.\n\nAh, that's something I hadn't thought too much about. I've seen people leave a field of study for another because they though their previous field of study was too easy. So in contexts where lots of work is needed but little improvement can be made, it could backfire. That would put a limit in how general of a context I can make that assumption.\n!delta\nI haven't actually met anyone who was spooked out by hitting a roadblock before, though. Definitely many more bored people. Also people who were held back because being too far ahead of one's peers causes problems for other people, and ended up losing their passion for the subject...",
">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/mulberry-hunter (1∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nof course talent is a thing, not really debatable.",
">\n\n\nShowing evidence/argument that work ethic isn't correlated with talent would CMV.\n\nI didnt get work ethic from \"talent\" I got it through parental discipline. As in I was beaten bloody if I said \"no\" to feeding cows when it was -30 outside.\nSo now I own a construction company as a 26 year old and make a decent income.",
">\n\nFirst, parental discipline happens regardless of talent. This wouldn't affect the correlation much.\nSecond, while it may have worked for you, it's not clear to me that parental discipline usually leads to having a better work ethic. Many people end up depressed and with a worse work ethic, or develop a fear of certain types of work.",
">\n\n\nFirst, parental discipline happens regardless of talent. This wouldn't affect the correlation much.\n\nParental discipline happens regardless of talent, and parental discipline is associated with success, showing parental discipline to be vital to success regardless of natural talent\n\nSecond, while it may have worked for you, it's not clear to me that parental discipline usually leads to having a better work ethic. Many people end up depressed and with a worse work ethic, or develop a fear of certain types of work.\n\nThe type of discipline I am talking about doesnt allow for that.",
">\n\n\nParental discipline happens regardless of talent, and parental discipline is associated with success, showing parental discipline to be vital to success regardless of natural talent\n\nRight, so is it relevant here? Parental discipline is one of many factors of success that is independent of talent. That I entirely agree with.\nTalent is a different major factor of success. My post is an argument about why talent is a major factor of success. Does parental discipline have any bearing on that?",
">\n\nyou confuse willpower with talent, willpower is needed to persist in any activity regardless of how successful, \n\npeople with ocd will practice skills more then a talented person simply because of obsessive behavior, so mental illness or willpower are the main driving forces, talent is merely an effort multiplier",
">\n\nI am not confusing talent with willpower. You should probably read my second section, which is the core of the argument:\n\nHaving talent usually makes it easier and more enjoyable to work on a skill. At any one point in their lives a person has to make a choice between doing a number of tasks. With talent, a smaller amount of effort towards learning something can lead to a greater reward, and hence learning about/practicing one's skills would be a more attractive decision to make at any time. So people with talent would naturally have more of an incentive to spend more time on their skills.\n\nI am arguing that not only does it multiply the effect of effort, but it also encourages a person to spend more effort. And I believe the latter to be a much stronger effect than the former.",
">\n\nI'd just argue that talent is subjective. People will say Kurk Cobain was the greatest musician of all time. Others will say he sucks. Just an example.",
">\n\nAs a person with \"natural born talent\" I definitely disagree.\nIt completely depends on the area of talent. My reasoning? It's true that talented skills are things you have to work at. But that \"work ethic\" may or may not transcend the specific talent the person has. Natural talent doesn't mean natural work ethic. If their specific talent isn't useful... well they just have a talent.\nEven if I have a talent specific to a job that would make me successful, no job is going to hire me that way. I have to prove I have the skills. This proof is normally a college degree or a certificate of a trade. If you don't have those even if you'd be perfect for the job, they don't know that, and they're not going to take a chance when you can't prove you know what you're talking about.\nHard work is more important than talent. Hell, all natural talent is, is working on something from a very early age. If you look at an artist's artwork at 5, generally, it looks like a 5 year old drew it. But someone who's been drawing since that age might make masterpieces at 17, it doesn't mean they're special, it just means they've studied and practiced a lot more in one area.\nWork ethic is a basic skill everyone needs to possess to be successful but having a natural talent doesn't necessarily equal good work ethic or get you there faster.",
">\n\nI'd like to dispute the idea that people are likelier to work on a skill just because they're talented at it. In my opinion, while there are numerous other factors (such as pressure from parents), the ability to keep working at a skill is itself a talent.",
">\n\nI think knowing how to work effectively (as opposed working \"hard\") is a stronger predictor of success than talent.\nAn \"untalented\" person can become successful at something because:\n- The person does the activity because it's fun. For example, a lot of people aren't talented runners. However if they run with a friend or with music then it's fun. Improvement because a side benefit rather than the sole objective. This approach more sustainable mentally.\n- The person has easy access to high quality information about the activity. For example, YouTube has lots of videos on repairing stuff. People who never picked up a screwdriver can now fix things and save money. Even if the person still can't fix things, he/she at least has better information to make an informed decision on the repair.\n- The person has access to quick high-quality feedback. This feedback can come from a person (like a coach, mentor, etc) or some tool. If a mentor mentions to a new manager that he/she tends to micromanage things when a project is under a tight deadline, that person is now aware of it and can avoid causing problems with the rest of the team. Feedback can eliminate a lot of beginner mistakes and save a lot of time.\n- The person is able to look at the activity from different angles. For example, the Fosbury Flop in the High Jump event in Track and Field. Fosbury was not good at doing the high jump the \"usual\" way so he figured out a different way that worked for him.",
">\n\n\nImprovement because a side benefit rather than the sole objective\n\nIt's not likely that people will improve if they are having fun, because in order to 'improve', you need to do something that you couldn't do before. That means you have to track what you were able to do before. And usually it means pushing yourself out of your comfort zone.\n\nAccess to high quality information \nThe person has access to quick high-quality feedback.\n\nWhen people talk about talent, they imply equal training.\nThere are studies that show different muscle grows for people who are subjected to the same exercise in a controlled environment. Even if they take people with similar baselines, gains are different",
">\n\n\nIt's not likely that people will improve if they are having fun, because in order to 'improve', you need to do something that you couldn't do before. That means you have to track what you were able to do before. And usually it means pushing yourself out of your comfort zone.\n\nKids (and some young animals) often hone skills by challenging themselves or each other through play. For example, you can find groups kids who spend hours trying to do tricks with the skateboard. These kids get paid nothing and risk injury. They do it simply because it's fun to be with each other and to try new challenges. Not everyone will improve at the same rate, but people generally improve somewhat. Some talented people quit the activity because it's no longer fun.\n\n\nWhen people talk about talent, they imply equal training. \nThere are studies that show different muscle grows for people who are subjected to the same exercise in a controlled environment. Even if they take people with similar baselines, gains are different\n\nYes this is true, so I guess it comes down to what is meant by \"success.\" I interpreted success as a measure that was defined by each person. In other words, if one's proficiency is good enough for what they needed, then they're successful. The person does not need to be at the elite level. I wasn't defining it in absolute terms where a person is only successful if they are better than nearly everyone else in the world (e.g. a billionaire investor).",
">\n\n\nKids (and some young animals) often hone skills by challenging themselves or each other through play. \n\nYes. But they don't achieve greatness. Early newbie gains are easy. It gets progressively harder though",
">\n\n\nYes. But they don't achieve greatness. Early newbie gains are easy. It gets progressively harder though\n\nI see. We're working different definitions of success. For example, I can ride my bike to the park and to the other side of town. I consider that being successful because that's all the proficiency I require of that skill. I don't aspire to ride the Tour de France. \nFor the case of being an elite in a particular field or being \"great,\" talent is important, but sacrifice and luck are not negligible. Greatness comes at a cost. It can be a burden on relationships, one's mental or physical health, or money for relatively small gains. Some talented people may see that cost and choose to go another way. These people might not become great, but they might lead healthier lives. Luck is also important. Talented people have had careers cut short because of injuries, sickness, or other hardships outside of their control.",
">\n\nI think you are mis-labelling curiosity as talent. \nI am a musician & singer. I wasn't born with an ability to sing better than the person next to me. \nMy brain enjoyed music. It was curious about it. So I listened more. I imitated more... I sang out of tune for a few pre teen years... And then it all started clicking. And continues to click the more I explore that idea space. \nI'm not saying it's just work and practice. But I AM saying it is utilising brain power and time to even think about this thing.. will improve your ability. \nIt is curiosity that drives.... Not 'talent,' (which honestly I have never seen accurately defined anyway.)",
">\n\nSomething your missing is the level of talent, low or medium talent with high work ethic will beat high talent. \nLow talent will beat no talent even with hard work. Some people are just not good at something and cannot get better, but if you have talent to do the basics with a good work ethic then there is potential.\nFor example Micheal jordon didn’t make his school basket ball team. Obviously he has talent and with hard work he became better than just talent",
">\n\nIt's incredibly difficult to quantify \"natural talent.\"\nEven toddlers that display affinity for certain skills have 2-3 years of exposure to their parents interests, from art on the walls to the sort of activities they use to keep the kid busy. Is he naturally musically talented, or did his parents play a whole lot of music all the time? Is she naturally inclined towards visual art and color, or did she grow up surrounded with paintings carefully arranged in a beautifully designed environment?\nWho's actually talented?\nAnd then comes \"hard work,\" messing things up further. Because what we label \"work\" is often just play, combined with a willingness to fail. In the immortal words of Jake the Dog, \"dude, sucking at something is the first step towards being sorta good at something.\" You don't need to work to develop skill. You don't need to be good already. You just need to do it. \nSo what separates the \"hard workers\" from the \"talented hard workers?\" Is it just their final product? The hard worker who makes a better painting is more talented than the hard worker who makes something trite? Or is the first hard worker better because they were more willing to fail along the way, to try a wide variety of things regardless of how badly they do, and learn from those mistakes as they move forward? Did the second one stick to the safe, known styles and refuse to experiment and grow?\nThere are just so many confounding variables that it's not worthwhile to debate where \"talent\" ends and \"effort\" begins. Because on top of all that, some popular art just sucks. It's not widely known because it's exceptional; it's widely known because the artists are good at marketing themselves. Like the duct tape banana or Take the Money and Run, success can be divorced from ability, effort, and talent all together. Get popular by doing something stupid for everyone to see, and parlay your popularity into financial success!\nIn the end, you may as well give up on distinguishing it. Successful people are successful, and they got there in all kinds of different ways. Maybe you can try being born rich, so your parents sycophantic \"friends\" will buy your sculptures at huge markups in an effort to suck up to them? Success!",
">\n\nThis isn't relevant to the statement of my post?\nI don't think it matters if we have one singular definition of \"naturally talented\" and \"success\". We have many different definitions of it, and that's completely fine. You can draw the cutoff at whatever age you want. I'm saying that we can plug in whatever definition of \"naturally talented\" and the corresponding measure of \"success\" we want and my statement would still hold.\nIn fact what I say in my argument is precisely one of the reasons why it's hard to draw the line between talent and effort. Because they're very strongly correlated; there is no clear line in the first place.",
">\n\nThe point is that you're drawing lines without knowing what it is you're delineating. You do not know and you're coming to conclusions anyway.\nThere are far more than three variables, and the way they're tied together makes isolating any one all but impossible. Did natural talent contribute to someone's success? Can you even tell? If you can't, how can you say that talent was important for them? That guy over there's a relentlessly hard worker, but is unsuccessful. Is his failure due to lack of natural talent, or has he used poor methods to cultivate his skill? Or is he just bad at self-promotion? Or in the wrong place at the wrong time?\nYou're trying to explain something, and I'm telling you not to bother. If some weird shoe designer can set up a factory where other people make screen prints of Campbell's Soup cans, slap his name on their mass produced replicas of a stolen design, and become a legend for it, why care about present talent at all? It just doesn't matter.\nProduce to produce. Explore your interests for their own sake. And if you want success, marketing matters more than effort matters more than skill matters more than \"natural talent.\"",
">\n\n\nThe point is that you're drawing lines without knowing what it is you're delineating. You do not know and you're coming to conclusions anyway.\n\nDo I need to precisely draw the line between a sandwich and a not-sandwich in order to make the statement that \"sandwiches are usually made with bread\"? Many definitions of \"talent\" would suffice here, it doesn't matter which one I choose.\n\nThere are far more than three variables, and the way they're tied together makes isolating any one all but impossible. Did natural talent contribute to someone's success? Can you even tell? If you can't, how can you say that talent was important for them? That guy over there's a relentlessly hard worker, but is unsuccessful. Is his failure due to lack of natural talent, or has he used poor methods to cultivate his skill? Or is he just bad at self-promotion? Or in the wrong place at the wrong time?\n\nWhy would I need to be able to answer these questions to make my explanation work?",
">\n\n\nWhy would I need to be able to answer these questions to make my explanation work?\n\nBecause if the first question they asked is literally your thesis statement. If someone has natural talent and it didn't contribute to their success at all, then your theory is incorrect.\nAs far as I've read in all your comments you're basically saying, natural talent= natural work ethic. That's just not true. You're also saying natural work ethic means success or more likely for success which is also just straight up untrue. What people consider success (mostly financial) is not more likely to be achieved just because they have a natural skill. Unless you can prove direct correlation... It just falls apart.",
">\n\nIt's all relative. I used to get super annoyed when some 6 foot 10 athletic giant would talk about \"how hard he had to work\" to make it to the NBA. But then I figured it out.\nAt any given time there is 10,000 men on planet earth with the physical gifts and the accessibility to be an NBA player (made up figure). Of those only about 500 are ever actually in the NBA.\nThe difference between the 175,000,000 men (assuming they are all in US) and the 10,000 is talent. Which makes them very rare outliers.\nBut the difference between the 9,500 who are not in the NBA and the 500 who are often does come down to work ethic.\nFrom their point of view their work ethic is the reason they are in the NBA. Relative to other talented basketball players they are in the NBA because they out hustled them. Thus the statements about \"how hard he had to work\" are perfectly reasonable. Even though they sound tone deaf to guys with average height and athleticism.",
">\n\nI believe I addressed this in the first paragraph of the second section of my post?"
] |
>
No, I meant this:
Why this particular explanation? I acknowledge there are other ways for all three statements to be true. Most people would just say that it requires both hard work and talent to be successful. But that effect does not seem strong enough, we need something that can explain just how strong the correlation in statement (1) usually is, given how unrelated the skills are (2), and how strong the effect in (3) also is. I think the best possible explanation of why all three of these statements are true is that "hard work" is correlated with talent.
You've just said it requires both hard work and talent. Which is true, but... I don't think it's enough to explain how strongly both appear to be correlated with success. | [
"/u/PNKRTN (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\n\nShowing evidence/argument that work ethic isn't correlated with talent would CMV.\n\nthis is a tricky stance b/c a lot of it is subjective. \n\nwhat if \"having a strong work ethic\" is a talent in and of itself. the special forces operators talk about this all the time: they aren't inherently talented, but they have a talent for gaining talents quickly. \nwhat if i have a terrible work ethic (for things are difficult difficult for me) but the things that i pursue as fun are extremely valuable in the market? i never wash the dishes b/c that feels like work, but i constantly refine my quantum computing theories, (just a made up example). is it really work ethic if i don't feel burdened by the pursuit of the talent? \n\"success\" is determined by market demand. today we have professional video game players (either competitively or things like twitch, youtube, etc.). a generation ago the pursuit of these talents was not \"work ethic\". today, it is / could be considered. the only thing that changed was the market dynamics.",
">\n\n\nwhat if \"having a strong work ethic\" is a talent in and of itself\n\nOnly if being able to speak is a talent(not all people can do that). Most people are capable of learning good work ethics.\n\nin the market\n\nSuccess is not determined by the market. Success is being able to complete your goal. Any goal. You can successfully brush teeth.\nIt's just that usually we imply that the goal is supposed do be hard to achieve. Otherwise we wouldn't talk about it.",
">\n\nI think natural talent can be a helping factor in someone's success, but doesn't necessarily say anything about higher work ethic.\nSomeone with learned skill is likely to have built more resilience to their pursuit when they're used to the grind and have practiced the skill for hours and hours, therefore may have spent more time than someone who has it easier. \nSomeone with natural talent could be spooked way more easily when hitting a roadblock in terms of skill, or they could find their lack of challenge monotonous in itself, and it depends on the kind of person they are.\nIn various conditions the opposite could be true for both of these, so I don't believe there's any concrete correlation at all, but I can argue that hard work is a valuable asset since endurance when facing challenges is essential for success in work, so it's pretty unreasonable to assume that natural talent = better work ethic.",
">\n\n\nSomeone with learned skill is likely to have built more resilience to their pursuit when they're used to the grind and have practiced the skill for hours and hours, therefore may have spent more time than someone who has it easier.\n\nYes, but the idea here is that those who have the drive and opportunity build learned skill in the first place are usually also those with talent. \n\nSomeone with natural talent could be spooked way more easily when hitting a roadblock in terms of skill, or they could find their lack of challenge monotonous in itself, and it depends on the kind of person they are.\n\nAh, that's something I hadn't thought too much about. I've seen people leave a field of study for another because they though their previous field of study was too easy. So in contexts where lots of work is needed but little improvement can be made, it could backfire. That would put a limit in how general of a context I can make that assumption.\n!delta\nI haven't actually met anyone who was spooked out by hitting a roadblock before, though. Definitely many more bored people. Also people who were held back because being too far ahead of one's peers causes problems for other people, and ended up losing their passion for the subject...",
">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/mulberry-hunter (1∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nof course talent is a thing, not really debatable.",
">\n\n\nShowing evidence/argument that work ethic isn't correlated with talent would CMV.\n\nI didnt get work ethic from \"talent\" I got it through parental discipline. As in I was beaten bloody if I said \"no\" to feeding cows when it was -30 outside.\nSo now I own a construction company as a 26 year old and make a decent income.",
">\n\nFirst, parental discipline happens regardless of talent. This wouldn't affect the correlation much.\nSecond, while it may have worked for you, it's not clear to me that parental discipline usually leads to having a better work ethic. Many people end up depressed and with a worse work ethic, or develop a fear of certain types of work.",
">\n\n\nFirst, parental discipline happens regardless of talent. This wouldn't affect the correlation much.\n\nParental discipline happens regardless of talent, and parental discipline is associated with success, showing parental discipline to be vital to success regardless of natural talent\n\nSecond, while it may have worked for you, it's not clear to me that parental discipline usually leads to having a better work ethic. Many people end up depressed and with a worse work ethic, or develop a fear of certain types of work.\n\nThe type of discipline I am talking about doesnt allow for that.",
">\n\n\nParental discipline happens regardless of talent, and parental discipline is associated with success, showing parental discipline to be vital to success regardless of natural talent\n\nRight, so is it relevant here? Parental discipline is one of many factors of success that is independent of talent. That I entirely agree with.\nTalent is a different major factor of success. My post is an argument about why talent is a major factor of success. Does parental discipline have any bearing on that?",
">\n\nyou confuse willpower with talent, willpower is needed to persist in any activity regardless of how successful, \n\npeople with ocd will practice skills more then a talented person simply because of obsessive behavior, so mental illness or willpower are the main driving forces, talent is merely an effort multiplier",
">\n\nI am not confusing talent with willpower. You should probably read my second section, which is the core of the argument:\n\nHaving talent usually makes it easier and more enjoyable to work on a skill. At any one point in their lives a person has to make a choice between doing a number of tasks. With talent, a smaller amount of effort towards learning something can lead to a greater reward, and hence learning about/practicing one's skills would be a more attractive decision to make at any time. So people with talent would naturally have more of an incentive to spend more time on their skills.\n\nI am arguing that not only does it multiply the effect of effort, but it also encourages a person to spend more effort. And I believe the latter to be a much stronger effect than the former.",
">\n\nI'd just argue that talent is subjective. People will say Kurk Cobain was the greatest musician of all time. Others will say he sucks. Just an example.",
">\n\nAs a person with \"natural born talent\" I definitely disagree.\nIt completely depends on the area of talent. My reasoning? It's true that talented skills are things you have to work at. But that \"work ethic\" may or may not transcend the specific talent the person has. Natural talent doesn't mean natural work ethic. If their specific talent isn't useful... well they just have a talent.\nEven if I have a talent specific to a job that would make me successful, no job is going to hire me that way. I have to prove I have the skills. This proof is normally a college degree or a certificate of a trade. If you don't have those even if you'd be perfect for the job, they don't know that, and they're not going to take a chance when you can't prove you know what you're talking about.\nHard work is more important than talent. Hell, all natural talent is, is working on something from a very early age. If you look at an artist's artwork at 5, generally, it looks like a 5 year old drew it. But someone who's been drawing since that age might make masterpieces at 17, it doesn't mean they're special, it just means they've studied and practiced a lot more in one area.\nWork ethic is a basic skill everyone needs to possess to be successful but having a natural talent doesn't necessarily equal good work ethic or get you there faster.",
">\n\nI'd like to dispute the idea that people are likelier to work on a skill just because they're talented at it. In my opinion, while there are numerous other factors (such as pressure from parents), the ability to keep working at a skill is itself a talent.",
">\n\nI think knowing how to work effectively (as opposed working \"hard\") is a stronger predictor of success than talent.\nAn \"untalented\" person can become successful at something because:\n- The person does the activity because it's fun. For example, a lot of people aren't talented runners. However if they run with a friend or with music then it's fun. Improvement because a side benefit rather than the sole objective. This approach more sustainable mentally.\n- The person has easy access to high quality information about the activity. For example, YouTube has lots of videos on repairing stuff. People who never picked up a screwdriver can now fix things and save money. Even if the person still can't fix things, he/she at least has better information to make an informed decision on the repair.\n- The person has access to quick high-quality feedback. This feedback can come from a person (like a coach, mentor, etc) or some tool. If a mentor mentions to a new manager that he/she tends to micromanage things when a project is under a tight deadline, that person is now aware of it and can avoid causing problems with the rest of the team. Feedback can eliminate a lot of beginner mistakes and save a lot of time.\n- The person is able to look at the activity from different angles. For example, the Fosbury Flop in the High Jump event in Track and Field. Fosbury was not good at doing the high jump the \"usual\" way so he figured out a different way that worked for him.",
