I would love to hear more about this if you have more thoughts.
I was thinking "skill" is best measured relative to a benchmark cohort (ie. a control group). In other words, _given_ your education, upbringing, connections, etc., where did you end up relative to the average person in your cohort?
I'd like to think _that_ difference could be explained by skill.
But this falls short for many reasons, including:
1. You could simply be a statistical anomaly, and where you ended up reflects nothing about your skill. If you were to "repeat the trial" (or your life), you may end up average or below average.
2. The more narrow your control group (eg. controlling for parents, beliefs, what TV shows you watched, which friends you had), the sample size becomes smaller and smaller, which means it's hard to find a statistically meaningful cohort. At the other end, too broad a control group and you risk not controlling for the factors which by mere chance highly influence life outcomes.
That's basically it; control for economic situation, race, etc and then evaluate advice and tips based on that.
1. Statistical anomaly is interesting, and it is where I spend time reflecting on advice I give people that I mentor. Is given advice wise? or just bragging? or just flat out bad.
For the article, I think it is good advice. Open minds see more possibilities and can see more things to try. However, you need resources to try multiple things.
I was thinking "skill" is best measured relative to a benchmark cohort (ie. a control group). In other words, _given_ your education, upbringing, connections, etc., where did you end up relative to the average person in your cohort?
I'd like to think _that_ difference could be explained by skill.
But this falls short for many reasons, including:
1. You could simply be a statistical anomaly, and where you ended up reflects nothing about your skill. If you were to "repeat the trial" (or your life), you may end up average or below average.
2. The more narrow your control group (eg. controlling for parents, beliefs, what TV shows you watched, which friends you had), the sample size becomes smaller and smaller, which means it's hard to find a statistically meaningful cohort. At the other end, too broad a control group and you risk not controlling for the factors which by mere chance highly influence life outcomes.