I didn't quite understand what the author meant. For example:
> I believe that we've sunken into an era where the bar on entertainment, humor, innovation, business, politics, and many other aspects of modern society has been lowered to reduce the distinction of talent over fluff...
Lowering the bar on access, I think is a good thing. That anyone with just a smart phone and a great idea could make a film is great. When I was a teenager I saved up to buy a Super-8 camera — but then the film, developing was expensive so 3 minutes became the typical length of my films. (Also, I couldn't afford a sound camera or equipment, so....)
Some of my favorite bands began with cheap guitars and amplifiers found in pawn shops in college towns. Now they can even distribute their music without having to dupe cassettes.
But if instead the author thinks we've lowered the bar on quality — well, that's pretty much on us as consumers then.
The comment on shortening resumes resonates deep. The ability to differentiate skill set is almost entirely distilled to a secondary search if you happen to spot the tiny 2003-2010 indicating more than a passing affair. Not that it’s confirmation of talent but when all you see is the same gpt fueled write ups regurgitating your job posting it is indeed harder to prioritize and suss out quality applicants. I see the newer generation of recruiters pushing for a 15 second resume review, so the problem is certainly on both sides but it certainly cultivates the continued downward spiral.
It's not meant to be an all-encompassing statement on talent, it's a statement based on what becomes most popular on social media.
I'm pretty sure most will agree that what becomes most popular on social media, TV, and radio in this era, is far from what most people truly see as top talent.
Our favorite musicians and bands now more than ever rarely make it to public consciousness, often making it to public consciousness involves massive levels of funding, while even the most popular artists usually end up in terribly exploitive contracts (like TLC for example). Most of the modern musicians we know and love have no health insurance and, more often than not, aren't anywhere near wealthy from their work.
Taylor Swift & Beyoncé are also artists that rose to prominence prior to this new era of Social Media influence (as a footnote).
Popularity and talent are not the same thing. Some of the most popular stuff is not really a product of being extraordinarily talented (to me Taylor Swift is an example of that). Having some talent is the bar to become popular but even way before social media era it doesn't mean the most talented are actually the most popular, and that's fine, I just don't like to see those conflated as the same thing.
I think this topic is the ultimate application of Goodheart's law with popularity being the measure. It is clearly too easy to game, and it was just a happy accident that it used to be a meaningful signal for quality, because not enough agents whose interests differ from yours were gaming it.
It is often referred to exactly as status "levelling", the same term the article used right after your quote. It refers to things like when they remove executive washrooms in offices and is taken from the literal action of levelling sand before placing patio tiles on top - if you are rich enough to own a patio that is.
OP is winning at life. probably top 1% - almost an apex predator.
OP should enjoy it - instead of worrying 'bout what the irrelevant people think - while they grind their boring lives away , with mediocre results (the 'sheep' -especially if they don't have so many quills on their own bows as the talented OP)
10 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 43.5 ms ] thread> I believe that we've sunken into an era where the bar on entertainment, humor, innovation, business, politics, and many other aspects of modern society has been lowered to reduce the distinction of talent over fluff...
Lowering the bar on access, I think is a good thing. That anyone with just a smart phone and a great idea could make a film is great. When I was a teenager I saved up to buy a Super-8 camera — but then the film, developing was expensive so 3 minutes became the typical length of my films. (Also, I couldn't afford a sound camera or equipment, so....)
Some of my favorite bands began with cheap guitars and amplifiers found in pawn shops in college towns. Now they can even distribute their music without having to dupe cassettes.
But if instead the author thinks we've lowered the bar on quality — well, that's pretty much on us as consumers then.
I'm pretty sure most will agree that what becomes most popular on social media, TV, and radio in this era, is far from what most people truly see as top talent.
Our favorite musicians and bands now more than ever rarely make it to public consciousness, often making it to public consciousness involves massive levels of funding, while even the most popular artists usually end up in terribly exploitive contracts (like TLC for example). Most of the modern musicians we know and love have no health insurance and, more often than not, aren't anywhere near wealthy from their work.
Taylor Swift & Beyoncé are also artists that rose to prominence prior to this new era of Social Media influence (as a footnote).
OP should enjoy it - instead of worrying 'bout what the irrelevant people think - while they grind their boring lives away , with mediocre results (the 'sheep' -especially if they don't have so many quills on their own bows as the talented OP)