">\n\n\nImprovement because a side benefit rather than the sole objective\n\nIt's not likely that people will improve if they are having fun, because in order to 'improve', you need to do something that you couldn't do before. That means you have to track what you were able to do before. And usually it means pushing yourself out of your comfort zone.\n\nAccess to high quality information \nThe person has access to quick high-quality feedback.\n\nWhen people talk about talent, they imply equal training.\nThere are studies that show different muscle grows for people who are subjected to the same exercise in a controlled environment. Even if they take people with similar baselines, gains are different",
">\n\n\nIt's not likely that people will improve if they are having fun, because in order to 'improve', you need to do something that you couldn't do before. That means you have to track what you were able to do before. And usually it means pushing yourself out of your comfort zone.\n\nKids (and some young animals) often hone skills by challenging themselves or each other through play. For example, you can find groups kids who spend hours trying to do tricks with the skateboard. These kids get paid nothing and risk injury. They do it simply because it's fun to be with each other and to try new challenges. Not everyone will improve at the same rate, but people generally improve somewhat. Some talented people quit the activity because it's no longer fun.\n\n\nWhen people talk about talent, they imply equal training. \nThere are studies that show different muscle grows for people who are subjected to the same exercise in a controlled environment. Even if they take people with similar baselines, gains are different\n\nYes this is true, so I guess it comes down to what is meant by \"success.\" I interpreted success as a measure that was defined by each person. In other words, if one's proficiency is good enough for what they needed, then they're successful. The person does not need to be at the elite level. I wasn't defining it in absolute terms where a person is only successful if they are better than nearly everyone else in the world (e.g. a billionaire investor).",
">\n\n\nKids (and some young animals) often hone skills by challenging themselves or each other through play. \n\nYes. But they don't achieve greatness. Early newbie gains are easy. It gets progressively harder though",
">\n\n\nYes. But they don't achieve greatness. Early newbie gains are easy. It gets progressively harder though\n\nI see. We're working different definitions of success. For example, I can ride my bike to the park and to the other side of town. I consider that being successful because that's all the proficiency I require of that skill. I don't aspire to ride the Tour de France. \nFor the case of being an elite in a particular field or being \"great,\" talent is important, but sacrifice and luck are not negligible. Greatness comes at a cost. It can be a burden on relationships, one's mental or physical health, or money for relatively small gains. Some talented people may see that cost and choose to go another way. These people might not become great, but they might lead healthier lives. Luck is also important. Talented people have had careers cut short because of injuries, sickness, or other hardships outside of their control.",
">\n\nI think you are mis-labelling curiosity as talent. \nI am a musician & singer. I wasn't born with an ability to sing better than the person next to me. \nMy brain enjoyed music. It was curious about it. So I listened more. I imitated more... I sang out of tune for a few pre teen years... And then it all started clicking. And continues to click the more I explore that idea space. \nI'm not saying it's just work and practice. But I AM saying it is utilising brain power and time to even think about this thing.. will improve your ability. \nIt is curiosity that drives.... Not 'talent,' (which honestly I have never seen accurately defined anyway.)",
">\n\nSomething your missing is the level of talent, low or medium talent with high work ethic will beat high talent. \nLow talent will beat no talent even with hard work. Some people are just not good at something and cannot get better, but if you have talent to do the basics with a good work ethic then there is potential.\nFor example Micheal jordon didn’t make his school basket ball team. Obviously he has talent and with hard work he became better than just talent",
">\n\nIt's incredibly difficult to quantify \"natural talent.\"\nEven toddlers that display affinity for certain skills have 2-3 years of exposure to their parents interests, from art on the walls to the sort of activities they use to keep the kid busy. Is he naturally musically talented, or did his parents play a whole lot of music all the time? Is she naturally inclined towards visual art and color, or did she grow up surrounded with paintings carefully arranged in a beautifully designed environment?\nWho's actually talented?\nAnd then comes \"hard work,\" messing things up further. Because what we label \"work\" is often just play, combined with a willingness to fail. In the immortal words of Jake the Dog, \"dude, sucking at something is the first step towards being sorta good at something.\" You don't need to work to develop skill. You don't need to be good already. You just need to do it. \nSo what separates the \"hard workers\" from the \"talented hard workers?\" Is it just their final product? The hard worker who makes a better painting is more talented than the hard worker who makes something trite? Or is the first hard worker better because they were more willing to fail along the way, to try a wide variety of things regardless of how badly they do, and learn from those mistakes as they move forward? Did the second one stick to the safe, known styles and refuse to experiment and grow?\nThere are just so many confounding variables that it's not worthwhile to debate where \"talent\" ends and \"effort\" begins. Because on top of all that, some popular art just sucks. It's not widely known because it's exceptional; it's widely known because the artists are good at marketing themselves. Like the duct tape banana or Take the Money and Run, success can be divorced from ability, effort, and talent all together. Get popular by doing something stupid for everyone to see, and parlay your popularity into financial success!\nIn the end, you may as well give up on distinguishing it. Successful people are successful, and they got there in all kinds of different ways. Maybe you can try being born rich, so your parents sycophantic \"friends\" will buy your sculptures at huge markups in an effort to suck up to them? Success!",
">\n\nThis isn't relevant to the statement of my post?\nI don't think it matters if we have one singular definition of \"naturally talented\" and \"success\". We have many different definitions of it, and that's completely fine. You can draw the cutoff at whatever age you want. I'm saying that we can plug in whatever definition of \"naturally talented\" and the corresponding measure of \"success\" we want and my statement would still hold.\nIn fact what I say in my argument is precisely one of the reasons why it's hard to draw the line between talent and effort. Because they're very strongly correlated; there is no clear line in the first place.",
">\n\nThe point is that you're drawing lines without knowing what it is you're delineating. You do not know and you're coming to conclusions anyway.\nThere are far more than three variables, and the way they're tied together makes isolating any one all but impossible. Did natural talent contribute to someone's success? Can you even tell? If you can't, how can you say that talent was important for them? That guy over there's a relentlessly hard worker, but is unsuccessful. Is his failure due to lack of natural talent, or has he used poor methods to cultivate his skill? Or is he just bad at self-promotion? Or in the wrong place at the wrong time?\nYou're trying to explain something, and I'm telling you not to bother. If some weird shoe designer can set up a factory where other people make screen prints of Campbell's Soup cans, slap his name on their mass produced replicas of a stolen design, and become a legend for it, why care about present talent at all? It just doesn't matter.\nProduce to produce. Explore your interests for their own sake. And if you want success, marketing matters more than effort matters more than skill matters more than \"natural talent.\"",
">\n\n\nThe point is that you're drawing lines without knowing what it is you're delineating. You do not know and you're coming to conclusions anyway.\n\nDo I need to precisely draw the line between a sandwich and a not-sandwich in order to make the statement that \"sandwiches are usually made with bread\"? Many definitions of \"talent\" would suffice here, it doesn't matter which one I choose.\n\nThere are far more than three variables, and the way they're tied together makes isolating any one all but impossible. Did natural talent contribute to someone's success? Can you even tell? If you can't, how can you say that talent was important for them? That guy over there's a relentlessly hard worker, but is unsuccessful. Is his failure due to lack of natural talent, or has he used poor methods to cultivate his skill? Or is he just bad at self-promotion? Or in the wrong place at the wrong time?\n\nWhy would I need to be able to answer these questions to make my explanation work?",
">\n\n\nWhy would I need to be able to answer these questions to make my explanation work?\n\nBecause if the first question they asked is literally your thesis statement. If someone has natural talent and it didn't contribute to their success at all, then your theory is incorrect.\nAs far as I've read in all your comments you're basically saying, natural talent= natural work ethic. That's just not true. You're also saying natural work ethic means success or more likely for success which is also just straight up untrue. What people consider success (mostly financial) is not more likely to be achieved just because they have a natural skill. Unless you can prove direct correlation... It just falls apart.",
">\n\nIt's all relative. I used to get super annoyed when some 6 foot 10 athletic giant would talk about \"how hard he had to work\" to make it to the NBA. But then I figured it out.\nAt any given time there is 10,000 men on planet earth with the physical gifts and the accessibility to be an NBA player (made up figure). Of those only about 500 are ever actually in the NBA.\nThe difference between the 175,000,000 men (assuming they are all in US) and the 10,000 is talent. Which makes them very rare outliers.\nBut the difference between the 9,500 who are not in the NBA and the 500 who are often does come down to work ethic.\nFrom their point of view their work ethic is the reason they are in the NBA. Relative to other talented basketball players they are in the NBA because they out hustled them. Thus the statements about \"how hard he had to work\" are perfectly reasonable. Even though they sound tone deaf to guys with average height and athleticism.",
">\n\nI believe I addressed this in the first paragraph of the second section of my post?",
">\n\n\nWhy would people with talent also work on their skills more in the first place? \nHaving talent usually makes it easier and more enjoyable to work on a skill. At any one point in their lives a person has to make a choice between doing a number of tasks. With talent, a smaller amount of effort towards learning something can lead to a greater reward, and hence learning about/practicing one's skills would be a more attractive decision to make at any time. So people with talent would naturally have more of an incentive to spend more time on their skills.\n\nAre you talking about this?\nI was saying that work ethic is often relative to people who are within the same talent range. An NBA player saying that he is there because of work ethic is not necessarily too dull to comprehend he is a massive outlier. He's just comparing himself to other tall athletic guys."
] |
>
As Bob Ross said, "Talent is a pursued interest." | [
"/u/PNKRTN (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\n\nShowing evidence/argument that work ethic isn't correlated with talent would CMV.\n\nthis is a tricky stance b/c a lot of it is subjective. \n\nwhat if \"having a strong work ethic\" is a talent in and of itself. the special forces operators talk about this all the time: they aren't inherently talented, but they have a talent for gaining talents quickly. \nwhat if i have a terrible work ethic (for things are difficult difficult for me) but the things that i pursue as fun are extremely valuable in the market? i never wash the dishes b/c that feels like work, but i constantly refine my quantum computing theories, (just a made up example). is it really work ethic if i don't feel burdened by the pursuit of the talent? \n\"success\" is determined by market demand. today we have professional video game players (either competitively or things like twitch, youtube, etc.). a generation ago the pursuit of these talents was not \"work ethic\". today, it is / could be considered. the only thing that changed was the market dynamics.",
">\n\n\nwhat if \"having a strong work ethic\" is a talent in and of itself\n\nOnly if being able to speak is a talent(not all people can do that). Most people are capable of learning good work ethics.\n\nin the market\n\nSuccess is not determined by the market. Success is being able to complete your goal. Any goal. You can successfully brush teeth.\nIt's just that usually we imply that the goal is supposed do be hard to achieve. Otherwise we wouldn't talk about it.",
">\n\nI think natural talent can be a helping factor in someone's success, but doesn't necessarily say anything about higher work ethic.\nSomeone with learned skill is likely to have built more resilience to their pursuit when they're used to the grind and have practiced the skill for hours and hours, therefore may have spent more time than someone who has it easier. \nSomeone with natural talent could be spooked way more easily when hitting a roadblock in terms of skill, or they could find their lack of challenge monotonous in itself, and it depends on the kind of person they are.\nIn various conditions the opposite could be true for both of these, so I don't believe there's any concrete correlation at all, but I can argue that hard work is a valuable asset since endurance when facing challenges is essential for success in work, so it's pretty unreasonable to assume that natural talent = better work ethic.",
">\n\n\nSomeone with learned skill is likely to have built more resilience to their pursuit when they're used to the grind and have practiced the skill for hours and hours, therefore may have spent more time than someone who has it easier.\n\nYes, but the idea here is that those who have the drive and opportunity build learned skill in the first place are usually also those with talent. \n\nSomeone with natural talent could be spooked way more easily when hitting a roadblock in terms of skill, or they could find their lack of challenge monotonous in itself, and it depends on the kind of person they are.\n\nAh, that's something I hadn't thought too much about. I've seen people leave a field of study for another because they though their previous field of study was too easy. So in contexts where lots of work is needed but little improvement can be made, it could backfire. That would put a limit in how general of a context I can make that assumption.\n!delta\nI haven't actually met anyone who was spooked out by hitting a roadblock before, though. Definitely many more bored people. Also people who were held back because being too far ahead of one's peers causes problems for other people, and ended up losing their passion for the subject...",
">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/mulberry-hunter (1∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nof course talent is a thing, not really debatable.",
">\n\n\nShowing evidence/argument that work ethic isn't correlated with talent would CMV.\n\nI didnt get work ethic from \"talent\" I got it through parental discipline. As in I was beaten bloody if I said \"no\" to feeding cows when it was -30 outside.\nSo now I own a construction company as a 26 year old and make a decent income.",
">\n\nFirst, parental discipline happens regardless of talent. This wouldn't affect the correlation much.\nSecond, while it may have worked for you, it's not clear to me that parental discipline usually leads to having a better work ethic. Many people end up depressed and with a worse work ethic, or develop a fear of certain types of work.",
">\n\n\nFirst, parental discipline happens regardless of talent. This wouldn't affect the correlation much.\n\nParental discipline happens regardless of talent, and parental discipline is associated with success, showing parental discipline to be vital to success regardless of natural talent\n\nSecond, while it may have worked for you, it's not clear to me that parental discipline usually leads to having a better work ethic. Many people end up depressed and with a worse work ethic, or develop a fear of certain types of work.\n\nThe type of discipline I am talking about doesnt allow for that.",
">\n\n\nParental discipline happens regardless of talent, and parental discipline is associated with success, showing parental discipline to be vital to success regardless of natural talent\n\nRight, so is it relevant here? Parental discipline is one of many factors of success that is independent of talent. That I entirely agree with.\nTalent is a different major factor of success. My post is an argument about why talent is a major factor of success. Does parental discipline have any bearing on that?",
">\n\nyou confuse willpower with talent, willpower is needed to persist in any activity regardless of how successful, \n\npeople with ocd will practice skills more then a talented person simply because of obsessive behavior, so mental illness or willpower are the main driving forces, talent is merely an effort multiplier",
">\n\nI am not confusing talent with willpower. You should probably read my second section, which is the core of the argument:\n\nHaving talent usually makes it easier and more enjoyable to work on a skill. At any one point in their lives a person has to make a choice between doing a number of tasks. With talent, a smaller amount of effort towards learning something can lead to a greater reward, and hence learning about/practicing one's skills would be a more attractive decision to make at any time. So people with talent would naturally have more of an incentive to spend more time on their skills.\n\nI am arguing that not only does it multiply the effect of effort, but it also encourages a person to spend more effort. And I believe the latter to be a much stronger effect than the former.",
">\n\nI'd just argue that talent is subjective. People will say Kurk Cobain was the greatest musician of all time. Others will say he sucks. Just an example.",
">\n\nAs a person with \"natural born talent\" I definitely disagree.\nIt completely depends on the area of talent. My reasoning? It's true that talented skills are things you have to work at. But that \"work ethic\" may or may not transcend the specific talent the person has. Natural talent doesn't mean natural work ethic. If their specific talent isn't useful... well they just have a talent.\nEven if I have a talent specific to a job that would make me successful, no job is going to hire me that way. I have to prove I have the skills. This proof is normally a college degree or a certificate of a trade. If you don't have those even if you'd be perfect for the job, they don't know that, and they're not going to take a chance when you can't prove you know what you're talking about.\nHard work is more important than talent. Hell, all natural talent is, is working on something from a very early age. If you look at an artist's artwork at 5, generally, it looks like a 5 year old drew it. But someone who's been drawing since that age might make masterpieces at 17, it doesn't mean they're special, it just means they've studied and practiced a lot more in one area.\nWork ethic is a basic skill everyone needs to possess to be successful but having a natural talent doesn't necessarily equal good work ethic or get you there faster.",
">\n\nI'd like to dispute the idea that people are likelier to work on a skill just because they're talented at it. In my opinion, while there are numerous other factors (such as pressure from parents), the ability to keep working at a skill is itself a talent.",
">\n\nI think knowing how to work effectively (as opposed working \"hard\") is a stronger predictor of success than talent.\nAn \"untalented\" person can become successful at something because:\n- The person does the activity because it's fun. For example, a lot of people aren't talented runners. However if they run with a friend or with music then it's fun. Improvement because a side benefit rather than the sole objective. This approach more sustainable mentally.\n- The person has easy access to high quality information about the activity. For example, YouTube has lots of videos on repairing stuff. People who never picked up a screwdriver can now fix things and save money. Even if the person still can't fix things, he/she at least has better information to make an informed decision on the repair.\n- The person has access to quick high-quality feedback. This feedback can come from a person (like a coach, mentor, etc) or some tool. If a mentor mentions to a new manager that he/she tends to micromanage things when a project is under a tight deadline, that person is now aware of it and can avoid causing problems with the rest of the team. Feedback can eliminate a lot of beginner mistakes and save a lot of time.\n- The person is able to look at the activity from different angles. For example, the Fosbury Flop in the High Jump event in Track and Field. Fosbury was not good at doing the high jump the \"usual\" way so he figured out a different way that worked for him.",
">\n\n\nImprovement because a side benefit rather than the sole objective\n\nIt's not likely that people will improve if they are having fun, because in order to 'improve', you need to do something that you couldn't do before. That means you have to track what you were able to do before. And usually it means pushing yourself out of your comfort zone.\n\nAccess to high quality information \nThe person has access to quick high-quality feedback.\n\nWhen people talk about talent, they imply equal training.\nThere are studies that show different muscle grows for people who are subjected to the same exercise in a controlled environment. Even if they take people with similar baselines, gains are different",
">\n\n\nIt's not likely that people will improve if they are having fun, because in order to 'improve', you need to do something that you couldn't do before. That means you have to track what you were able to do before. And usually it means pushing yourself out of your comfort zone.\n\nKids (and some young animals) often hone skills by challenging themselves or each other through play. For example, you can find groups kids who spend hours trying to do tricks with the skateboard. These kids get paid nothing and risk injury. They do it simply because it's fun to be with each other and to try new challenges. Not everyone will improve at the same rate, but people generally improve somewhat. Some talented people quit the activity because it's no longer fun.\n\n\nWhen people talk about talent, they imply equal training. \nThere are studies that show different muscle grows for people who are subjected to the same exercise in a controlled environment. Even if they take people with similar baselines, gains are different\n\nYes this is true, so I guess it comes down to what is meant by \"success.\" I interpreted success as a measure that was defined by each person. In other words, if one's proficiency is good enough for what they needed, then they're successful. The person does not need to be at the elite level. I wasn't defining it in absolute terms where a person is only successful if they are better than nearly everyone else in the world (e.g. a billionaire investor).",
">\n\n\nKids (and some young animals) often hone skills by challenging themselves or each other through play. \n\nYes. But they don't achieve greatness. Early newbie gains are easy. It gets progressively harder though",
">\n\n\nYes. But they don't achieve greatness. Early newbie gains are easy. It gets progressively harder though\n\nI see. We're working different definitions of success. For example, I can ride my bike to the park and to the other side of town. I consider that being successful because that's all the proficiency I require of that skill. I don't aspire to ride the Tour de France. \nFor the case of being an elite in a particular field or being \"great,\" talent is important, but sacrifice and luck are not negligible. Greatness comes at a cost. It can be a burden on relationships, one's mental or physical health, or money for relatively small gains. Some talented people may see that cost and choose to go another way. These people might not become great, but they might lead healthier lives. Luck is also important. Talented people have had careers cut short because of injuries, sickness, or other hardships outside of their control.",
">\n\nI think you are mis-labelling curiosity as talent. \nI am a musician & singer. I wasn't born with an ability to sing better than the person next to me. \nMy brain enjoyed music. It was curious about it. So I listened more. I imitated more... I sang out of tune for a few pre teen years... And then it all started clicking. And continues to click the more I explore that idea space. \nI'm not saying it's just work and practice. But I AM saying it is utilising brain power and time to even think about this thing.. will improve your ability. \nIt is curiosity that drives.... Not 'talent,' (which honestly I have never seen accurately defined anyway.)",
">\n\nSomething your missing is the level of talent, low or medium talent with high work ethic will beat high talent. \nLow talent will beat no talent even with hard work. Some people are just not good at something and cannot get better, but if you have talent to do the basics with a good work ethic then there is potential.\nFor example Micheal jordon didn’t make his school basket ball team. Obviously he has talent and with hard work he became better than just talent",
">\n\nIt's incredibly difficult to quantify \"natural talent.\"\nEven toddlers that display affinity for certain skills have 2-3 years of exposure to their parents interests, from art on the walls to the sort of activities they use to keep the kid busy. Is he naturally musically talented, or did his parents play a whole lot of music all the time? Is she naturally inclined towards visual art and color, or did she grow up surrounded with paintings carefully arranged in a beautifully designed environment?\nWho's actually talented?\nAnd then comes \"hard work,\" messing things up further. Because what we label \"work\" is often just play, combined with a willingness to fail. In the immortal words of Jake the Dog, \"dude, sucking at something is the first step towards being sorta good at something.\" You don't need to work to develop skill. You don't need to be good already. You just need to do it. \nSo what separates the \"hard workers\" from the \"talented hard workers?\" Is it just their final product? The hard worker who makes a better painting is more talented than the hard worker who makes something trite? Or is the first hard worker better because they were more willing to fail along the way, to try a wide variety of things regardless of how badly they do, and learn from those mistakes as they move forward? Did the second one stick to the safe, known styles and refuse to experiment and grow?\nThere are just so many confounding variables that it's not worthwhile to debate where \"talent\" ends and \"effort\" begins. Because on top of all that, some popular art just sucks. It's not widely known because it's exceptional; it's widely known because the artists are good at marketing themselves. Like the duct tape banana or Take the Money and Run, success can be divorced from ability, effort, and talent all together. Get popular by doing something stupid for everyone to see, and parlay your popularity into financial success!\nIn the end, you may as well give up on distinguishing it. Successful people are successful, and they got there in all kinds of different ways. Maybe you can try being born rich, so your parents sycophantic \"friends\" will buy your sculptures at huge markups in an effort to suck up to them? Success!",
