View Single Post
11-15-2012, 08:58 PM
Global Moderator
tarheelhockey's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 51,519
vCash: 1020
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
It's not that hard that in most cases it's harder to dominate a larger group than a smaller one.

The chances of the degree of dominance being greater lies in the smaller group as well (all things being equal, which of course is the stick in the mud as they never are equal, conditions change from year to year.
First paragraph - Sure, that works as an axiomatic truth.

Second paragraph - We have established that "genius" or outlying talent is distributed more or less at random. While the chances might favor a greater single talent coming out of a larger cohort, we have yet to see anyone put their finger on exactly what those chances are. It certainly isn't as simple as pointing to population figures. If it were that simple, the Internet would have already produced most of the greatest literature of all time. Look at all those writers compared to the past.

Even if we assume, wrongly, that genius arises from increases in population, that doesn't define an increase in the degree of separation between the upper-echelon talents. Again it comes back to placing a whole lot of faith in a numbers game, making the vast assumption that a bigger crowd produces the best genius.

tarheelhockey is offline   Reply With Quote