Inquirer stated: source post
If a random kid will turn into an average adult it doesn't matter which one you pick, the end result (how 'great' that person will be as an adult) is the same.
The known chance of the end result of an average adult being great < The known chance of the end result of an average kid being great
And those known chances give additional value to a person.
So it matters?
Inquirer stated: source post
I don't see why they'd be different. The chance of finding a kid that'll become a great person is the same as the chance of finding a great person among the adults. 1:1. The statistics should be entirely deterministic.
ThenFuckit stated: source post
Lets say there is a pool of people where there are X% great people.
There is X% chance that any random adult there already is a great person.Now pick a random child, there is 0 chance that they already are a great person. But they have aX% chance to become a great person. Say they have the average parents and money and status and all things are average.
Now wait a few years for the child to develop into an adult and examine these 3 possibilities:
- the adult has no education, no job, he is homeless : does this adult still have X% chance to become a great person? Or is it a much lower value?- the adult has a normal education and a normal job, just like all his peers, has no specialty whatsoever. Here is where you can argue if he still has X% to be a great person. I think this person still has a high amount chance to be a great person, but i think its less then the starting X%. Because he could of been exception till now, but he has not been and now he has less time to be exceptional.
- the adult was perfect in middle/high school and he was perfect in university, become a scientist in fields that almost no one knows about, except a handful of people on the planet. This person has a higher then X% chance to become a great person.
Clearly the X% chance of a kid to become a great person will change as they age. So a kid has a different chance to become a great person then an adult person has. And on average, this % will decrease.
If 1 in 100 adults is great, then the chances of a random kid to become great is X= 1%. If you choose a random adult from the crowd, the chance of them being great is X=1%.
Yes i do not disagree with this. But i never talked about if an adult is gonna be a great person, or if an adult can become a great person. Those are different values and every value adds to the overall value of a person. The chance to be a great person is a fixed value. The chance to become a great person is a value that changes as you age. On average it decreases.
As a child turns into an adult, the persons chance to be a great person goes down. Do you disagree?
Yeah I do. It can very well increase.
Yes it may. But the average person is not a great person, so on average it will decrease.
Edvard stated: source post
It's good to know that I'm not losing my mind and that someone else sees this the way I do, I started to doubt my judgement. I now understand how Turncoat must feel all the time.
Like I said, the potential is a fixed hidden value. Just because you don't know what it is doesn't mean the chance of it being 'great' is any higher. The chance for a certain kid to become a great person (and how that changes as we get to see glimpses of their hidden value) is irrelevant since their potential is already deterministically set at the start. And because our selection process in this case is random.
If we were to have a pool of kids and a pool of adults, and you pick out one randomly from both pools, the fixed hidden potential for the kid should be equal to the revealed potential of the adult. And that's what's important here.
Inquirer stated: source post
Like I said, the potential is a fixed hidden value. Just because you don't know what it is doesn't mean the chance of it being 'great' is any higher. The chance for a certain kid to become a great person (and how that changes as we get to see glimpses of their hidden value) is irrelevant since their potential is already deterministically set at the start. And because our selection process in this case is random.
If we were to have a pool of kids and a pool of adults, and you pick out one randomly from both pools, the fixed hidden potential for the kid should be equal to the revealed potential of the adult. And that's what's important here.
But the known potential changes. It changes the same was as my example in the quote(except i talked about potential, it should of been known potential), no ?
And you should care about the known potential, not the hidden one, because you do not know the hidden on. You can only define the maximum or minimum potential a person can have, but you do not know his actual potential. So you should focus on the potential you know(but focus on it, in relation to the potential the child may have, at its maximum).
So a child has less known potential, which means it has a higher chance to be a great person, then an adult who you know for a fact has less potential then the child may or may not have.
TPG stated: source post
an average normal child has inherently more potential than an average normal adult im just going to add this cuz its a thought stream a normal child will have normal settings parents etc (normal here implies not abusive parents or any external stimulus which might trigger a behavioral abnormality by societies standards) so the child has more to look forward as the adult has likely been using up inferior resources than the child will in the future and thus it will be likely that the child will achieve more as he has superior resources and i.e has more potential.
edit:normal also implies the child will have average intelligence as well
An average normal kid will grow into an average normal adult... an average normal adult was found to be the potential of the average normal kid... You think like a kid though... an average normal one... one for a potential for shock (nothing new under the sun)... even though you are an adult... an average normal one...
Yes, the known potential changes. But we don't care about that because we're picking out kids (and adults) at random. If the end result is that you get an average adult either way, then the kid's development and known potential is irrelevant.
Your way of thinking would make sense if we valued kids based on their known potential but that's not what we're discussing. We're discussing valuing children as a group more than adults, and the known potential of that group is 'average'. Just as it is for the adults. They cancel each other out.
YyI put quotations to imitate you, the fact you still remember that proves you have nothing more important that overlays your thoughts throughout the day the fact you're obsessed with a teenager is whole-heartily pathetic, my answer is still left unanswered probably at the fact you're to insecure to realise, it self realisation kicks in you couldn't answer you couldn't join a normal chatroom, like chat.org or some shit because people would isolate you from the chat, the positive sitirical talking in other chatrooms makes you uncomfortable because you as a person have no positive or social aptitude, so instead you joined this chatroom, because you like to be observant of people with personality disorders which you think you don't have, go look up histrionic personality disorder it's for lonely 25-35 middle aged single things like you do, constantly wanting attention, but back to the point, you like to observant and pounce with people with personality disorders, for your own personal experiment, but you're so retarded, you think they're in gradiutude of you telling them you're in a good person they're sociopaths THEY DO NOT CARE, the reason, I said you joined sociopath-community is because you really must have no fucking friends, fucking is to emphasise (not anger), infact what if you're so lonely, that you joined this chatroom because sociopaths have no emotional awareness, or emotional care for friendships, that you feel like they're your friends, they don't have the care to say you're not, Now let's monitor how much of your life you're wasting "4-5 months" on here 1841, posts, and you've probably let alone the good majority of 2-3 days replying in posts, the chatroom probably 15-20, you've wasted 3 weeks of your life, = loser.