">\n\nThis isn't relevant to the statement of my post?\nI don't think it matters if we have one singular definition of \"naturally talented\" and \"success\". We have many different definitions of it, and that's completely fine. You can draw the cutoff at whatever age you want. I'm saying that we can plug in whatever definition of \"naturally talented\" and the corresponding measure of \"success\" we want and my statement would still hold.\nIn fact what I say in my argument is precisely one of the reasons why it's hard to draw the line between talent and effort. Because they're very strongly correlated; there is no clear line in the first place.",
">\n\nThe point is that you're drawing lines without knowing what it is you're delineating. You do not know and you're coming to conclusions anyway.\nThere are far more than three variables, and the way they're tied together makes isolating any one all but impossible. Did natural talent contribute to someone's success? Can you even tell? If you can't, how can you say that talent was important for them? That guy over there's a relentlessly hard worker, but is unsuccessful. Is his failure due to lack of natural talent, or has he used poor methods to cultivate his skill? Or is he just bad at self-promotion? Or in the wrong place at the wrong time?\nYou're trying to explain something, and I'm telling you not to bother. If some weird shoe designer can set up a factory where other people make screen prints of Campbell's Soup cans, slap his name on their mass produced replicas of a stolen design, and become a legend for it, why care about present talent at all? It just doesn't matter.\nProduce to produce. Explore your interests for their own sake. And if you want success, marketing matters more than effort matters more than skill matters more than \"natural talent.\"",
">\n\n\nThe point is that you're drawing lines without knowing what it is you're delineating. You do not know and you're coming to conclusions anyway.\n\nDo I need to precisely draw the line between a sandwich and a not-sandwich in order to make the statement that \"sandwiches are usually made with bread\"? Many definitions of \"talent\" would suffice here, it doesn't matter which one I choose.\n\nThere are far more than three variables, and the way they're tied together makes isolating any one all but impossible. Did natural talent contribute to someone's success? Can you even tell? If you can't, how can you say that talent was important for them? That guy over there's a relentlessly hard worker, but is unsuccessful. Is his failure due to lack of natural talent, or has he used poor methods to cultivate his skill? Or is he just bad at self-promotion? Or in the wrong place at the wrong time?\n\nWhy would I need to be able to answer these questions to make my explanation work?",
">\n\n\nWhy would I need to be able to answer these questions to make my explanation work?\n\nBecause if the first question they asked is literally your thesis statement. If someone has natural talent and it didn't contribute to their success at all, then your theory is incorrect.\nAs far as I've read in all your comments you're basically saying, natural talent= natural work ethic. That's just not true. You're also saying natural work ethic means success or more likely for success which is also just straight up untrue. What people consider success (mostly financial) is not more likely to be achieved just because they have a natural skill. Unless you can prove direct correlation... It just falls apart.",
">\n\nIt's all relative. I used to get super annoyed when some 6 foot 10 athletic giant would talk about \"how hard he had to work\" to make it to the NBA. But then I figured it out.\nAt any given time there is 10,000 men on planet earth with the physical gifts and the accessibility to be an NBA player (made up figure). Of those only about 500 are ever actually in the NBA.\nThe difference between the 175,000,000 men (assuming they are all in US) and the 10,000 is talent. Which makes them very rare outliers.\nBut the difference between the 9,500 who are not in the NBA and the 500 who are often does come down to work ethic.\nFrom their point of view their work ethic is the reason they are in the NBA. Relative to other talented basketball players they are in the NBA because they out hustled them. Thus the statements about \"how hard he had to work\" are perfectly reasonable. Even though they sound tone deaf to guys with average height and athleticism.",
">\n\nI believe I addressed this in the first paragraph of the second section of my post?",
">\n\n\nWhy would people with talent also work on their skills more in the first place? \nHaving talent usually makes it easier and more enjoyable to work on a skill. At any one point in their lives a person has to make a choice between doing a number of tasks. With talent, a smaller amount of effort towards learning something can lead to a greater reward, and hence learning about/practicing one's skills would be a more attractive decision to make at any time. So people with talent would naturally have more of an incentive to spend more time on their skills.\n\nAre you talking about this?\nI was saying that work ethic is often relative to people who are within the same talent range. An NBA player saying that he is there because of work ethic is not necessarily too dull to comprehend he is a massive outlier. He's just comparing himself to other tall athletic guys.",
">\n\nNo, I meant this:\n\nWhy this particular explanation? I acknowledge there are other ways for all three statements to be true. Most people would just say that it requires both hard work and talent to be successful. But that effect does not seem strong enough, we need something that can explain just how strong the correlation in statement (1) usually is, given how unrelated the skills are (2), and how strong the effect in (3) also is. I think the best possible explanation of why all three of these statements are true is that \"hard work\" is correlated with talent.\n\nYou've just said it requires both hard work and talent. Which is true, but... I don't think it's enough to explain how strongly both appear to be correlated with success."
] |
> | [
"/u/PNKRTN (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\n\nShowing evidence/argument that work ethic isn't correlated with talent would CMV.\n\nthis is a tricky stance b/c a lot of it is subjective. \n\nwhat if \"having a strong work ethic\" is a talent in and of itself. the special forces operators talk about this all the time: they aren't inherently talented, but they have a talent for gaining talents quickly. \nwhat if i have a terrible work ethic (for things are difficult difficult for me) but the things that i pursue as fun are extremely valuable in the market? i never wash the dishes b/c that feels like work, but i constantly refine my quantum computing theories, (just a made up example). is it really work ethic if i don't feel burdened by the pursuit of the talent? \n\"success\" is determined by market demand. today we have professional video game players (either competitively or things like twitch, youtube, etc.). a generation ago the pursuit of these talents was not \"work ethic\". today, it is / could be considered. the only thing that changed was the market dynamics.",
">\n\n\nwhat if \"having a strong work ethic\" is a talent in and of itself\n\nOnly if being able to speak is a talent(not all people can do that). Most people are capable of learning good work ethics.\n\nin the market\n\nSuccess is not determined by the market. Success is being able to complete your goal. Any goal. You can successfully brush teeth.\nIt's just that usually we imply that the goal is supposed do be hard to achieve. Otherwise we wouldn't talk about it.",
">\n\nI think natural talent can be a helping factor in someone's success, but doesn't necessarily say anything about higher work ethic.\nSomeone with learned skill is likely to have built more resilience to their pursuit when they're used to the grind and have practiced the skill for hours and hours, therefore may have spent more time than someone who has it easier. \nSomeone with natural talent could be spooked way more easily when hitting a roadblock in terms of skill, or they could find their lack of challenge monotonous in itself, and it depends on the kind of person they are.\nIn various conditions the opposite could be true for both of these, so I don't believe there's any concrete correlation at all, but I can argue that hard work is a valuable asset since endurance when facing challenges is essential for success in work, so it's pretty unreasonable to assume that natural talent = better work ethic.",
">\n\n\nSomeone with learned skill is likely to have built more resilience to their pursuit when they're used to the grind and have practiced the skill for hours and hours, therefore may have spent more time than someone who has it easier.\n\nYes, but the idea here is that those who have the drive and opportunity build learned skill in the first place are usually also those with talent. \n\nSomeone with natural talent could be spooked way more easily when hitting a roadblock in terms of skill, or they could find their lack of challenge monotonous in itself, and it depends on the kind of person they are.\n\nAh, that's something I hadn't thought too much about. I've seen people leave a field of study for another because they though their previous field of study was too easy. So in contexts where lots of work is needed but little improvement can be made, it could backfire. That would put a limit in how general of a context I can make that assumption.\n!delta\nI haven't actually met anyone who was spooked out by hitting a roadblock before, though. Definitely many more bored people. Also people who were held back because being too far ahead of one's peers causes problems for other people, and ended up losing their passion for the subject...",
">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/mulberry-hunter (1∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nof course talent is a thing, not really debatable.",
">\n\n\nShowing evidence/argument that work ethic isn't correlated with talent would CMV.\n\nI didnt get work ethic from \"talent\" I got it through parental discipline. As in I was beaten bloody if I said \"no\" to feeding cows when it was -30 outside.\nSo now I own a construction company as a 26 year old and make a decent income.",
">\n\nFirst, parental discipline happens regardless of talent. This wouldn't affect the correlation much.\nSecond, while it may have worked for you, it's not clear to me that parental discipline usually leads to having a better work ethic. Many people end up depressed and with a worse work ethic, or develop a fear of certain types of work.",
">\n\n\nFirst, parental discipline happens regardless of talent. This wouldn't affect the correlation much.\n\nParental discipline happens regardless of talent, and parental discipline is associated with success, showing parental discipline to be vital to success regardless of natural talent\n\nSecond, while it may have worked for you, it's not clear to me that parental discipline usually leads to having a better work ethic. Many people end up depressed and with a worse work ethic, or develop a fear of certain types of work.\n\nThe type of discipline I am talking about doesnt allow for that.",
">\n\n\nParental discipline happens regardless of talent, and parental discipline is associated with success, showing parental discipline to be vital to success regardless of natural talent\n\nRight, so is it relevant here? Parental discipline is one of many factors of success that is independent of talent. That I entirely agree with.\nTalent is a different major factor of success. My post is an argument about why talent is a major factor of success. Does parental discipline have any bearing on that?",
">\n\nyou confuse willpower with talent, willpower is needed to persist in any activity regardless of how successful, \n\npeople with ocd will practice skills more then a talented person simply because of obsessive behavior, so mental illness or willpower are the main driving forces, talent is merely an effort multiplier",
">\n\nI am not confusing talent with willpower. You should probably read my second section, which is the core of the argument:\n\nHaving talent usually makes it easier and more enjoyable to work on a skill. At any one point in their lives a person has to make a choice between doing a number of tasks. With talent, a smaller amount of effort towards learning something can lead to a greater reward, and hence learning about/practicing one's skills would be a more attractive decision to make at any time. So people with talent would naturally have more of an incentive to spend more time on their skills.\n\nI am arguing that not only does it multiply the effect of effort, but it also encourages a person to spend more effort. And I believe the latter to be a much stronger effect than the former.",
">\n\nI'd just argue that talent is subjective. People will say Kurk Cobain was the greatest musician of all time. Others will say he sucks. Just an example.",
">\n\nAs a person with \"natural born talent\" I definitely disagree.\nIt completely depends on the area of talent. My reasoning? It's true that talented skills are things you have to work at. But that \"work ethic\" may or may not transcend the specific talent the person has. Natural talent doesn't mean natural work ethic. If their specific talent isn't useful... well they just have a talent.\nEven if I have a talent specific to a job that would make me successful, no job is going to hire me that way. I have to prove I have the skills. This proof is normally a college degree or a certificate of a trade. If you don't have those even if you'd be perfect for the job, they don't know that, and they're not going to take a chance when you can't prove you know what you're talking about.\nHard work is more important than talent. Hell, all natural talent is, is working on something from a very early age. If you look at an artist's artwork at 5, generally, it looks like a 5 year old drew it. But someone who's been drawing since that age might make masterpieces at 17, it doesn't mean they're special, it just means they've studied and practiced a lot more in one area.\nWork ethic is a basic skill everyone needs to possess to be successful but having a natural talent doesn't necessarily equal good work ethic or get you there faster.",
">\n\nI'd like to dispute the idea that people are likelier to work on a skill just because they're talented at it. In my opinion, while there are numerous other factors (such as pressure from parents), the ability to keep working at a skill is itself a talent.",
">\n\nI think knowing how to work effectively (as opposed working \"hard\") is a stronger predictor of success than talent.\nAn \"untalented\" person can become successful at something because:\n- The person does the activity because it's fun. For example, a lot of people aren't talented runners. However if they run with a friend or with music then it's fun. Improvement because a side benefit rather than the sole objective. This approach more sustainable mentally.\n- The person has easy access to high quality information about the activity. For example, YouTube has lots of videos on repairing stuff. People who never picked up a screwdriver can now fix things and save money. Even if the person still can't fix things, he/she at least has better information to make an informed decision on the repair.\n- The person has access to quick high-quality feedback. This feedback can come from a person (like a coach, mentor, etc) or some tool. If a mentor mentions to a new manager that he/she tends to micromanage things when a project is under a tight deadline, that person is now aware of it and can avoid causing problems with the rest of the team. Feedback can eliminate a lot of beginner mistakes and save a lot of time.\n- The person is able to look at the activity from different angles. For example, the Fosbury Flop in the High Jump event in Track and Field. Fosbury was not good at doing the high jump the \"usual\" way so he figured out a different way that worked for him.",
">\n\n\nImprovement because a side benefit rather than the sole objective\n\nIt's not likely that people will improve if they are having fun, because in order to 'improve', you need to do something that you couldn't do before. That means you have to track what you were able to do before. And usually it means pushing yourself out of your comfort zone.\n\nAccess to high quality information \nThe person has access to quick high-quality feedback.\n\nWhen people talk about talent, they imply equal training.\nThere are studies that show different muscle grows for people who are subjected to the same exercise in a controlled environment. Even if they take people with similar baselines, gains are different",
">\n\n\nIt's not likely that people will improve if they are having fun, because in order to 'improve', you need to do something that you couldn't do before. That means you have to track what you were able to do before. And usually it means pushing yourself out of your comfort zone.\n\nKids (and some young animals) often hone skills by challenging themselves or each other through play. For example, you can find groups kids who spend hours trying to do tricks with the skateboard. These kids get paid nothing and risk injury. They do it simply because it's fun to be with each other and to try new challenges. Not everyone will improve at the same rate, but people generally improve somewhat. Some talented people quit the activity because it's no longer fun.\n\n\nWhen people talk about talent, they imply equal training. \nThere are studies that show different muscle grows for people who are subjected to the same exercise in a controlled environment. Even if they take people with similar baselines, gains are different\n\nYes this is true, so I guess it comes down to what is meant by \"success.\" I interpreted success as a measure that was defined by each person. In other words, if one's proficiency is good enough for what they needed, then they're successful. The person does not need to be at the elite level. I wasn't defining it in absolute terms where a person is only successful if they are better than nearly everyone else in the world (e.g. a billionaire investor).",
">\n\n\nKids (and some young animals) often hone skills by challenging themselves or each other through play. \n\nYes. But they don't achieve greatness. Early newbie gains are easy. It gets progressively harder though",
">\n\n\nYes. But they don't achieve greatness. Early newbie gains are easy. It gets progressively harder though\n\nI see. We're working different definitions of success. For example, I can ride my bike to the park and to the other side of town. I consider that being successful because that's all the proficiency I require of that skill. I don't aspire to ride the Tour de France. \nFor the case of being an elite in a particular field or being \"great,\" talent is important, but sacrifice and luck are not negligible. Greatness comes at a cost. It can be a burden on relationships, one's mental or physical health, or money for relatively small gains. Some talented people may see that cost and choose to go another way. These people might not become great, but they might lead healthier lives. Luck is also important. Talented people have had careers cut short because of injuries, sickness, or other hardships outside of their control.",
">\n\nI think you are mis-labelling curiosity as talent. \nI am a musician & singer. I wasn't born with an ability to sing better than the person next to me. \nMy brain enjoyed music. It was curious about it. So I listened more. I imitated more... I sang out of tune for a few pre teen years... And then it all started clicking. And continues to click the more I explore that idea space. \nI'm not saying it's just work and practice. But I AM saying it is utilising brain power and time to even think about this thing.. will improve your ability. \nIt is curiosity that drives.... Not 'talent,' (which honestly I have never seen accurately defined anyway.)",
">\n\nSomething your missing is the level of talent, low or medium talent with high work ethic will beat high talent. \nLow talent will beat no talent even with hard work. Some people are just not good at something and cannot get better, but if you have talent to do the basics with a good work ethic then there is potential.\nFor example Micheal jordon didn’t make his school basket ball team. Obviously he has talent and with hard work he became better than just talent",
">\n\nIt's incredibly difficult to quantify \"natural talent.\"\nEven toddlers that display affinity for certain skills have 2-3 years of exposure to their parents interests, from art on the walls to the sort of activities they use to keep the kid busy. Is he naturally musically talented, or did his parents play a whole lot of music all the time? Is she naturally inclined towards visual art and color, or did she grow up surrounded with paintings carefully arranged in a beautifully designed environment?\nWho's actually talented?\nAnd then comes \"hard work,\" messing things up further. Because what we label \"work\" is often just play, combined with a willingness to fail. In the immortal words of Jake the Dog, \"dude, sucking at something is the first step towards being sorta good at something.\" You don't need to work to develop skill. You don't need to be good already. You just need to do it. \nSo what separates the \"hard workers\" from the \"talented hard workers?\" Is it just their final product? The hard worker who makes a better painting is more talented than the hard worker who makes something trite? Or is the first hard worker better because they were more willing to fail along the way, to try a wide variety of things regardless of how badly they do, and learn from those mistakes as they move forward? Did the second one stick to the safe, known styles and refuse to experiment and grow?\nThere are just so many confounding variables that it's not worthwhile to debate where \"talent\" ends and \"effort\" begins. Because on top of all that, some popular art just sucks. It's not widely known because it's exceptional; it's widely known because the artists are good at marketing themselves. Like the duct tape banana or Take the Money and Run, success can be divorced from ability, effort, and talent all together. Get popular by doing something stupid for everyone to see, and parlay your popularity into financial success!\nIn the end, you may as well give up on distinguishing it. Successful people are successful, and they got there in all kinds of different ways. Maybe you can try being born rich, so your parents sycophantic \"friends\" will buy your sculptures at huge markups in an effort to suck up to them? Success!",
">\n\nThis isn't relevant to the statement of my post?\nI don't think it matters if we have one singular definition of \"naturally talented\" and \"success\". We have many different definitions of it, and that's completely fine. You can draw the cutoff at whatever age you want. I'm saying that we can plug in whatever definition of \"naturally talented\" and the corresponding measure of \"success\" we want and my statement would still hold.\nIn fact what I say in my argument is precisely one of the reasons why it's hard to draw the line between talent and effort. Because they're very strongly correlated; there is no clear line in the first place.",
">\n\nThe point is that you're drawing lines without knowing what it is you're delineating. You do not know and you're coming to conclusions anyway.\nThere are far more than three variables, and the way they're tied together makes isolating any one all but impossible. Did natural talent contribute to someone's success? Can you even tell? If you can't, how can you say that talent was important for them? That guy over there's a relentlessly hard worker, but is unsuccessful. Is his failure due to lack of natural talent, or has he used poor methods to cultivate his skill? Or is he just bad at self-promotion? Or in the wrong place at the wrong time?\nYou're trying to explain something, and I'm telling you not to bother. If some weird shoe designer can set up a factory where other people make screen prints of Campbell's Soup cans, slap his name on their mass produced replicas of a stolen design, and become a legend for it, why care about present talent at all? It just doesn't matter.\nProduce to produce. Explore your interests for their own sake. And if you want success, marketing matters more than effort matters more than skill matters more than \"natural talent.\"",
">\n\n\nThe point is that you're drawing lines without knowing what it is you're delineating. You do not know and you're coming to conclusions anyway.\n\nDo I need to precisely draw the line between a sandwich and a not-sandwich in order to make the statement that \"sandwiches are usually made with bread\"? Many definitions of \"talent\" would suffice here, it doesn't matter which one I choose.\n\nThere are far more than three variables, and the way they're tied together makes isolating any one all but impossible. Did natural talent contribute to someone's success? Can you even tell? If you can't, how can you say that talent was important for them? That guy over there's a relentlessly hard worker, but is unsuccessful. Is his failure due to lack of natural talent, or has he used poor methods to cultivate his skill? Or is he just bad at self-promotion? Or in the wrong place at the wrong time?\n\nWhy would I need to be able to answer these questions to make my explanation work?",
">\n\n\nWhy would I need to be able to answer these questions to make my explanation work?\n\nBecause if the first question they asked is literally your thesis statement. If someone has natural talent and it didn't contribute to their success at all, then your theory is incorrect.\nAs far as I've read in all your comments you're basically saying, natural talent= natural work ethic. That's just not true. You're also saying natural work ethic means success or more likely for success which is also just straight up untrue. What people consider success (mostly financial) is not more likely to be achieved just because they have a natural skill. Unless you can prove direct correlation... It just falls apart.",
">\n\nIt's all relative. I used to get super annoyed when some 6 foot 10 athletic giant would talk about \"how hard he had to work\" to make it to the NBA. But then I figured it out.\nAt any given time there is 10,000 men on planet earth with the physical gifts and the accessibility to be an NBA player (made up figure). Of those only about 500 are ever actually in the NBA.\nThe difference between the 175,000,000 men (assuming they are all in US) and the 10,000 is talent. Which makes them very rare outliers.\nBut the difference between the 9,500 who are not in the NBA and the 500 who are often does come down to work ethic.\nFrom their point of view their work ethic is the reason they are in the NBA. Relative to other talented basketball players they are in the NBA because they out hustled them. Thus the statements about \"how hard he had to work\" are perfectly reasonable. Even though they sound tone deaf to guys with average height and athleticism.",
">\n\nI believe I addressed this in the first paragraph of the second section of my post?",
">\n\n\nWhy would people with talent also work on their skills more in the first place? \nHaving talent usually makes it easier and more enjoyable to work on a skill. At any one point in their lives a person has to make a choice between doing a number of tasks. With talent, a smaller amount of effort towards learning something can lead to a greater reward, and hence learning about/practicing one's skills would be a more attractive decision to make at any time. So people with talent would naturally have more of an incentive to spend more time on their skills.\n\nAre you talking about this?\nI was saying that work ethic is often relative to people who are within the same talent range. An NBA player saying that he is there because of work ethic is not necessarily too dull to comprehend he is a massive outlier. He's just comparing himself to other tall athletic guys.",
">\n\nNo, I meant this:\n\nWhy this particular explanation? I acknowledge there are other ways for all three statements to be true. Most people would just say that it requires both hard work and talent to be successful. But that effect does not seem strong enough, we need something that can explain just how strong the correlation in statement (1) usually is, given how unrelated the skills are (2), and how strong the effect in (3) also is. I think the best possible explanation of why all three of these statements are true is that \"hard work\" is correlated with talent.\n\nYou've just said it requires both hard work and talent. Which is true, but... I don't think it's enough to explain how strongly both appear to be correlated with success.",
">\n\nAs Bob Ross said, \"Talent is a pursued interest.\""
] |
Spider wrote this | [] |
>
I feed up to 5 spiders in my yard a day.
