[FRIAM] Talent and Moral Luck - Steelman attempt

[Eric Charles]

Steelman attempt below.

I wasn't there for the "Talent" discussion on Friday, but got a bit of a
recap from Nick and Jon later. Nick was trying to use some thoughts on
"talent" to set up some other discussion (which is silly), and apparently
never quite pulled the later discussion together and didn't know exactly
what the wanted, he just knew it didn't happen. My take is that he wanted
to start a discussion about "Moral Luck":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_luck

"*Moral luck* describes circumstances whereby a moral agent
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_agent> is assigned moral blame
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blame> or praise
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Praise> for an action or its consequences
even if it is clear that said agent did not have full control over either
the action or its consequences. "

The "moral luck" issue doesn't really depend as much on our discussing
"morals" as it might seem, it works for a discussion of anything we
"value", and FRIAM definitely values "talent". Whether or not one is
"talented" depends a lot on where they find themselves. There is both a
"luck" aspect to the immediate context in which one develops (parents,
schools, neighborhood, etc.) and also to what type of abilities the larger
society values. Nick seemed to want to talk primarily about the latter. For
an example of that: Not long ago, the best video game players in the world
were heroes to their friends 20 years ago, and today they are making a
living by winning international championships and getting product
endorsements. League of Legends is a decade old, averages 50 million
players *daily*, 115 million total, and its world championship has a $5
million prize pool, not to mention the endorsement possibilities for the
winners... and there are games that are much bigger. Why should the best
video game player today be widely recognized as "talented" and paid
millions of dollars a year for that talent, while the best video game
player of 40 years ago is basically unknown and probably has a normal day
job. The answer is, in some important sense, "luck" (or so the argument
goes).

I *think *Nick wants to know: IF we accept that there is a boat load of
luck involved in the kind he is describing, THEN what, if anything, should
we change about our attitudes (or about society at large) in recognition of
that fact. The success simply can't be attributed *just *to the individual,
and that seems relevant to what we admire and reward.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20210113/bc4967b1/attachment.html>