My 2 & 5yr old love it.
It’s very cool to see how they react to insects in their web and the how they wrap them before taking them into the centre to enjoy.
Very reactive to a 2nd insect despite having one already in its mouth. Smart little critters. | [
"Spider wrote this"
] |
>
Dainty and elusive? The banana spiders and their webs the size of my car, that occasionally show up in my yard are like, what are you going to do this time bitch? The last few times you were going to move or burn the house down.
Shut up and take my upvote as I freak out every time a hair brushes my arm for the rest of the day. | [
"Spider wrote this",
">\n\nI feed up to 5 spiders in my yard a day. \nMy 2 & 5yr old love it.\nIt’s very cool to see how they react to insects in their web and the how they wrap them before taking them into the centre to enjoy.\nVery reactive to a 2nd insect despite having one already in its mouth. Smart little critters."
] |
>
Spiders are SHY!? Which spiders have YOU met? The one's I've met were hella frickin' extroverted enough to scare the flying poop out of me | [
"Spider wrote this",
">\n\nI feed up to 5 spiders in my yard a day. \nMy 2 & 5yr old love it.\nIt’s very cool to see how they react to insects in their web and the how they wrap them before taking them into the centre to enjoy.\nVery reactive to a 2nd insect despite having one already in its mouth. Smart little critters.",
">\n\nDainty and elusive? The banana spiders and their webs the size of my car, that occasionally show up in my yard are like, what are you going to do this time bitch? The last few times you were going to move or burn the house down. \nShut up and take my upvote as I freak out every time a hair brushes my arm for the rest of the day."
] |
>
Jumping Spiders are the most actively curious spiders. Maybe you met one of those?
Otherwise, if you were being "chased" by a spider, it was more than likely just trying to hide in your shadow.
My pet spiders are all shy though. My Southern House Spider scurries away when I so much as walk in the room, and my Black Widow is scared of her own food. | [
"Spider wrote this",
">\n\nI feed up to 5 spiders in my yard a day. \nMy 2 & 5yr old love it.\nIt’s very cool to see how they react to insects in their web and the how they wrap them before taking them into the centre to enjoy.\nVery reactive to a 2nd insect despite having one already in its mouth. Smart little critters.",
">\n\nDainty and elusive? The banana spiders and their webs the size of my car, that occasionally show up in my yard are like, what are you going to do this time bitch? The last few times you were going to move or burn the house down. \nShut up and take my upvote as I freak out every time a hair brushes my arm for the rest of the day.",
">\n\nSpiders are SHY!? Which spiders have YOU met? The one's I've met were hella frickin' extroverted enough to scare the flying poop out of me"
] |
>
you need to check out @tiana_thebuglady on tiktok. i LOVEE her content and i never would’ve thought that spiders could be cute until i saw her account | [
"Spider wrote this",
">\n\nI feed up to 5 spiders in my yard a day. \nMy 2 & 5yr old love it.\nIt’s very cool to see how they react to insects in their web and the how they wrap them before taking them into the centre to enjoy.\nVery reactive to a 2nd insect despite having one already in its mouth. Smart little critters.",
">\n\nDainty and elusive? The banana spiders and their webs the size of my car, that occasionally show up in my yard are like, what are you going to do this time bitch? The last few times you were going to move or burn the house down. \nShut up and take my upvote as I freak out every time a hair brushes my arm for the rest of the day.",
">\n\nSpiders are SHY!? Which spiders have YOU met? The one's I've met were hella frickin' extroverted enough to scare the flying poop out of me",
">\n\nJumping Spiders are the most actively curious spiders. Maybe you met one of those?\nOtherwise, if you were being \"chased\" by a spider, it was more than likely just trying to hide in your shadow.\nMy pet spiders are all shy though. My Southern House Spider scurries away when I so much as walk in the room, and my Black Widow is scared of her own food."
] |
>
Ok spiderman | [
"Spider wrote this",
">\n\nI feed up to 5 spiders in my yard a day. \nMy 2 & 5yr old love it.\nIt’s very cool to see how they react to insects in their web and the how they wrap them before taking them into the centre to enjoy.\nVery reactive to a 2nd insect despite having one already in its mouth. Smart little critters.",
">\n\nDainty and elusive? The banana spiders and their webs the size of my car, that occasionally show up in my yard are like, what are you going to do this time bitch? The last few times you were going to move or burn the house down. \nShut up and take my upvote as I freak out every time a hair brushes my arm for the rest of the day.",
">\n\nSpiders are SHY!? Which spiders have YOU met? The one's I've met were hella frickin' extroverted enough to scare the flying poop out of me",
">\n\nJumping Spiders are the most actively curious spiders. Maybe you met one of those?\nOtherwise, if you were being \"chased\" by a spider, it was more than likely just trying to hide in your shadow.\nMy pet spiders are all shy though. My Southern House Spider scurries away when I so much as walk in the room, and my Black Widow is scared of her own food.",
">\n\nyou need to check out @tiana_thebuglady on tiktok. i LOVEE her content and i never would’ve thought that spiders could be cute until i saw her account"
] |
>
No. | [
"Spider wrote this",
">\n\nI feed up to 5 spiders in my yard a day. \nMy 2 & 5yr old love it.\nIt’s very cool to see how they react to insects in their web and the how they wrap them before taking them into the centre to enjoy.\nVery reactive to a 2nd insect despite having one already in its mouth. Smart little critters.",
">\n\nDainty and elusive? The banana spiders and their webs the size of my car, that occasionally show up in my yard are like, what are you going to do this time bitch? The last few times you were going to move or burn the house down. \nShut up and take my upvote as I freak out every time a hair brushes my arm for the rest of the day.",
">\n\nSpiders are SHY!? Which spiders have YOU met? The one's I've met were hella frickin' extroverted enough to scare the flying poop out of me",
">\n\nJumping Spiders are the most actively curious spiders. Maybe you met one of those?\nOtherwise, if you were being \"chased\" by a spider, it was more than likely just trying to hide in your shadow.\nMy pet spiders are all shy though. My Southern House Spider scurries away when I so much as walk in the room, and my Black Widow is scared of her own food.",
">\n\nyou need to check out @tiana_thebuglady on tiktok. i LOVEE her content and i never would’ve thought that spiders could be cute until i saw her account",
">\n\nOk spiderman"
] |
>
I agree even though I’ve been bitten three times and the spots swelled up in a horrible shade of purple. Don’t know exactly what type bit me, one if them looked like a jumping spider and another was smooth and skinny. Just don’t lose track of them when they get on you I suppose | [
"Spider wrote this",
">\n\nI feed up to 5 spiders in my yard a day. \nMy 2 & 5yr old love it.\nIt’s very cool to see how they react to insects in their web and the how they wrap them before taking them into the centre to enjoy.\nVery reactive to a 2nd insect despite having one already in its mouth. Smart little critters.",
">\n\nDainty and elusive? The banana spiders and their webs the size of my car, that occasionally show up in my yard are like, what are you going to do this time bitch? The last few times you were going to move or burn the house down. \nShut up and take my upvote as I freak out every time a hair brushes my arm for the rest of the day.",
">\n\nSpiders are SHY!? Which spiders have YOU met? The one's I've met were hella frickin' extroverted enough to scare the flying poop out of me",
">\n\nJumping Spiders are the most actively curious spiders. Maybe you met one of those?\nOtherwise, if you were being \"chased\" by a spider, it was more than likely just trying to hide in your shadow.\nMy pet spiders are all shy though. My Southern House Spider scurries away when I so much as walk in the room, and my Black Widow is scared of her own food.",
">\n\nyou need to check out @tiana_thebuglady on tiktok. i LOVEE her content and i never would’ve thought that spiders could be cute until i saw her account",
">\n\nOk spiderman",
">\n\nNo."
] |
>
Spider wrote this | [
"Spider wrote this",
">\n\nI feed up to 5 spiders in my yard a day. \nMy 2 & 5yr old love it.\nIt’s very cool to see how they react to insects in their web and the how they wrap them before taking them into the centre to enjoy.\nVery reactive to a 2nd insect despite having one already in its mouth. Smart little critters.",
">\n\nDainty and elusive? The banana spiders and their webs the size of my car, that occasionally show up in my yard are like, what are you going to do this time bitch? The last few times you were going to move or burn the house down. \nShut up and take my upvote as I freak out every time a hair brushes my arm for the rest of the day.",
">\n\nSpiders are SHY!? Which spiders have YOU met? The one's I've met were hella frickin' extroverted enough to scare the flying poop out of me",
">\n\nJumping Spiders are the most actively curious spiders. Maybe you met one of those?\nOtherwise, if you were being \"chased\" by a spider, it was more than likely just trying to hide in your shadow.\nMy pet spiders are all shy though. My Southern House Spider scurries away when I so much as walk in the room, and my Black Widow is scared of her own food.",
">\n\nyou need to check out @tiana_thebuglady on tiktok. i LOVEE her content and i never would’ve thought that spiders could be cute until i saw her account",
">\n\nOk spiderman",
">\n\nNo.",
">\n\nI agree even though I’ve been bitten three times and the spots swelled up in a horrible shade of purple. Don’t know exactly what type bit me, one if them looked like a jumping spider and another was smooth and skinny. Just don’t lose track of them when they get on you I suppose"
] |
>
I feed up to 5 spiders in my yard a day.
My 2 & 5yr old love it.
It’s very cool to see how they react to insects in their web and the how they wrap them before taking them into the centre to enjoy.
Very reactive to a 2nd insect despite having one already in its mouth. Smart little critters. | [
"Spider wrote this",
">\n\nI feed up to 5 spiders in my yard a day. \nMy 2 & 5yr old love it.\nIt’s very cool to see how they react to insects in their web and the how they wrap them before taking them into the centre to enjoy.\nVery reactive to a 2nd insect despite having one already in its mouth. Smart little critters.",
">\n\nDainty and elusive? The banana spiders and their webs the size of my car, that occasionally show up in my yard are like, what are you going to do this time bitch? The last few times you were going to move or burn the house down. \nShut up and take my upvote as I freak out every time a hair brushes my arm for the rest of the day.",
">\n\nSpiders are SHY!? Which spiders have YOU met? The one's I've met were hella frickin' extroverted enough to scare the flying poop out of me",
">\n\nJumping Spiders are the most actively curious spiders. Maybe you met one of those?\nOtherwise, if you were being \"chased\" by a spider, it was more than likely just trying to hide in your shadow.\nMy pet spiders are all shy though. My Southern House Spider scurries away when I so much as walk in the room, and my Black Widow is scared of her own food.",
">\n\nyou need to check out @tiana_thebuglady on tiktok. i LOVEE her content and i never would’ve thought that spiders could be cute until i saw her account",
">\n\nOk spiderman",
">\n\nNo.",
">\n\nI agree even though I’ve been bitten three times and the spots swelled up in a horrible shade of purple. Don’t know exactly what type bit me, one if them looked like a jumping spider and another was smooth and skinny. Just don’t lose track of them when they get on you I suppose",
">\n\nSpider wrote this"
] |
>
Dainty and elusive? The banana spiders and their webs the size of my car, that occasionally show up in my yard are like, what are you going to do this time bitch? The last few times you were going to move or burn the house down.
Shut up and take my upvote as I freak out every time a hair brushes my arm for the rest of the day. | [
"Spider wrote this",
">\n\nI feed up to 5 spiders in my yard a day. \nMy 2 & 5yr old love it.\nIt’s very cool to see how they react to insects in their web and the how they wrap them before taking them into the centre to enjoy.\nVery reactive to a 2nd insect despite having one already in its mouth. Smart little critters.",
">\n\nDainty and elusive? The banana spiders and their webs the size of my car, that occasionally show up in my yard are like, what are you going to do this time bitch? The last few times you were going to move or burn the house down. \nShut up and take my upvote as I freak out every time a hair brushes my arm for the rest of the day.",
">\n\nSpiders are SHY!? Which spiders have YOU met? The one's I've met were hella frickin' extroverted enough to scare the flying poop out of me",
">\n\nJumping Spiders are the most actively curious spiders. Maybe you met one of those?\nOtherwise, if you were being \"chased\" by a spider, it was more than likely just trying to hide in your shadow.\nMy pet spiders are all shy though. My Southern House Spider scurries away when I so much as walk in the room, and my Black Widow is scared of her own food.",
">\n\nyou need to check out @tiana_thebuglady on tiktok. i LOVEE her content and i never would’ve thought that spiders could be cute until i saw her account",
">\n\nOk spiderman",
">\n\nNo.",
">\n\nI agree even though I’ve been bitten three times and the spots swelled up in a horrible shade of purple. Don’t know exactly what type bit me, one if them looked like a jumping spider and another was smooth and skinny. Just don’t lose track of them when they get on you I suppose",
">\n\nSpider wrote this",
">\n\nI feed up to 5 spiders in my yard a day. \nMy 2 & 5yr old love it.\nIt’s very cool to see how they react to insects in their web and the how they wrap them before taking them into the centre to enjoy.\nVery reactive to a 2nd insect despite having one already in its mouth. Smart little critters."
] |
>
Spiders are SHY!? Which spiders have YOU met? The one's I've met were hella frickin' extroverted enough to scare the flying poop out of me | [
"Spider wrote this",
">\n\nI feed up to 5 spiders in my yard a day. \nMy 2 & 5yr old love it.\nIt’s very cool to see how they react to insects in their web and the how they wrap them before taking them into the centre to enjoy.\nVery reactive to a 2nd insect despite having one already in its mouth. Smart little critters.",
">\n\nDainty and elusive? The banana spiders and their webs the size of my car, that occasionally show up in my yard are like, what are you going to do this time bitch? The last few times you were going to move or burn the house down. \nShut up and take my upvote as I freak out every time a hair brushes my arm for the rest of the day.",
">\n\nSpiders are SHY!? Which spiders have YOU met? The one's I've met were hella frickin' extroverted enough to scare the flying poop out of me",
">\n\nJumping Spiders are the most actively curious spiders. Maybe you met one of those?\nOtherwise, if you were being \"chased\" by a spider, it was more than likely just trying to hide in your shadow.\nMy pet spiders are all shy though. My Southern House Spider scurries away when I so much as walk in the room, and my Black Widow is scared of her own food.",
">\n\nyou need to check out @tiana_thebuglady on tiktok. i LOVEE her content and i never would’ve thought that spiders could be cute until i saw her account",
">\n\nOk spiderman",
">\n\nNo.",
">\n\nI agree even though I’ve been bitten three times and the spots swelled up in a horrible shade of purple. Don’t know exactly what type bit me, one if them looked like a jumping spider and another was smooth and skinny. Just don’t lose track of them when they get on you I suppose",
">\n\nSpider wrote this",
">\n\nI feed up to 5 spiders in my yard a day. \nMy 2 & 5yr old love it.\nIt’s very cool to see how they react to insects in their web and the how they wrap them before taking them into the centre to enjoy.\nVery reactive to a 2nd insect despite having one already in its mouth. Smart little critters.",
">\n\nDainty and elusive? The banana spiders and their webs the size of my car, that occasionally show up in my yard are like, what are you going to do this time bitch? The last few times you were going to move or burn the house down. \nShut up and take my upvote as I freak out every time a hair brushes my arm for the rest of the day."
] |
>
Jumping Spiders are the most actively curious spiders. Maybe you met one of those?
Otherwise, if you were being "chased" by a spider, it was more than likely just trying to hide in your shadow.
My pet spiders are all shy though. My Southern House Spider scurries away when I so much as walk in the room, and my Black Widow is scared of her own food. | [
"Spider wrote this",
">\n\nI feed up to 5 spiders in my yard a day. \nMy 2 & 5yr old love it.\nIt’s very cool to see how they react to insects in their web and the how they wrap them before taking them into the centre to enjoy.\nVery reactive to a 2nd insect despite having one already in its mouth. Smart little critters.",
">\n\nDainty and elusive? The banana spiders and their webs the size of my car, that occasionally show up in my yard are like, what are you going to do this time bitch? The last few times you were going to move or burn the house down. \nShut up and take my upvote as I freak out every time a hair brushes my arm for the rest of the day.",
">\n\nSpiders are SHY!? Which spiders have YOU met? The one's I've met were hella frickin' extroverted enough to scare the flying poop out of me",
">\n\nJumping Spiders are the most actively curious spiders. Maybe you met one of those?\nOtherwise, if you were being \"chased\" by a spider, it was more than likely just trying to hide in your shadow.\nMy pet spiders are all shy though. My Southern House Spider scurries away when I so much as walk in the room, and my Black Widow is scared of her own food.",
">\n\nyou need to check out @tiana_thebuglady on tiktok. i LOVEE her content and i never would’ve thought that spiders could be cute until i saw her account",
">\n\nOk spiderman",
">\n\nNo.",
">\n\nI agree even though I’ve been bitten three times and the spots swelled up in a horrible shade of purple. Don’t know exactly what type bit me, one if them looked like a jumping spider and another was smooth and skinny. Just don’t lose track of them when they get on you I suppose",
">\n\nSpider wrote this",
">\n\nI feed up to 5 spiders in my yard a day. \nMy 2 & 5yr old love it.\nIt’s very cool to see how they react to insects in their web and the how they wrap them before taking them into the centre to enjoy.\nVery reactive to a 2nd insect despite having one already in its mouth. Smart little critters.",
">\n\nDainty and elusive? The banana spiders and their webs the size of my car, that occasionally show up in my yard are like, what are you going to do this time bitch? The last few times you were going to move or burn the house down. \nShut up and take my upvote as I freak out every time a hair brushes my arm for the rest of the day.",
">\n\nSpiders are SHY!? Which spiders have YOU met? The one's I've met were hella frickin' extroverted enough to scare the flying poop out of me"
] |
>
you need to check out @tiana_thebuglady on tiktok. i LOVEE her content and i never would’ve thought that spiders could be cute until i saw her account | [
"Spider wrote this",
">\n\nI feed up to 5 spiders in my yard a day. \nMy 2 & 5yr old love it.\nIt’s very cool to see how they react to insects in their web and the how they wrap them before taking them into the centre to enjoy.\nVery reactive to a 2nd insect despite having one already in its mouth. Smart little critters.",
">\n\nDainty and elusive? The banana spiders and their webs the size of my car, that occasionally show up in my yard are like, what are you going to do this time bitch? The last few times you were going to move or burn the house down. \nShut up and take my upvote as I freak out every time a hair brushes my arm for the rest of the day.",
">\n\nSpiders are SHY!? Which spiders have YOU met? The one's I've met were hella frickin' extroverted enough to scare the flying poop out of me",
">\n\nJumping Spiders are the most actively curious spiders. Maybe you met one of those?\nOtherwise, if you were being \"chased\" by a spider, it was more than likely just trying to hide in your shadow.\nMy pet spiders are all shy though. My Southern House Spider scurries away when I so much as walk in the room, and my Black Widow is scared of her own food.",
">\n\nyou need to check out @tiana_thebuglady on tiktok. i LOVEE her content and i never would’ve thought that spiders could be cute until i saw her account",
">\n\nOk spiderman",
">\n\nNo.",
">\n\nI agree even though I’ve been bitten three times and the spots swelled up in a horrible shade of purple. Don’t know exactly what type bit me, one if them looked like a jumping spider and another was smooth and skinny. Just don’t lose track of them when they get on you I suppose",
">\n\nSpider wrote this",
">\n\nI feed up to 5 spiders in my yard a day. \nMy 2 & 5yr old love it.\nIt’s very cool to see how they react to insects in their web and the how they wrap them before taking them into the centre to enjoy.\nVery reactive to a 2nd insect despite having one already in its mouth. Smart little critters.",
">\n\nDainty and elusive? The banana spiders and their webs the size of my car, that occasionally show up in my yard are like, what are you going to do this time bitch? The last few times you were going to move or burn the house down. \nShut up and take my upvote as I freak out every time a hair brushes my arm for the rest of the day.",
">\n\nSpiders are SHY!? Which spiders have YOU met? The one's I've met were hella frickin' extroverted enough to scare the flying poop out of me",
">\n\nJumping Spiders are the most actively curious spiders. Maybe you met one of those?\nOtherwise, if you were being \"chased\" by a spider, it was more than likely just trying to hide in your shadow.\nMy pet spiders are all shy though. My Southern House Spider scurries away when I so much as walk in the room, and my Black Widow is scared of her own food."
] |
>
Ok spiderman | [
"Spider wrote this",
">\n\nI feed up to 5 spiders in my yard a day. \nMy 2 & 5yr old love it.\nIt’s very cool to see how they react to insects in their web and the how they wrap them before taking them into the centre to enjoy.\nVery reactive to a 2nd insect despite having one already in its mouth. Smart little critters.",
">\n\nDainty and elusive? The banana spiders and their webs the size of my car, that occasionally show up in my yard are like, what are you going to do this time bitch? The last few times you were going to move or burn the house down. \nShut up and take my upvote as I freak out every time a hair brushes my arm for the rest of the day.",
">\n\nSpiders are SHY!? Which spiders have YOU met? The one's I've met were hella frickin' extroverted enough to scare the flying poop out of me",
">\n\nJumping Spiders are the most actively curious spiders. Maybe you met one of those?\nOtherwise, if you were being \"chased\" by a spider, it was more than likely just trying to hide in your shadow.\nMy pet spiders are all shy though. My Southern House Spider scurries away when I so much as walk in the room, and my Black Widow is scared of her own food.",
">\n\nyou need to check out @tiana_thebuglady on tiktok. i LOVEE her content and i never would’ve thought that spiders could be cute until i saw her account",
">\n\nOk spiderman",
">\n\nNo.",
">\n\nI agree even though I’ve been bitten three times and the spots swelled up in a horrible shade of purple. Don’t know exactly what type bit me, one if them looked like a jumping spider and another was smooth and skinny. Just don’t lose track of them when they get on you I suppose",
">\n\nSpider wrote this",
">\n\nI feed up to 5 spiders in my yard a day. \nMy 2 & 5yr old love it.\nIt’s very cool to see how they react to insects in their web and the how they wrap them before taking them into the centre to enjoy.\nVery reactive to a 2nd insect despite having one already in its mouth. Smart little critters.",
">\n\nDainty and elusive? The banana spiders and their webs the size of my car, that occasionally show up in my yard are like, what are you going to do this time bitch? The last few times you were going to move or burn the house down. \nShut up and take my upvote as I freak out every time a hair brushes my arm for the rest of the day.",
">\n\nSpiders are SHY!? Which spiders have YOU met? The one's I've met were hella frickin' extroverted enough to scare the flying poop out of me",
">\n\nJumping Spiders are the most actively curious spiders. Maybe you met one of those?\nOtherwise, if you were being \"chased\" by a spider, it was more than likely just trying to hide in your shadow.\nMy pet spiders are all shy though. My Southern House Spider scurries away when I so much as walk in the room, and my Black Widow is scared of her own food.",
">\n\nyou need to check out @tiana_thebuglady on tiktok. i LOVEE her content and i never would’ve thought that spiders could be cute until i saw her account"
] |
>
No. | [
"Spider wrote this",
">\n\nI feed up to 5 spiders in my yard a day. \nMy 2 & 5yr old love it.\nIt’s very cool to see how they react to insects in their web and the how they wrap them before taking them into the centre to enjoy.\nVery reactive to a 2nd insect despite having one already in its mouth. Smart little critters.",
">\n\nDainty and elusive? The banana spiders and their webs the size of my car, that occasionally show up in my yard are like, what are you going to do this time bitch? The last few times you were going to move or burn the house down. \nShut up and take my upvote as I freak out every time a hair brushes my arm for the rest of the day.",
">\n\nSpiders are SHY!? Which spiders have YOU met? The one's I've met were hella frickin' extroverted enough to scare the flying poop out of me",
">\n\nJumping Spiders are the most actively curious spiders. Maybe you met one of those?\nOtherwise, if you were being \"chased\" by a spider, it was more than likely just trying to hide in your shadow.\nMy pet spiders are all shy though. My Southern House Spider scurries away when I so much as walk in the room, and my Black Widow is scared of her own food.",
">\n\nyou need to check out @tiana_thebuglady on tiktok. i LOVEE her content and i never would’ve thought that spiders could be cute until i saw her account",
">\n\nOk spiderman",
">\n\nNo.",
">\n\nI agree even though I’ve been bitten three times and the spots swelled up in a horrible shade of purple. Don’t know exactly what type bit me, one if them looked like a jumping spider and another was smooth and skinny. Just don’t lose track of them when they get on you I suppose",
">\n\nSpider wrote this",
">\n\nI feed up to 5 spiders in my yard a day. \nMy 2 & 5yr old love it.\nIt’s very cool to see how they react to insects in their web and the how they wrap them before taking them into the centre to enjoy.\nVery reactive to a 2nd insect despite having one already in its mouth. Smart little critters.",
">\n\nDainty and elusive? The banana spiders and their webs the size of my car, that occasionally show up in my yard are like, what are you going to do this time bitch? The last few times you were going to move or burn the house down. \nShut up and take my upvote as I freak out every time a hair brushes my arm for the rest of the day.",
">\n\nSpiders are SHY!? Which spiders have YOU met? The one's I've met were hella frickin' extroverted enough to scare the flying poop out of me",
">\n\nJumping Spiders are the most actively curious spiders. Maybe you met one of those?\nOtherwise, if you were being \"chased\" by a spider, it was more than likely just trying to hide in your shadow.\nMy pet spiders are all shy though. My Southern House Spider scurries away when I so much as walk in the room, and my Black Widow is scared of her own food.",
">\n\nyou need to check out @tiana_thebuglady on tiktok. i LOVEE her content and i never would’ve thought that spiders could be cute until i saw her account",
">\n\nOk spiderman"
] |
>
I agree even though I’ve been bitten three times and the spots swelled up in a horrible shade of purple. Don’t know exactly what type bit me, one if them looked like a jumping spider and another was smooth and skinny. Just don’t lose track of them when they get on you I suppose | [
"Spider wrote this",
">\n\nI feed up to 5 spiders in my yard a day. \nMy 2 & 5yr old love it.\nIt’s very cool to see how they react to insects in their web and the how they wrap them before taking them into the centre to enjoy.\nVery reactive to a 2nd insect despite having one already in its mouth. Smart little critters.",
">\n\nDainty and elusive? The banana spiders and their webs the size of my car, that occasionally show up in my yard are like, what are you going to do this time bitch? The last few times you were going to move or burn the house down. \nShut up and take my upvote as I freak out every time a hair brushes my arm for the rest of the day.",
">\n\nSpiders are SHY!? Which spiders have YOU met? The one's I've met were hella frickin' extroverted enough to scare the flying poop out of me",
">\n\nJumping Spiders are the most actively curious spiders. Maybe you met one of those?\nOtherwise, if you were being \"chased\" by a spider, it was more than likely just trying to hide in your shadow.\nMy pet spiders are all shy though. My Southern House Spider scurries away when I so much as walk in the room, and my Black Widow is scared of her own food.",
">\n\nyou need to check out @tiana_thebuglady on tiktok. i LOVEE her content and i never would’ve thought that spiders could be cute until i saw her account",
">\n\nOk spiderman",
">\n\nNo.",
">\n\nI agree even though I’ve been bitten three times and the spots swelled up in a horrible shade of purple. Don’t know exactly what type bit me, one if them looked like a jumping spider and another was smooth and skinny. Just don’t lose track of them when they get on you I suppose",
">\n\nSpider wrote this",
">\n\nI feed up to 5 spiders in my yard a day. \nMy 2 & 5yr old love it.\nIt’s very cool to see how they react to insects in their web and the how they wrap them before taking them into the centre to enjoy.\nVery reactive to a 2nd insect despite having one already in its mouth. Smart little critters.",
">\n\nDainty and elusive? The banana spiders and their webs the size of my car, that occasionally show up in my yard are like, what are you going to do this time bitch? The last few times you were going to move or burn the house down. \nShut up and take my upvote as I freak out every time a hair brushes my arm for the rest of the day.",
">\n\nSpiders are SHY!? Which spiders have YOU met? The one's I've met were hella frickin' extroverted enough to scare the flying poop out of me",
">\n\nJumping Spiders are the most actively curious spiders. Maybe you met one of those?\nOtherwise, if you were being \"chased\" by a spider, it was more than likely just trying to hide in your shadow.\nMy pet spiders are all shy though. My Southern House Spider scurries away when I so much as walk in the room, and my Black Widow is scared of her own food.",
">\n\nyou need to check out @tiana_thebuglady on tiktok. i LOVEE her content and i never would’ve thought that spiders could be cute until i saw her account",
">\n\nOk spiderman",
">\n\nNo."
] |
> | [
"Spider wrote this",
">\n\nI feed up to 5 spiders in my yard a day. \nMy 2 & 5yr old love it.\nIt’s very cool to see how they react to insects in their web and the how they wrap them before taking them into the centre to enjoy.\nVery reactive to a 2nd insect despite having one already in its mouth. Smart little critters.",
">\n\nDainty and elusive? The banana spiders and their webs the size of my car, that occasionally show up in my yard are like, what are you going to do this time bitch? The last few times you were going to move or burn the house down. \nShut up and take my upvote as I freak out every time a hair brushes my arm for the rest of the day.",
">\n\nSpiders are SHY!? Which spiders have YOU met? The one's I've met were hella frickin' extroverted enough to scare the flying poop out of me",
">\n\nJumping Spiders are the most actively curious spiders. Maybe you met one of those?\nOtherwise, if you were being \"chased\" by a spider, it was more than likely just trying to hide in your shadow.\nMy pet spiders are all shy though. My Southern House Spider scurries away when I so much as walk in the room, and my Black Widow is scared of her own food.",
">\n\nyou need to check out @tiana_thebuglady on tiktok. i LOVEE her content and i never would’ve thought that spiders could be cute until i saw her account",
">\n\nOk spiderman",
">\n\nNo.",
">\n\nI agree even though I’ve been bitten three times and the spots swelled up in a horrible shade of purple. Don’t know exactly what type bit me, one if them looked like a jumping spider and another was smooth and skinny. Just don’t lose track of them when they get on you I suppose",
">\n\nSpider wrote this",
">\n\nI feed up to 5 spiders in my yard a day. \nMy 2 & 5yr old love it.\nIt’s very cool to see how they react to insects in their web and the how they wrap them before taking them into the centre to enjoy.\nVery reactive to a 2nd insect despite having one already in its mouth. Smart little critters.",
">\n\nDainty and elusive? The banana spiders and their webs the size of my car, that occasionally show up in my yard are like, what are you going to do this time bitch? The last few times you were going to move or burn the house down. \nShut up and take my upvote as I freak out every time a hair brushes my arm for the rest of the day.",
">\n\nSpiders are SHY!? Which spiders have YOU met? The one's I've met were hella frickin' extroverted enough to scare the flying poop out of me",
">\n\nJumping Spiders are the most actively curious spiders. Maybe you met one of those?\nOtherwise, if you were being \"chased\" by a spider, it was more than likely just trying to hide in your shadow.\nMy pet spiders are all shy though. My Southern House Spider scurries away when I so much as walk in the room, and my Black Widow is scared of her own food.",
">\n\nyou need to check out @tiana_thebuglady on tiktok. i LOVEE her content and i never would’ve thought that spiders could be cute until i saw her account",
">\n\nOk spiderman",
">\n\nNo.",
">\n\nI agree even though I’ve been bitten three times and the spots swelled up in a horrible shade of purple. Don’t know exactly what type bit me, one if them looked like a jumping spider and another was smooth and skinny. Just don’t lose track of them when they get on you I suppose"
] |
This is a friendly reminder to read our rules.
Remember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not "thoughts had in the shower!"
(For an explanation of what a "showerthought" is, please read this page.)
Rule-breaking posts may result in bans. | [] |
>
I got myself a karaoke machine for Christmas. My kids decided to sing that song. I recorded a clip and have successfully Rick-rolled both my husband and eldest child with it. Chef's kiss | [
"This is a friendly reminder to read our rules.\nRemember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not \"thoughts had in the shower!\"\n(For an explanation of what a \"showerthought\" is, please read this page.)\nRule-breaking posts may result in bans."
] |
>
Absolute perfection. | [
"This is a friendly reminder to read our rules.\nRemember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not \"thoughts had in the shower!\"\n(For an explanation of what a \"showerthought\" is, please read this page.)\nRule-breaking posts may result in bans.",
">\n\nI got myself a karaoke machine for Christmas. My kids decided to sing that song. I recorded a clip and have successfully Rick-rolled both my husband and eldest child with it. Chef's kiss"
] |
>
I am both disappointed and proud of myself for clicking that link | [
"This is a friendly reminder to read our rules.\nRemember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not \"thoughts had in the shower!\"\n(For an explanation of what a \"showerthought\" is, please read this page.)\nRule-breaking posts may result in bans.",
">\n\nI got myself a karaoke machine for Christmas. My kids decided to sing that song. I recorded a clip and have successfully Rick-rolled both my husband and eldest child with it. Chef's kiss",
">\n\nAbsolute perfection."
] |
>
I was feeling really down today but this put a big smile on my face. | [
"This is a friendly reminder to read our rules.\nRemember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not \"thoughts had in the shower!\"\n(For an explanation of what a \"showerthought\" is, please read this page.)\nRule-breaking posts may result in bans.",
">\n\nI got myself a karaoke machine for Christmas. My kids decided to sing that song. I recorded a clip and have successfully Rick-rolled both my husband and eldest child with it. Chef's kiss",
">\n\nAbsolute perfection.",
">\n\nI am both disappointed and proud of myself for clicking that link"
] |
>
Unfortunately the fact that we are still Rick rolling people means that we are always gonna tell a lie | [
"This is a friendly reminder to read our rules.\nRemember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not \"thoughts had in the shower!\"\n(For an explanation of what a \"showerthought\" is, please read this page.)\nRule-breaking posts may result in bans.",
">\n\nI got myself a karaoke machine for Christmas. My kids decided to sing that song. I recorded a clip and have successfully Rick-rolled both my husband and eldest child with it. Chef's kiss",
">\n\nAbsolute perfection.",
">\n\nI am both disappointed and proud of myself for clicking that link",
">\n\nI was feeling really down today but this put a big smile on my face."
] |
>
I've had like four posts to this sub not meet their dogged requirements but a fucking pun? This is what gets through?
I did enjoy the pun however so thank you. | [
"This is a friendly reminder to read our rules.\nRemember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not \"thoughts had in the shower!\"\n(For an explanation of what a \"showerthought\" is, please read this page.)\nRule-breaking posts may result in bans.",
">\n\nI got myself a karaoke machine for Christmas. My kids decided to sing that song. I recorded a clip and have successfully Rick-rolled both my husband and eldest child with it. Chef's kiss",
">\n\nAbsolute perfection.",
">\n\nI am both disappointed and proud of myself for clicking that link",
">\n\nI was feeling really down today but this put a big smile on my face.",
">\n\nUnfortunately the fact that we are still Rick rolling people means that we are always gonna tell a lie"
] |
>
What were they? | [
"This is a friendly reminder to read our rules.\nRemember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not \"thoughts had in the shower!\"\n(For an explanation of what a \"showerthought\" is, please read this page.)\nRule-breaking posts may result in bans.",
">\n\nI got myself a karaoke machine for Christmas. My kids decided to sing that song. I recorded a clip and have successfully Rick-rolled both my husband and eldest child with it. Chef's kiss",
">\n\nAbsolute perfection.",
">\n\nI am both disappointed and proud of myself for clicking that link",
">\n\nI was feeling really down today but this put a big smile on my face.",
">\n\nUnfortunately the fact that we are still Rick rolling people means that we are always gonna tell a lie",
">\n\nI've had like four posts to this sub not meet their dogged requirements but a fucking pun? This is what gets through?\nI did enjoy the pun however so thank you."
] |
>
We all just love the song now and want to give it the immortality that it so rightly deserves | [
"This is a friendly reminder to read our rules.\nRemember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not \"thoughts had in the shower!\"\n(For an explanation of what a \"showerthought\" is, please read this page.)\nRule-breaking posts may result in bans.",
">\n\nI got myself a karaoke machine for Christmas. My kids decided to sing that song. I recorded a clip and have successfully Rick-rolled both my husband and eldest child with it. Chef's kiss",
">\n\nAbsolute perfection.",
">\n\nI am both disappointed and proud of myself for clicking that link",
">\n\nI was feeling really down today but this put a big smile on my face.",
">\n\nUnfortunately the fact that we are still Rick rolling people means that we are always gonna tell a lie",
">\n\nI've had like four posts to this sub not meet their dogged requirements but a fucking pun? This is what gets through?\nI did enjoy the pun however so thank you.",
">\n\nWhat were they?"
] |
>
Yes. I read an article published by Harvard a few years ago. They were basically trying to find out what will survive until the year 3000 from our era. They listed out 8 things that will probably survive until the year 3000.
Interesting Read | [
"This is a friendly reminder to read our rules.\nRemember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not \"thoughts had in the shower!\"\n(For an explanation of what a \"showerthought\" is, please read this page.)\nRule-breaking posts may result in bans.",
">\n\nI got myself a karaoke machine for Christmas. My kids decided to sing that song. I recorded a clip and have successfully Rick-rolled both my husband and eldest child with it. Chef's kiss",
">\n\nAbsolute perfection.",
">\n\nI am both disappointed and proud of myself for clicking that link",
">\n\nI was feeling really down today but this put a big smile on my face.",
">\n\nUnfortunately the fact that we are still Rick rolling people means that we are always gonna tell a lie",
">\n\nI've had like four posts to this sub not meet their dogged requirements but a fucking pun? This is what gets through?\nI did enjoy the pun however so thank you.",
">\n\nWhat were they?",
">\n\nWe all just love the song now and want to give it the immortality that it so rightly deserves"
] |
> | [
"This is a friendly reminder to read our rules.\nRemember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not \"thoughts had in the shower!\"\n(For an explanation of what a \"showerthought\" is, please read this page.)\nRule-breaking posts may result in bans.",
">\n\nI got myself a karaoke machine for Christmas. My kids decided to sing that song. I recorded a clip and have successfully Rick-rolled both my husband and eldest child with it. Chef's kiss",
">\n\nAbsolute perfection.",
">\n\nI am both disappointed and proud of myself for clicking that link",
">\n\nI was feeling really down today but this put a big smile on my face.",
">\n\nUnfortunately the fact that we are still Rick rolling people means that we are always gonna tell a lie",
">\n\nI've had like four posts to this sub not meet their dogged requirements but a fucking pun? This is what gets through?\nI did enjoy the pun however so thank you.",
">\n\nWhat were they?",
">\n\nWe all just love the song now and want to give it the immortality that it so rightly deserves",
">\n\nYes. I read an article published by Harvard a few years ago. They were basically trying to find out what will survive until the year 3000 from our era. They listed out 8 things that will probably survive until the year 3000. \nInteresting Read"
] |
Carolyn Eubanks, who relied on an oxygen machine, collapsed after losing electricity at her Buffalo home during a time when emergency workers were unable to respond to calls, son Antwaine Parker told The Buffalo News.
“She’s like, ‘I can’t go no further.’ I’m begging her, ‘Mom, just stand up.’ She fell in my arms and never spoke another word,” Parker told the newspaper.
Parker and his stepbrother knocked on nearby doors, seeking help. They found it when a stranger, David Purdy, answered and helped them carry the 63-year-old Eubanks inside and try in vain to revive her. Purdy and his fiancee sheltered her body until first responders arrived the next day.
“I done it as respectful as I could,” Purdy told The Buffalo News
Fucking hell | [] |
>
That is just fucking awful. | [
"Carolyn Eubanks, who relied on an oxygen machine, collapsed after losing electricity at her Buffalo home during a time when emergency workers were unable to respond to calls, son Antwaine Parker told The Buffalo News.\n“She’s like, ‘I can’t go no further.’ I’m begging her, ‘Mom, just stand up.’ She fell in my arms and never spoke another word,” Parker told the newspaper.\nParker and his stepbrother knocked on nearby doors, seeking help. They found it when a stranger, David Purdy, answered and helped them carry the 63-year-old Eubanks inside and try in vain to revive her. Purdy and his fiancee sheltered her body until first responders arrived the next day.\n“I done it as respectful as I could,” Purdy told The Buffalo News\n\nFucking hell"
] |
>
No tf they are not & even so, you're negating real pain families will go through because of this storm. I can't believe how much people lack the compassion to see this in these comments. | [
"Carolyn Eubanks, who relied on an oxygen machine, collapsed after losing electricity at her Buffalo home during a time when emergency workers were unable to respond to calls, son Antwaine Parker told The Buffalo News.\n“She’s like, ‘I can’t go no further.’ I’m begging her, ‘Mom, just stand up.’ She fell in my arms and never spoke another word,” Parker told the newspaper.\nParker and his stepbrother knocked on nearby doors, seeking help. They found it when a stranger, David Purdy, answered and helped them carry the 63-year-old Eubanks inside and try in vain to revive her. Purdy and his fiancee sheltered her body until first responders arrived the next day.\n“I done it as respectful as I could,” Purdy told The Buffalo News\n\nFucking hell",
">\n\nThat is just fucking awful."
] |
>
If you have someone in your home dependent on oxygen or other type of machine for the love of god please get another energy source. A small generator or energy bank.
There are many out there that are affordable and can keep the life saving machines going during electrical outages. | [
"Carolyn Eubanks, who relied on an oxygen machine, collapsed after losing electricity at her Buffalo home during a time when emergency workers were unable to respond to calls, son Antwaine Parker told The Buffalo News.\n“She’s like, ‘I can’t go no further.’ I’m begging her, ‘Mom, just stand up.’ She fell in my arms and never spoke another word,” Parker told the newspaper.\nParker and his stepbrother knocked on nearby doors, seeking help. They found it when a stranger, David Purdy, answered and helped them carry the 63-year-old Eubanks inside and try in vain to revive her. Purdy and his fiancee sheltered her body until first responders arrived the next day.\n“I done it as respectful as I could,” Purdy told The Buffalo News\n\nFucking hell",
">\n\nThat is just fucking awful.",
">\n\nNo tf they are not & even so, you're negating real pain families will go through because of this storm. I can't believe how much people lack the compassion to see this in these comments."
] |
>
Affordable is relative. | [
"Carolyn Eubanks, who relied on an oxygen machine, collapsed after losing electricity at her Buffalo home during a time when emergency workers were unable to respond to calls, son Antwaine Parker told The Buffalo News.\n“She’s like, ‘I can’t go no further.’ I’m begging her, ‘Mom, just stand up.’ She fell in my arms and never spoke another word,” Parker told the newspaper.\nParker and his stepbrother knocked on nearby doors, seeking help. They found it when a stranger, David Purdy, answered and helped them carry the 63-year-old Eubanks inside and try in vain to revive her. Purdy and his fiancee sheltered her body until first responders arrived the next day.\n“I done it as respectful as I could,” Purdy told The Buffalo News\n\nFucking hell",
">\n\nThat is just fucking awful.",
">\n\nNo tf they are not & even so, you're negating real pain families will go through because of this storm. I can't believe how much people lack the compassion to see this in these comments.",
">\n\nIf you have someone in your home dependent on oxygen or other type of machine for the love of god please get another energy source. A small generator or energy bank.\nThere are many out there that are affordable and can keep the life saving machines going during electrical outages."
] |
>
I've always imagined a Call of Duty style invasion of America during a huge winter storm. The storm does basically everything you'd want to have happen before you started flying in paratroopers. | [
"Carolyn Eubanks, who relied on an oxygen machine, collapsed after losing electricity at her Buffalo home during a time when emergency workers were unable to respond to calls, son Antwaine Parker told The Buffalo News.\n“She’s like, ‘I can’t go no further.’ I’m begging her, ‘Mom, just stand up.’ She fell in my arms and never spoke another word,” Parker told the newspaper.\nParker and his stepbrother knocked on nearby doors, seeking help. They found it when a stranger, David Purdy, answered and helped them carry the 63-year-old Eubanks inside and try in vain to revive her. Purdy and his fiancee sheltered her body until first responders arrived the next day.\n“I done it as respectful as I could,” Purdy told The Buffalo News\n\nFucking hell",
">\n\nThat is just fucking awful.",
">\n\nNo tf they are not & even so, you're negating real pain families will go through because of this storm. I can't believe how much people lack the compassion to see this in these comments.",
">\n\nIf you have someone in your home dependent on oxygen or other type of machine for the love of god please get another energy source. A small generator or energy bank.\nThere are many out there that are affordable and can keep the life saving machines going during electrical outages.",
">\n\nAffordable is relative."
] |
>
Interesting creative concept here! Brainstorming as if it were a novel, game, movie, or IRL but logistically how quickly could the invaders pull together invasion plans/troops/resources after confirming a winter storm will happen. Weather predictions can go sour.
Could be some awesome game artwork though. | [
"Carolyn Eubanks, who relied on an oxygen machine, collapsed after losing electricity at her Buffalo home during a time when emergency workers were unable to respond to calls, son Antwaine Parker told The Buffalo News.\n“She’s like, ‘I can’t go no further.’ I’m begging her, ‘Mom, just stand up.’ She fell in my arms and never spoke another word,” Parker told the newspaper.\nParker and his stepbrother knocked on nearby doors, seeking help. They found it when a stranger, David Purdy, answered and helped them carry the 63-year-old Eubanks inside and try in vain to revive her. Purdy and his fiancee sheltered her body until first responders arrived the next day.\n“I done it as respectful as I could,” Purdy told The Buffalo News\n\nFucking hell",
">\n\nThat is just fucking awful.",
">\n\nNo tf they are not & even so, you're negating real pain families will go through because of this storm. I can't believe how much people lack the compassion to see this in these comments.",
">\n\nIf you have someone in your home dependent on oxygen or other type of machine for the love of god please get another energy source. A small generator or energy bank.\nThere are many out there that are affordable and can keep the life saving machines going during electrical outages.",
">\n\nAffordable is relative.",
">\n\nI've always imagined a Call of Duty style invasion of America during a huge winter storm. The storm does basically everything you'd want to have happen before you started flying in paratroopers."
] |
>
Yeah it would definitely have to be a long long planned, ready to go in about a week and ready to cancel in a day type of attack.
Paratroopers landing on some type of super snowmobile that's armed. | [
"Carolyn Eubanks, who relied on an oxygen machine, collapsed after losing electricity at her Buffalo home during a time when emergency workers were unable to respond to calls, son Antwaine Parker told The Buffalo News.\n“She’s like, ‘I can’t go no further.’ I’m begging her, ‘Mom, just stand up.’ She fell in my arms and never spoke another word,” Parker told the newspaper.\nParker and his stepbrother knocked on nearby doors, seeking help. They found it when a stranger, David Purdy, answered and helped them carry the 63-year-old Eubanks inside and try in vain to revive her. Purdy and his fiancee sheltered her body until first responders arrived the next day.\n“I done it as respectful as I could,” Purdy told The Buffalo News\n\nFucking hell",
">\n\nThat is just fucking awful.",
">\n\nNo tf they are not & even so, you're negating real pain families will go through because of this storm. I can't believe how much people lack the compassion to see this in these comments.",
">\n\nIf you have someone in your home dependent on oxygen or other type of machine for the love of god please get another energy source. A small generator or energy bank.\nThere are many out there that are affordable and can keep the life saving machines going during electrical outages.",
">\n\nAffordable is relative.",
">\n\nI've always imagined a Call of Duty style invasion of America during a huge winter storm. The storm does basically everything you'd want to have happen before you started flying in paratroopers.",
">\n\nInteresting creative concept here! Brainstorming as if it were a novel, game, movie, or IRL but logistically how quickly could the invaders pull together invasion plans/troops/resources after confirming a winter storm will happen. Weather predictions can go sour. \nCould be some awesome game artwork though."
] |
>
Cloud seeding. Tanks with plows. Rabid penguin brigades. Polar bear berserker blitzkrieg Adderall core. Canadians. | [
"Carolyn Eubanks, who relied on an oxygen machine, collapsed after losing electricity at her Buffalo home during a time when emergency workers were unable to respond to calls, son Antwaine Parker told The Buffalo News.\n“She’s like, ‘I can’t go no further.’ I’m begging her, ‘Mom, just stand up.’ She fell in my arms and never spoke another word,” Parker told the newspaper.\nParker and his stepbrother knocked on nearby doors, seeking help. They found it when a stranger, David Purdy, answered and helped them carry the 63-year-old Eubanks inside and try in vain to revive her. Purdy and his fiancee sheltered her body until first responders arrived the next day.\n“I done it as respectful as I could,” Purdy told The Buffalo News\n\nFucking hell",
">\n\nThat is just fucking awful.",
">\n\nNo tf they are not & even so, you're negating real pain families will go through because of this storm. I can't believe how much people lack the compassion to see this in these comments.",
">\n\nIf you have someone in your home dependent on oxygen or other type of machine for the love of god please get another energy source. A small generator or energy bank.\nThere are many out there that are affordable and can keep the life saving machines going during electrical outages.",
">\n\nAffordable is relative.",
">\n\nI've always imagined a Call of Duty style invasion of America during a huge winter storm. The storm does basically everything you'd want to have happen before you started flying in paratroopers.",
">\n\nInteresting creative concept here! Brainstorming as if it were a novel, game, movie, or IRL but logistically how quickly could the invaders pull together invasion plans/troops/resources after confirming a winter storm will happen. Weather predictions can go sour. \nCould be some awesome game artwork though.",
">\n\nYeah it would definitely have to be a long long planned, ready to go in about a week and ready to cancel in a day type of attack.\nParatroopers landing on some type of super snowmobile that's armed."
] |
>
Hahaha as an American with Canadian friends this is spot on 😂 | [
"Carolyn Eubanks, who relied on an oxygen machine, collapsed after losing electricity at her Buffalo home during a time when emergency workers were unable to respond to calls, son Antwaine Parker told The Buffalo News.\n“She’s like, ‘I can’t go no further.’ I’m begging her, ‘Mom, just stand up.’ She fell in my arms and never spoke another word,” Parker told the newspaper.\nParker and his stepbrother knocked on nearby doors, seeking help. They found it when a stranger, David Purdy, answered and helped them carry the 63-year-old Eubanks inside and try in vain to revive her. Purdy and his fiancee sheltered her body until first responders arrived the next day.\n“I done it as respectful as I could,” Purdy told The Buffalo News\n\nFucking hell",
">\n\nThat is just fucking awful.",
">\n\nNo tf they are not & even so, you're negating real pain families will go through because of this storm. I can't believe how much people lack the compassion to see this in these comments.",
">\n\nIf you have someone in your home dependent on oxygen or other type of machine for the love of god please get another energy source. A small generator or energy bank.\nThere are many out there that are affordable and can keep the life saving machines going during electrical outages.",
">\n\nAffordable is relative.",
">\n\nI've always imagined a Call of Duty style invasion of America during a huge winter storm. The storm does basically everything you'd want to have happen before you started flying in paratroopers.",
">\n\nInteresting creative concept here! Brainstorming as if it were a novel, game, movie, or IRL but logistically how quickly could the invaders pull together invasion plans/troops/resources after confirming a winter storm will happen. Weather predictions can go sour. \nCould be some awesome game artwork though.",
">\n\nYeah it would definitely have to be a long long planned, ready to go in about a week and ready to cancel in a day type of attack.\nParatroopers landing on some type of super snowmobile that's armed.",
">\n\nCloud seeding. Tanks with plows. Rabid penguin brigades. Polar bear berserker blitzkrieg Adderall core. Canadians."
] |
>
Actually I'm kind of surprised it's not FEMA - isn't that the usual department to check houses after emergencies? Or are the markings on the houses (after hurricanes, for example) actually made by members of the National Guard? | [
"Carolyn Eubanks, who relied on an oxygen machine, collapsed after losing electricity at her Buffalo home during a time when emergency workers were unable to respond to calls, son Antwaine Parker told The Buffalo News.\n“She’s like, ‘I can’t go no further.’ I’m begging her, ‘Mom, just stand up.’ She fell in my arms and never spoke another word,” Parker told the newspaper.\nParker and his stepbrother knocked on nearby doors, seeking help. They found it when a stranger, David Purdy, answered and helped them carry the 63-year-old Eubanks inside and try in vain to revive her. Purdy and his fiancee sheltered her body until first responders arrived the next day.\n“I done it as respectful as I could,” Purdy told The Buffalo News\n\nFucking hell",
">\n\nThat is just fucking awful.",
">\n\nNo tf they are not & even so, you're negating real pain families will go through because of this storm. I can't believe how much people lack the compassion to see this in these comments.",
">\n\nIf you have someone in your home dependent on oxygen or other type of machine for the love of god please get another energy source. A small generator or energy bank.\nThere are many out there that are affordable and can keep the life saving machines going during electrical outages.",
">\n\nAffordable is relative.",
">\n\nI've always imagined a Call of Duty style invasion of America during a huge winter storm. The storm does basically everything you'd want to have happen before you started flying in paratroopers.",
">\n\nInteresting creative concept here! Brainstorming as if it were a novel, game, movie, or IRL but logistically how quickly could the invaders pull together invasion plans/troops/resources after confirming a winter storm will happen. Weather predictions can go sour. \nCould be some awesome game artwork though.",
">\n\nYeah it would definitely have to be a long long planned, ready to go in about a week and ready to cancel in a day type of attack.\nParatroopers landing on some type of super snowmobile that's armed.",
">\n\nCloud seeding. Tanks with plows. Rabid penguin brigades. Polar bear berserker blitzkrieg Adderall core. Canadians.",
">\n\nHahaha as an American with Canadian friends this is spot on 😂"
] |
>
National Guard has done this kind of thing a lot:
In my town, they were the guard stations at checkpoints to make sure people didn't go driving into a flood area.
When Parkersburg, Iowa got hit they approximately 160 Soldiers from the 1st Battalion, 133rd Infantry are provided security and aiding local officials in recovery efforts also 15 additional Soldiers and Airmen from the 67th Troop Command (Iowa City), Joint Forces Headquarters (Johnston), 734th Regional Support Group (Johnston), 133rd Test Squadron (Ft. Dodge), 132nd Fighter Wing (Des Moines), and Iowa Air National Guard Headquarters (Johnston), provided communications support, transporting water, creating emergency electrical power, and providing operational support. Additionally, the Iowa National Guard armory in Waterloo was used as an operations center for American Red Cross relief efforts.
Having taught the Search & Rescue Merit Badge and the Emergency Preparedness Merit Badge in the Boy Scouts of America, dealt with some logistics at Scout events, been apart of a few drills of what would happen if a tornado hit my Boy Scout camp with 300+ in the camp, and with my BA in History worked on papers about logistics a lot of what the Army and by extension the National Guard does on the regular helps a lot with storm recovery from logistics to security to whole Incident Command System are really handy. | [
"Carolyn Eubanks, who relied on an oxygen machine, collapsed after losing electricity at her Buffalo home during a time when emergency workers were unable to respond to calls, son Antwaine Parker told The Buffalo News.\n“She’s like, ‘I can’t go no further.’ I’m begging her, ‘Mom, just stand up.’ She fell in my arms and never spoke another word,” Parker told the newspaper.\nParker and his stepbrother knocked on nearby doors, seeking help. They found it when a stranger, David Purdy, answered and helped them carry the 63-year-old Eubanks inside and try in vain to revive her. Purdy and his fiancee sheltered her body until first responders arrived the next day.\n“I done it as respectful as I could,” Purdy told The Buffalo News\n\nFucking hell",
">\n\nThat is just fucking awful.",
">\n\nNo tf they are not & even so, you're negating real pain families will go through because of this storm. I can't believe how much people lack the compassion to see this in these comments.",
">\n\nIf you have someone in your home dependent on oxygen or other type of machine for the love of god please get another energy source. A small generator or energy bank.\nThere are many out there that are affordable and can keep the life saving machines going during electrical outages.",
">\n\nAffordable is relative.",
">\n\nI've always imagined a Call of Duty style invasion of America during a huge winter storm. The storm does basically everything you'd want to have happen before you started flying in paratroopers.",
">\n\nInteresting creative concept here! Brainstorming as if it were a novel, game, movie, or IRL but logistically how quickly could the invaders pull together invasion plans/troops/resources after confirming a winter storm will happen. Weather predictions can go sour. \nCould be some awesome game artwork though.",
">\n\nYeah it would definitely have to be a long long planned, ready to go in about a week and ready to cancel in a day type of attack.\nParatroopers landing on some type of super snowmobile that's armed.",
">\n\nCloud seeding. Tanks with plows. Rabid penguin brigades. Polar bear berserker blitzkrieg Adderall core. Canadians.",
">\n\nHahaha as an American with Canadian friends this is spot on 😂",
">\n\nActually I'm kind of surprised it's not FEMA - isn't that the usual department to check houses after emergencies? Or are the markings on the houses (after hurricanes, for example) actually made by members of the National Guard?"
] |
>
There are also quite a few jobs that require ICS training. I had to complete a few of the courses for my job. It’s a good primer on “what to do in what order” or “how to organize multiple people” in a disaster. I’d say it’s worth it to just look through ICS-100 for anyone who is remotely curious about disaster response by the government (or in my case, a large company). It’s totally free. | [
"Carolyn Eubanks, who relied on an oxygen machine, collapsed after losing electricity at her Buffalo home during a time when emergency workers were unable to respond to calls, son Antwaine Parker told The Buffalo News.\n“She’s like, ‘I can’t go no further.’ I’m begging her, ‘Mom, just stand up.’ She fell in my arms and never spoke another word,” Parker told the newspaper.\nParker and his stepbrother knocked on nearby doors, seeking help. They found it when a stranger, David Purdy, answered and helped them carry the 63-year-old Eubanks inside and try in vain to revive her. Purdy and his fiancee sheltered her body until first responders arrived the next day.\n“I done it as respectful as I could,” Purdy told The Buffalo News\n\nFucking hell",
">\n\nThat is just fucking awful.",
">\n\nNo tf they are not & even so, you're negating real pain families will go through because of this storm. I can't believe how much people lack the compassion to see this in these comments.",
">\n\nIf you have someone in your home dependent on oxygen or other type of machine for the love of god please get another energy source. A small generator or energy bank.\nThere are many out there that are affordable and can keep the life saving machines going during electrical outages.",
">\n\nAffordable is relative.",
">\n\nI've always imagined a Call of Duty style invasion of America during a huge winter storm. The storm does basically everything you'd want to have happen before you started flying in paratroopers.",
">\n\nInteresting creative concept here! Brainstorming as if it were a novel, game, movie, or IRL but logistically how quickly could the invaders pull together invasion plans/troops/resources after confirming a winter storm will happen. Weather predictions can go sour. \nCould be some awesome game artwork though.",
">\n\nYeah it would definitely have to be a long long planned, ready to go in about a week and ready to cancel in a day type of attack.\nParatroopers landing on some type of super snowmobile that's armed.",
">\n\nCloud seeding. Tanks with plows. Rabid penguin brigades. Polar bear berserker blitzkrieg Adderall core. Canadians.",
">\n\nHahaha as an American with Canadian friends this is spot on 😂",
">\n\nActually I'm kind of surprised it's not FEMA - isn't that the usual department to check houses after emergencies? Or are the markings on the houses (after hurricanes, for example) actually made by members of the National Guard?",
">\n\nNational Guard has done this kind of thing a lot:\n\n\nIn my town, they were the guard stations at checkpoints to make sure people didn't go driving into a flood area. \n\n\nWhen Parkersburg, Iowa got hit they approximately 160 Soldiers from the 1st Battalion, 133rd Infantry are provided security and aiding local officials in recovery efforts also 15 additional Soldiers and Airmen from the 67th Troop Command (Iowa City), Joint Forces Headquarters (Johnston), 734th Regional Support Group (Johnston), 133rd Test Squadron (Ft. Dodge), 132nd Fighter Wing (Des Moines), and Iowa Air National Guard Headquarters (Johnston), provided communications support, transporting water, creating emergency electrical power, and providing operational support. Additionally, the Iowa National Guard armory in Waterloo was used as an operations center for American Red Cross relief efforts.\n\n\nHaving taught the Search & Rescue Merit Badge and the Emergency Preparedness Merit Badge in the Boy Scouts of America, dealt with some logistics at Scout events, been apart of a few drills of what would happen if a tornado hit my Boy Scout camp with 300+ in the camp, and with my BA in History worked on papers about logistics a lot of what the Army and by extension the National Guard does on the regular helps a lot with storm recovery from logistics to security to whole Incident Command System are really handy."
] |
>
This is where some of the defense spending goes, like it or not. | [
"Carolyn Eubanks, who relied on an oxygen machine, collapsed after losing electricity at her Buffalo home during a time when emergency workers were unable to respond to calls, son Antwaine Parker told The Buffalo News.\n“She’s like, ‘I can’t go no further.’ I’m begging her, ‘Mom, just stand up.’ She fell in my arms and never spoke another word,” Parker told the newspaper.\nParker and his stepbrother knocked on nearby doors, seeking help. They found it when a stranger, David Purdy, answered and helped them carry the 63-year-old Eubanks inside and try in vain to revive her. Purdy and his fiancee sheltered her body until first responders arrived the next day.\n“I done it as respectful as I could,” Purdy told The Buffalo News\n\nFucking hell",
">\n\nThat is just fucking awful.",
">\n\nNo tf they are not & even so, you're negating real pain families will go through because of this storm. I can't believe how much people lack the compassion to see this in these comments.",
">\n\nIf you have someone in your home dependent on oxygen or other type of machine for the love of god please get another energy source. A small generator or energy bank.\nThere are many out there that are affordable and can keep the life saving machines going during electrical outages.",
">\n\nAffordable is relative.",
">\n\nI've always imagined a Call of Duty style invasion of America during a huge winter storm. The storm does basically everything you'd want to have happen before you started flying in paratroopers.",
">\n\nInteresting creative concept here! Brainstorming as if it were a novel, game, movie, or IRL but logistically how quickly could the invaders pull together invasion plans/troops/resources after confirming a winter storm will happen. Weather predictions can go sour. \nCould be some awesome game artwork though.",
">\n\nYeah it would definitely have to be a long long planned, ready to go in about a week and ready to cancel in a day type of attack.\nParatroopers landing on some type of super snowmobile that's armed.",
">\n\nCloud seeding. Tanks with plows. Rabid penguin brigades. Polar bear berserker blitzkrieg Adderall core. Canadians.",
">\n\nHahaha as an American with Canadian friends this is spot on 😂",
">\n\nActually I'm kind of surprised it's not FEMA - isn't that the usual department to check houses after emergencies? Or are the markings on the houses (after hurricanes, for example) actually made by members of the National Guard?",
">\n\nNational Guard has done this kind of thing a lot:\n\n\nIn my town, they were the guard stations at checkpoints to make sure people didn't go driving into a flood area. \n\n\nWhen Parkersburg, Iowa got hit they approximately 160 Soldiers from the 1st Battalion, 133rd Infantry are provided security and aiding local officials in recovery efforts also 15 additional Soldiers and Airmen from the 67th Troop Command (Iowa City), Joint Forces Headquarters (Johnston), 734th Regional Support Group (Johnston), 133rd Test Squadron (Ft. Dodge), 132nd Fighter Wing (Des Moines), and Iowa Air National Guard Headquarters (Johnston), provided communications support, transporting water, creating emergency electrical power, and providing operational support. Additionally, the Iowa National Guard armory in Waterloo was used as an operations center for American Red Cross relief efforts.\n\n\nHaving taught the Search & Rescue Merit Badge and the Emergency Preparedness Merit Badge in the Boy Scouts of America, dealt with some logistics at Scout events, been apart of a few drills of what would happen if a tornado hit my Boy Scout camp with 300+ in the camp, and with my BA in History worked on papers about logistics a lot of what the Army and by extension the National Guard does on the regular helps a lot with storm recovery from logistics to security to whole Incident Command System are really handy.",
">\n\nThere are also quite a few jobs that require ICS training. I had to complete a few of the courses for my job. It’s a good primer on “what to do in what order” or “how to organize multiple people” in a disaster. I’d say it’s worth it to just look through ICS-100 for anyone who is remotely curious about disaster response by the government (or in my case, a large company). It’s totally free."
] |
>
One of the few defense budget expenditures we can probably all get behind | [
"Carolyn Eubanks, who relied on an oxygen machine, collapsed after losing electricity at her Buffalo home during a time when emergency workers were unable to respond to calls, son Antwaine Parker told The Buffalo News.\n“She’s like, ‘I can’t go no further.’ I’m begging her, ‘Mom, just stand up.’ She fell in my arms and never spoke another word,” Parker told the newspaper.\nParker and his stepbrother knocked on nearby doors, seeking help. They found it when a stranger, David Purdy, answered and helped them carry the 63-year-old Eubanks inside and try in vain to revive her. Purdy and his fiancee sheltered her body until first responders arrived the next day.\n“I done it as respectful as I could,” Purdy told The Buffalo News\n\nFucking hell",
">\n\nThat is just fucking awful.",
">\n\nNo tf they are not & even so, you're negating real pain families will go through because of this storm. I can't believe how much people lack the compassion to see this in these comments.",
">\n\nIf you have someone in your home dependent on oxygen or other type of machine for the love of god please get another energy source. A small generator or energy bank.\nThere are many out there that are affordable and can keep the life saving machines going during electrical outages.",
">\n\nAffordable is relative.",
">\n\nI've always imagined a Call of Duty style invasion of America during a huge winter storm. The storm does basically everything you'd want to have happen before you started flying in paratroopers.",
">\n\nInteresting creative concept here! Brainstorming as if it were a novel, game, movie, or IRL but logistically how quickly could the invaders pull together invasion plans/troops/resources after confirming a winter storm will happen. Weather predictions can go sour. \nCould be some awesome game artwork though.",
">\n\nYeah it would definitely have to be a long long planned, ready to go in about a week and ready to cancel in a day type of attack.\nParatroopers landing on some type of super snowmobile that's armed.",
">\n\nCloud seeding. Tanks with plows. Rabid penguin brigades. Polar bear berserker blitzkrieg Adderall core. Canadians.",
">\n\nHahaha as an American with Canadian friends this is spot on 😂",
">\n\nActually I'm kind of surprised it's not FEMA - isn't that the usual department to check houses after emergencies? Or are the markings on the houses (after hurricanes, for example) actually made by members of the National Guard?",
">\n\nNational Guard has done this kind of thing a lot:\n\n\nIn my town, they were the guard stations at checkpoints to make sure people didn't go driving into a flood area. \n\n\nWhen Parkersburg, Iowa got hit they approximately 160 Soldiers from the 1st Battalion, 133rd Infantry are provided security and aiding local officials in recovery efforts also 15 additional Soldiers and Airmen from the 67th Troop Command (Iowa City), Joint Forces Headquarters (Johnston), 734th Regional Support Group (Johnston), 133rd Test Squadron (Ft. Dodge), 132nd Fighter Wing (Des Moines), and Iowa Air National Guard Headquarters (Johnston), provided communications support, transporting water, creating emergency electrical power, and providing operational support. Additionally, the Iowa National Guard armory in Waterloo was used as an operations center for American Red Cross relief efforts.\n\n\nHaving taught the Search & Rescue Merit Badge and the Emergency Preparedness Merit Badge in the Boy Scouts of America, dealt with some logistics at Scout events, been apart of a few drills of what would happen if a tornado hit my Boy Scout camp with 300+ in the camp, and with my BA in History worked on papers about logistics a lot of what the Army and by extension the National Guard does on the regular helps a lot with storm recovery from logistics to security to whole Incident Command System are really handy.",
">\n\nThere are also quite a few jobs that require ICS training. I had to complete a few of the courses for my job. It’s a good primer on “what to do in what order” or “how to organize multiple people” in a disaster. I’d say it’s worth it to just look through ICS-100 for anyone who is remotely curious about disaster response by the government (or in my case, a large company). It’s totally free.",
">\n\nThis is where some of the defense spending goes, like it or not."
] |
>
This was an extraordinary storm.
Normally in a snow storm if your car gets stuck, you either get out to dig yourself out or you wait for a tow.
With hurricane force winds, frigid wind chills and whiteout conditions meant people couldn’t easily free their car and conditions were too dangerous to be rescued.
So people started abandoning cars, blocking plows from getting down streets.
Essentially, what normally would be an easy job for a plow became labor intensive as cars had to be dug out and towed before plows and emergency services could get down the road.
All it takes is one car to get stuck to greatly delay plowing.
To add insult to injury, the storm impacted the entire city and all of the suburbs. Normally, only the southern suburbs and neighborhoods see the worse of the lake effect whereas northern suburbs and neighborhoods often see less lake effect or none at all.
I will say, Buffalo’s response has been lethargic. While all the surrounding municipalities had dug out, the city barely just begun. | [
"Carolyn Eubanks, who relied on an oxygen machine, collapsed after losing electricity at her Buffalo home during a time when emergency workers were unable to respond to calls, son Antwaine Parker told The Buffalo News.\n“She’s like, ‘I can’t go no further.’ I’m begging her, ‘Mom, just stand up.’ She fell in my arms and never spoke another word,” Parker told the newspaper.\nParker and his stepbrother knocked on nearby doors, seeking help. They found it when a stranger, David Purdy, answered and helped them carry the 63-year-old Eubanks inside and try in vain to revive her. Purdy and his fiancee sheltered her body until first responders arrived the next day.\n“I done it as respectful as I could,” Purdy told The Buffalo News\n\nFucking hell",
">\n\nThat is just fucking awful.",
">\n\nNo tf they are not & even so, you're negating real pain families will go through because of this storm. I can't believe how much people lack the compassion to see this in these comments.",
">\n\nIf you have someone in your home dependent on oxygen or other type of machine for the love of god please get another energy source. A small generator or energy bank.\nThere are many out there that are affordable and can keep the life saving machines going during electrical outages.",
">\n\nAffordable is relative.",
">\n\nI've always imagined a Call of Duty style invasion of America during a huge winter storm. The storm does basically everything you'd want to have happen before you started flying in paratroopers.",
">\n\nInteresting creative concept here! Brainstorming as if it were a novel, game, movie, or IRL but logistically how quickly could the invaders pull together invasion plans/troops/resources after confirming a winter storm will happen. Weather predictions can go sour. \nCould be some awesome game artwork though.",
">\n\nYeah it would definitely have to be a long long planned, ready to go in about a week and ready to cancel in a day type of attack.\nParatroopers landing on some type of super snowmobile that's armed.",
">\n\nCloud seeding. Tanks with plows. Rabid penguin brigades. Polar bear berserker blitzkrieg Adderall core. Canadians.",
">\n\nHahaha as an American with Canadian friends this is spot on 😂",
">\n\nActually I'm kind of surprised it's not FEMA - isn't that the usual department to check houses after emergencies? Or are the markings on the houses (after hurricanes, for example) actually made by members of the National Guard?",
">\n\nNational Guard has done this kind of thing a lot:\n\n\nIn my town, they were the guard stations at checkpoints to make sure people didn't go driving into a flood area. \n\n\nWhen Parkersburg, Iowa got hit they approximately 160 Soldiers from the 1st Battalion, 133rd Infantry are provided security and aiding local officials in recovery efforts also 15 additional Soldiers and Airmen from the 67th Troop Command (Iowa City), Joint Forces Headquarters (Johnston), 734th Regional Support Group (Johnston), 133rd Test Squadron (Ft. Dodge), 132nd Fighter Wing (Des Moines), and Iowa Air National Guard Headquarters (Johnston), provided communications support, transporting water, creating emergency electrical power, and providing operational support. Additionally, the Iowa National Guard armory in Waterloo was used as an operations center for American Red Cross relief efforts.\n\n\nHaving taught the Search & Rescue Merit Badge and the Emergency Preparedness Merit Badge in the Boy Scouts of America, dealt with some logistics at Scout events, been apart of a few drills of what would happen if a tornado hit my Boy Scout camp with 300+ in the camp, and with my BA in History worked on papers about logistics a lot of what the Army and by extension the National Guard does on the regular helps a lot with storm recovery from logistics to security to whole Incident Command System are really handy.",
">\n\nThere are also quite a few jobs that require ICS training. I had to complete a few of the courses for my job. It’s a good primer on “what to do in what order” or “how to organize multiple people” in a disaster. I’d say it’s worth it to just look through ICS-100 for anyone who is remotely curious about disaster response by the government (or in my case, a large company). It’s totally free.",
">\n\nThis is where some of the defense spending goes, like it or not.",
">\n\nOne of the few defense budget expenditures we can probably all get behind"
] |
>
Essentially, what normally would be an easy job for a plow became labor intensive as cars had to be dug out and towed before plows and emergency services could get down the road.
You say that, but much like the November storm we had earlier this year, in some places you can't actually plow it with a normal plow at all due to the amount of accumulation. We've got heavy-duty plows that can manage most of it, but they're primarily deployed on arterial roads first. A lot of smaller residential streets are usually taken care of by smaller utility plows that are basically just pickups with a plow mounted (though this depends on the township in question), and those smaller ones can't cut through 3+ feet of snowfall very easily. If things get bad enough we've deployed bucket loaders to help with snow removal.
TL;DR even without the abandoned cars, there was enough snowfall that there would have been delays anyways. | [
"Carolyn Eubanks, who relied on an oxygen machine, collapsed after losing electricity at her Buffalo home during a time when emergency workers were unable to respond to calls, son Antwaine Parker told The Buffalo News.\n“She’s like, ‘I can’t go no further.’ I’m begging her, ‘Mom, just stand up.’ She fell in my arms and never spoke another word,” Parker told the newspaper.\nParker and his stepbrother knocked on nearby doors, seeking help. They found it when a stranger, David Purdy, answered and helped them carry the 63-year-old Eubanks inside and try in vain to revive her. Purdy and his fiancee sheltered her body until first responders arrived the next day.\n“I done it as respectful as I could,” Purdy told The Buffalo News\n\nFucking hell",
">\n\nThat is just fucking awful.",
">\n\nNo tf they are not & even so, you're negating real pain families will go through because of this storm. I can't believe how much people lack the compassion to see this in these comments.",
">\n\nIf you have someone in your home dependent on oxygen or other type of machine for the love of god please get another energy source. A small generator or energy bank.\nThere are many out there that are affordable and can keep the life saving machines going during electrical outages.",
">\n\nAffordable is relative.",
">\n\nI've always imagined a Call of Duty style invasion of America during a huge winter storm. The storm does basically everything you'd want to have happen before you started flying in paratroopers.",
">\n\nInteresting creative concept here! Brainstorming as if it were a novel, game, movie, or IRL but logistically how quickly could the invaders pull together invasion plans/troops/resources after confirming a winter storm will happen. Weather predictions can go sour. \nCould be some awesome game artwork though.",
">\n\nYeah it would definitely have to be a long long planned, ready to go in about a week and ready to cancel in a day type of attack.\nParatroopers landing on some type of super snowmobile that's armed.",
">\n\nCloud seeding. Tanks with plows. Rabid penguin brigades. Polar bear berserker blitzkrieg Adderall core. Canadians.",
">\n\nHahaha as an American with Canadian friends this is spot on 😂",
">\n\nActually I'm kind of surprised it's not FEMA - isn't that the usual department to check houses after emergencies? Or are the markings on the houses (after hurricanes, for example) actually made by members of the National Guard?",
">\n\nNational Guard has done this kind of thing a lot:\n\n\nIn my town, they were the guard stations at checkpoints to make sure people didn't go driving into a flood area. \n\n\nWhen Parkersburg, Iowa got hit they approximately 160 Soldiers from the 1st Battalion, 133rd Infantry are provided security and aiding local officials in recovery efforts also 15 additional Soldiers and Airmen from the 67th Troop Command (Iowa City), Joint Forces Headquarters (Johnston), 734th Regional Support Group (Johnston), 133rd Test Squadron (Ft. Dodge), 132nd Fighter Wing (Des Moines), and Iowa Air National Guard Headquarters (Johnston), provided communications support, transporting water, creating emergency electrical power, and providing operational support. Additionally, the Iowa National Guard armory in Waterloo was used as an operations center for American Red Cross relief efforts.\n\n\nHaving taught the Search & Rescue Merit Badge and the Emergency Preparedness Merit Badge in the Boy Scouts of America, dealt with some logistics at Scout events, been apart of a few drills of what would happen if a tornado hit my Boy Scout camp with 300+ in the camp, and with my BA in History worked on papers about logistics a lot of what the Army and by extension the National Guard does on the regular helps a lot with storm recovery from logistics to security to whole Incident Command System are really handy.",
">\n\nThere are also quite a few jobs that require ICS training. I had to complete a few of the courses for my job. It’s a good primer on “what to do in what order” or “how to organize multiple people” in a disaster. I’d say it’s worth it to just look through ICS-100 for anyone who is remotely curious about disaster response by the government (or in my case, a large company). It’s totally free.",
">\n\nThis is where some of the defense spending goes, like it or not.",
">\n\nOne of the few defense budget expenditures we can probably all get behind",
">\n\nThis was an extraordinary storm.\nNormally in a snow storm if your car gets stuck, you either get out to dig yourself out or you wait for a tow.\nWith hurricane force winds, frigid wind chills and whiteout conditions meant people couldn’t easily free their car and conditions were too dangerous to be rescued.\nSo people started abandoning cars, blocking plows from getting down streets.\nEssentially, what normally would be an easy job for a plow became labor intensive as cars had to be dug out and towed before plows and emergency services could get down the road.\nAll it takes is one car to get stuck to greatly delay plowing.\nTo add insult to injury, the storm impacted the entire city and all of the suburbs. Normally, only the southern suburbs and neighborhoods see the worse of the lake effect whereas northern suburbs and neighborhoods often see less lake effect or none at all.\nI will say, Buffalo’s response has been lethargic. While all the surrounding municipalities had dug out, the city barely just begun."
] |
>
Yeah, but the November storm didn’t greatly impact the City of Buffalo.
The worst hit area was South of the city that saw 6+ feet of snow.
The city proper only saw a much more manageable 2 feet, something Buffalo deals with often.
The scope of this storm impacted the most heavily populated areas of the county which are normally spared the worse of the Lake Effect. | [
"Carolyn Eubanks, who relied on an oxygen machine, collapsed after losing electricity at her Buffalo home during a time when emergency workers were unable to respond to calls, son Antwaine Parker told The Buffalo News.\n“She’s like, ‘I can’t go no further.’ I’m begging her, ‘Mom, just stand up.’ She fell in my arms and never spoke another word,” Parker told the newspaper.\nParker and his stepbrother knocked on nearby doors, seeking help. They found it when a stranger, David Purdy, answered and helped them carry the 63-year-old Eubanks inside and try in vain to revive her. Purdy and his fiancee sheltered her body until first responders arrived the next day.\n“I done it as respectful as I could,” Purdy told The Buffalo News\n\nFucking hell",
">\n\nThat is just fucking awful.",
">\n\nNo tf they are not & even so, you're negating real pain families will go through because of this storm. I can't believe how much people lack the compassion to see this in these comments.",
">\n\nIf you have someone in your home dependent on oxygen or other type of machine for the love of god please get another energy source. A small generator or energy bank.\nThere are many out there that are affordable and can keep the life saving machines going during electrical outages.",
">\n\nAffordable is relative.",
">\n\nI've always imagined a Call of Duty style invasion of America during a huge winter storm. The storm does basically everything you'd want to have happen before you started flying in paratroopers.",
">\n\nInteresting creative concept here! Brainstorming as if it were a novel, game, movie, or IRL but logistically how quickly could the invaders pull together invasion plans/troops/resources after confirming a winter storm will happen. Weather predictions can go sour. \nCould be some awesome game artwork though.",
">\n\nYeah it would definitely have to be a long long planned, ready to go in about a week and ready to cancel in a day type of attack.\nParatroopers landing on some type of super snowmobile that's armed.",
">\n\nCloud seeding. Tanks with plows. Rabid penguin brigades. Polar bear berserker blitzkrieg Adderall core. Canadians.",
">\n\nHahaha as an American with Canadian friends this is spot on 😂",
">\n\nActually I'm kind of surprised it's not FEMA - isn't that the usual department to check houses after emergencies? Or are the markings on the houses (after hurricanes, for example) actually made by members of the National Guard?",
">\n\nNational Guard has done this kind of thing a lot:\n\n\nIn my town, they were the guard stations at checkpoints to make sure people didn't go driving into a flood area. \n\n\nWhen Parkersburg, Iowa got hit they approximately 160 Soldiers from the 1st Battalion, 133rd Infantry are provided security and aiding local officials in recovery efforts also 15 additional Soldiers and Airmen from the 67th Troop Command (Iowa City), Joint Forces Headquarters (Johnston), 734th Regional Support Group (Johnston), 133rd Test Squadron (Ft. Dodge), 132nd Fighter Wing (Des Moines), and Iowa Air National Guard Headquarters (Johnston), provided communications support, transporting water, creating emergency electrical power, and providing operational support. Additionally, the Iowa National Guard armory in Waterloo was used as an operations center for American Red Cross relief efforts.\n\n\nHaving taught the Search & Rescue Merit Badge and the Emergency Preparedness Merit Badge in the Boy Scouts of America, dealt with some logistics at Scout events, been apart of a few drills of what would happen if a tornado hit my Boy Scout camp with 300+ in the camp, and with my BA in History worked on papers about logistics a lot of what the Army and by extension the National Guard does on the regular helps a lot with storm recovery from logistics to security to whole Incident Command System are really handy.",
">\n\nThere are also quite a few jobs that require ICS training. I had to complete a few of the courses for my job. It’s a good primer on “what to do in what order” or “how to organize multiple people” in a disaster. I’d say it’s worth it to just look through ICS-100 for anyone who is remotely curious about disaster response by the government (or in my case, a large company). It’s totally free.",
">\n\nThis is where some of the defense spending goes, like it or not.",
">\n\nOne of the few defense budget expenditures we can probably all get behind",
">\n\nThis was an extraordinary storm.\nNormally in a snow storm if your car gets stuck, you either get out to dig yourself out or you wait for a tow.\nWith hurricane force winds, frigid wind chills and whiteout conditions meant people couldn’t easily free their car and conditions were too dangerous to be rescued.\nSo people started abandoning cars, blocking plows from getting down streets.\nEssentially, what normally would be an easy job for a plow became labor intensive as cars had to be dug out and towed before plows and emergency services could get down the road.\nAll it takes is one car to get stuck to greatly delay plowing.\nTo add insult to injury, the storm impacted the entire city and all of the suburbs. Normally, only the southern suburbs and neighborhoods see the worse of the lake effect whereas northern suburbs and neighborhoods often see less lake effect or none at all.\nI will say, Buffalo’s response has been lethargic. While all the surrounding municipalities had dug out, the city barely just begun.",
">\n\n\nEssentially, what normally would be an easy job for a plow became labor intensive as cars had to be dug out and towed before plows and emergency services could get down the road.\n\nYou say that, but much like the November storm we had earlier this year, in some places you can't actually plow it with a normal plow at all due to the amount of accumulation. We've got heavy-duty plows that can manage most of it, but they're primarily deployed on arterial roads first. A lot of smaller residential streets are usually taken care of by smaller utility plows that are basically just pickups with a plow mounted (though this depends on the township in question), and those smaller ones can't cut through 3+ feet of snowfall very easily. If things get bad enough we've deployed bucket loaders to help with snow removal.\nTL;DR even without the abandoned cars, there was enough snowfall that there would have been delays anyways."
] |
>
Oh yeah, absolutely. My point is that even during the "usual" blizzards we get, there can be problems in the suburbs around the city getting the roads plowed. Throw in the fact that it hit downtown, PLUS the freezing temperatures and high winds? Recipe for disaster. | [
"Carolyn Eubanks, who relied on an oxygen machine, collapsed after losing electricity at her Buffalo home during a time when emergency workers were unable to respond to calls, son Antwaine Parker told The Buffalo News.\n“She’s like, ‘I can’t go no further.’ I’m begging her, ‘Mom, just stand up.’ She fell in my arms and never spoke another word,” Parker told the newspaper.\nParker and his stepbrother knocked on nearby doors, seeking help. They found it when a stranger, David Purdy, answered and helped them carry the 63-year-old Eubanks inside and try in vain to revive her. Purdy and his fiancee sheltered her body until first responders arrived the next day.\n“I done it as respectful as I could,” Purdy told The Buffalo News\n\nFucking hell",
">\n\nThat is just fucking awful.",
">\n\nNo tf they are not & even so, you're negating real pain families will go through because of this storm. I can't believe how much people lack the compassion to see this in these comments.",
">\n\nIf you have someone in your home dependent on oxygen or other type of machine for the love of god please get another energy source. A small generator or energy bank.\nThere are many out there that are affordable and can keep the life saving machines going during electrical outages.",
">\n\nAffordable is relative.",
">\n\nI've always imagined a Call of Duty style invasion of America during a huge winter storm. The storm does basically everything you'd want to have happen before you started flying in paratroopers.",
">\n\nInteresting creative concept here! Brainstorming as if it were a novel, game, movie, or IRL but logistically how quickly could the invaders pull together invasion plans/troops/resources after confirming a winter storm will happen. Weather predictions can go sour. \nCould be some awesome game artwork though.",
">\n\nYeah it would definitely have to be a long long planned, ready to go in about a week and ready to cancel in a day type of attack.\nParatroopers landing on some type of super snowmobile that's armed.",
">\n\nCloud seeding. Tanks with plows. Rabid penguin brigades. Polar bear berserker blitzkrieg Adderall core. Canadians.",
">\n\nHahaha as an American with Canadian friends this is spot on 😂",
">\n\nActually I'm kind of surprised it's not FEMA - isn't that the usual department to check houses after emergencies? Or are the markings on the houses (after hurricanes, for example) actually made by members of the National Guard?",
">\n\nNational Guard has done this kind of thing a lot:\n\n\nIn my town, they were the guard stations at checkpoints to make sure people didn't go driving into a flood area. \n\n\nWhen Parkersburg, Iowa got hit they approximately 160 Soldiers from the 1st Battalion, 133rd Infantry are provided security and aiding local officials in recovery efforts also 15 additional Soldiers and Airmen from the 67th Troop Command (Iowa City), Joint Forces Headquarters (Johnston), 734th Regional Support Group (Johnston), 133rd Test Squadron (Ft. Dodge), 132nd Fighter Wing (Des Moines), and Iowa Air National Guard Headquarters (Johnston), provided communications support, transporting water, creating emergency electrical power, and providing operational support. Additionally, the Iowa National Guard armory in Waterloo was used as an operations center for American Red Cross relief efforts.\n\n\nHaving taught the Search & Rescue Merit Badge and the Emergency Preparedness Merit Badge in the Boy Scouts of America, dealt with some logistics at Scout events, been apart of a few drills of what would happen if a tornado hit my Boy Scout camp with 300+ in the camp, and with my BA in History worked on papers about logistics a lot of what the Army and by extension the National Guard does on the regular helps a lot with storm recovery from logistics to security to whole Incident Command System are really handy.",
">\n\nThere are also quite a few jobs that require ICS training. I had to complete a few of the courses for my job. It’s a good primer on “what to do in what order” or “how to organize multiple people” in a disaster. I’d say it’s worth it to just look through ICS-100 for anyone who is remotely curious about disaster response by the government (or in my case, a large company). It’s totally free.",
">\n\nThis is where some of the defense spending goes, like it or not.",
">\n\nOne of the few defense budget expenditures we can probably all get behind",
">\n\nThis was an extraordinary storm.\nNormally in a snow storm if your car gets stuck, you either get out to dig yourself out or you wait for a tow.\nWith hurricane force winds, frigid wind chills and whiteout conditions meant people couldn’t easily free their car and conditions were too dangerous to be rescued.\nSo people started abandoning cars, blocking plows from getting down streets.\nEssentially, what normally would be an easy job for a plow became labor intensive as cars had to be dug out and towed before plows and emergency services could get down the road.\nAll it takes is one car to get stuck to greatly delay plowing.\nTo add insult to injury, the storm impacted the entire city and all of the suburbs. Normally, only the southern suburbs and neighborhoods see the worse of the lake effect whereas northern suburbs and neighborhoods often see less lake effect or none at all.\nI will say, Buffalo’s response has been lethargic. While all the surrounding municipalities had dug out, the city barely just begun.",
">\n\n\nEssentially, what normally would be an easy job for a plow became labor intensive as cars had to be dug out and towed before plows and emergency services could get down the road.\n\nYou say that, but much like the November storm we had earlier this year, in some places you can't actually plow it with a normal plow at all due to the amount of accumulation. We've got heavy-duty plows that can manage most of it, but they're primarily deployed on arterial roads first. A lot of smaller residential streets are usually taken care of by smaller utility plows that are basically just pickups with a plow mounted (though this depends on the township in question), and those smaller ones can't cut through 3+ feet of snowfall very easily. If things get bad enough we've deployed bucket loaders to help with snow removal.\nTL;DR even without the abandoned cars, there was enough snowfall that there would have been delays anyways.",
">\n\nYeah, but the November storm didn’t greatly impact the City of Buffalo.\nThe worst hit area was South of the city that saw 6+ feet of snow.\nThe city proper only saw a much more manageable 2 feet, something Buffalo deals with often.\nThe scope of this storm impacted the most heavily populated areas of the county which are normally spared the worse of the Lake Effect."
] |
> | [
"Carolyn Eubanks, who relied on an oxygen machine, collapsed after losing electricity at her Buffalo home during a time when emergency workers were unable to respond to calls, son Antwaine Parker told The Buffalo News.\n“She’s like, ‘I can’t go no further.’ I’m begging her, ‘Mom, just stand up.’ She fell in my arms and never spoke another word,” Parker told the newspaper.\nParker and his stepbrother knocked on nearby doors, seeking help. They found it when a stranger, David Purdy, answered and helped them carry the 63-year-old Eubanks inside and try in vain to revive her. Purdy and his fiancee sheltered her body until first responders arrived the next day.\n“I done it as respectful as I could,” Purdy told The Buffalo News\n\nFucking hell",
">\n\nThat is just fucking awful.",
">\n\nNo tf they are not & even so, you're negating real pain families will go through because of this storm. I can't believe how much people lack the compassion to see this in these comments.",
">\n\nIf you have someone in your home dependent on oxygen or other type of machine for the love of god please get another energy source. A small generator or energy bank.\nThere are many out there that are affordable and can keep the life saving machines going during electrical outages.",
">\n\nAffordable is relative.",
">\n\nI've always imagined a Call of Duty style invasion of America during a huge winter storm. The storm does basically everything you'd want to have happen before you started flying in paratroopers.",
">\n\nInteresting creative concept here! Brainstorming as if it were a novel, game, movie, or IRL but logistically how quickly could the invaders pull together invasion plans/troops/resources after confirming a winter storm will happen. Weather predictions can go sour. \nCould be some awesome game artwork though.",
">\n\nYeah it would definitely have to be a long long planned, ready to go in about a week and ready to cancel in a day type of attack.\nParatroopers landing on some type of super snowmobile that's armed.",
">\n\nCloud seeding. Tanks with plows. Rabid penguin brigades. Polar bear berserker blitzkrieg Adderall core. Canadians.",
">\n\nHahaha as an American with Canadian friends this is spot on 😂",
">\n\nActually I'm kind of surprised it's not FEMA - isn't that the usual department to check houses after emergencies? Or are the markings on the houses (after hurricanes, for example) actually made by members of the National Guard?",
">\n\nNational Guard has done this kind of thing a lot:\n\n\nIn my town, they were the guard stations at checkpoints to make sure people didn't go driving into a flood area. \n\n\nWhen Parkersburg, Iowa got hit they approximately 160 Soldiers from the 1st Battalion, 133rd Infantry are provided security and aiding local officials in recovery efforts also 15 additional Soldiers and Airmen from the 67th Troop Command (Iowa City), Joint Forces Headquarters (Johnston), 734th Regional Support Group (Johnston), 133rd Test Squadron (Ft. Dodge), 132nd Fighter Wing (Des Moines), and Iowa Air National Guard Headquarters (Johnston), provided communications support, transporting water, creating emergency electrical power, and providing operational support. Additionally, the Iowa National Guard armory in Waterloo was used as an operations center for American Red Cross relief efforts.\n\n\nHaving taught the Search & Rescue Merit Badge and the Emergency Preparedness Merit Badge in the Boy Scouts of America, dealt with some logistics at Scout events, been apart of a few drills of what would happen if a tornado hit my Boy Scout camp with 300+ in the camp, and with my BA in History worked on papers about logistics a lot of what the Army and by extension the National Guard does on the regular helps a lot with storm recovery from logistics to security to whole Incident Command System are really handy.",
">\n\nThere are also quite a few jobs that require ICS training. I had to complete a few of the courses for my job. It’s a good primer on “what to do in what order” or “how to organize multiple people” in a disaster. I’d say it’s worth it to just look through ICS-100 for anyone who is remotely curious about disaster response by the government (or in my case, a large company). It’s totally free.",
">\n\nThis is where some of the defense spending goes, like it or not.",
">\n\nOne of the few defense budget expenditures we can probably all get behind",
">\n\nThis was an extraordinary storm.\nNormally in a snow storm if your car gets stuck, you either get out to dig yourself out or you wait for a tow.\nWith hurricane force winds, frigid wind chills and whiteout conditions meant people couldn’t easily free their car and conditions were too dangerous to be rescued.\nSo people started abandoning cars, blocking plows from getting down streets.\nEssentially, what normally would be an easy job for a plow became labor intensive as cars had to be dug out and towed before plows and emergency services could get down the road.\nAll it takes is one car to get stuck to greatly delay plowing.\nTo add insult to injury, the storm impacted the entire city and all of the suburbs. Normally, only the southern suburbs and neighborhoods see the worse of the lake effect whereas northern suburbs and neighborhoods often see less lake effect or none at all.\nI will say, Buffalo’s response has been lethargic. While all the surrounding municipalities had dug out, the city barely just begun.",
">\n\n\nEssentially, what normally would be an easy job for a plow became labor intensive as cars had to be dug out and towed before plows and emergency services could get down the road.\n\nYou say that, but much like the November storm we had earlier this year, in some places you can't actually plow it with a normal plow at all due to the amount of accumulation. We've got heavy-duty plows that can manage most of it, but they're primarily deployed on arterial roads first. A lot of smaller residential streets are usually taken care of by smaller utility plows that are basically just pickups with a plow mounted (though this depends on the township in question), and those smaller ones can't cut through 3+ feet of snowfall very easily. If things get bad enough we've deployed bucket loaders to help with snow removal.\nTL;DR even without the abandoned cars, there was enough snowfall that there would have been delays anyways.",
">\n\nYeah, but the November storm didn’t greatly impact the City of Buffalo.\nThe worst hit area was South of the city that saw 6+ feet of snow.\nThe city proper only saw a much more manageable 2 feet, something Buffalo deals with often.\nThe scope of this storm impacted the most heavily populated areas of the county which are normally spared the worse of the Lake Effect.",
">\n\nOh yeah, absolutely. My point is that even during the \"usual\" blizzards we get, there can be problems in the suburbs around the city getting the roads plowed. Throw in the fact that it hit downtown, PLUS the freezing temperatures and high winds? Recipe for disaster."
] |
We need to go back to cars not having screens. Cars don't need screens. | [] |
>
I have bad night vision and the extra glare is terrible | [
"We need to go back to cars not having screens. Cars don't need screens."
] |
>
We need to go back to cars not having screens. Cars don't need screens. | [
"We need to go back to cars not having screens. Cars don't need screens.",
">\n\nI have bad night vision and the extra glare is terrible"
] |
>
I have bad night vision and the extra glare is terrible | [
"We need to go back to cars not having screens. Cars don't need screens.",
">\n\nI have bad night vision and the extra glare is terrible",
">\n\nWe need to go back to cars not having screens. Cars don't need screens."
] |
> | [
"We need to go back to cars not having screens. Cars don't need screens.",
">\n\nI have bad night vision and the extra glare is terrible",
">\n\nWe need to go back to cars not having screens. Cars don't need screens.",
">\n\nI have bad night vision and the extra glare is terrible"
] |
This article was originally published 15 days ago and may contain out of date information.
The original publication date was December 15th, 2022. As per /r/worldnews/wiki submissions should be to articles published within the last week.
^(This bot finds outdated articles. It's impossible to be 100% accurate on every site, send me a message if you notice an error or would like this bot added to your subreddit. You can also download my) ^(Chrome Extension) ^(if you'd like to see publish dates added to all article links on reddit.)
^(Send Feedback) ^(|) ^(Github - Bot) ^(|) ^(Github - Chrome Extension) | [] |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.