>>35976104 >In a natural environment he would have starved from an inability to catch a prey What? Building a simple trap or fishing doesn't require much work, of course the man would loose most of his muscle mass, but starve? No way. He has enough fat and muscle to least at least a month without eating anything at all.
Basically: that extreme specialization in narrow athletic and academic pursuits alike, without a holistic approach, has massively displaced us from the way our bodies were meant to function and how true intelligence works.
I thought Hossein Rezazadeh was the strongest ever? Anyway, that guy is dumb. He's saying that by not being optimized to live in the wilderness, he's not successful. Ignoring that the whole reason for having modern society is that we DON'T have to worry about catching prey or running from predators.
>>35976135 He thinks it's bad for some reason. A man like in the pic, in a state of nature (lol muh caveman paleo meme), would be leaner due to the circumstances while still being strong af so he's full of shit anyways.
>>35976104 The single metric he is talking about is strength. Vassily had to put on enormous size (that gut) to be able to lift the heaviest weight at olympic competitions. Olympic events require a specific set of skills that fit the competition, skills that are generally not very useful in real life. Thus in a natural environment (meaning hunter gatherer) Vassily would have failed as a hunter because he is simply too fat.
From a biological/evolutionist viewpoint Nassim is correct. Humans are supposed to be physically capable to perform multiple tasks which ensure their survival. Counter arguments include we no longer live in a natural environment which allows us to perfect specific skills. Or that if an athlete in weightlifting chooses a realistic bodyweight that suits their genetics then they will be able to perform better across a multitude of skills i.e Lu Xiojun type of physique.
Modern society has given us a lot of benefits to pursue humanities potential, whether this is good or not comes down to your personal philosophy.
>>35976104 >implying he would be too slow or "unfit" to catch prey A good parallel is the olympic shot putter. Similar builds, and olympic shotputters are fast as fuck so I'd imagine that guy in an all out sprint would be beast. Brian Oldfield had a 10.5 second 100m and a 4.3 40.
>>35976104 Basically, he is stating that it is not optimal to focus on a single way of measuring things, in this case, human potential. Strength is fantastic, but too much of it will cause you to suffer in other areas. Taken from an academic standpoint, you can drill a student to do math problems very quickly, but all you will accomplish is creating a student that is good at solving math problems very quickly.
>>35976104 >In the natural environment... This is the natural environment, just like an ant hill is the natural environment of an ant. If you take away their ant hill they won't try to survive without it, they'll build another one. The absence of society is not natural.
>>35976104 He thinks life is some sort of RPG where you spend points. If x dude is really good at y then he must be really shit at everything else.
It's fallacious thinking. In reality you can be good at a lot different things at the same time. See all the people who lift, have a STEM degree and have a well rounded life. Like the dude who played Drago in rocky, a shredded engineer + famous actor.
It's just a way for mediocre people to feel better about themselves and justify why they're not excelling at anything in life. They like to think of themselves as jack of all trades when in fact they are just shit at everything.
I'm sure you've met people that think that just because you have an attractive physique you MUST be either dumb or narcissistic.
He's saying that highly specialized roles bordering on esotericism rather than a rational division of practical labour creates folks who are very good at useless tasks. And as someone who works in the field of finance he knows a lot about doing overspecialized pointless tasks am I right or am I right
>>35980031 Probably never, because "forgotten tribes" still hunt through endurance today. As did native americans, inuits and the australian aboriginal who did it recently enough for it to be documented.
Taleb recomends deadlifting in his book antifragile. He also describes a bar/dumbell strategy. Summary: If you expierience stress and gro stronger from it you are antifragile (if the stress breaks you you are fragile / if the stress doesn´t chnage you nor positive or negative adaption you are resilent ? (sorry I am not native english speaker) The second point is that the stress shouldn´t be so high that you go from antifragile to fragile. Third point: chronic stress is bad ( high volume with little stress ) , aim for high stress with very low volume. In his books he mentions a guy who deadlifts up to his maximal weight for one rep and doesn´t train every day of the week. Bar/dumbellstrategy because you add stress/weight over time to become more antifragile
The amount of training professional athletes go through is far and beyond of what would actually be needed to survive in a natural environment. That is the point. Sure, lifting 250kg over your head makes you stronger than if you would only be able to do 200kg, but 200 is already hella strong.
>>35976135 Indeed. The real debasement of humans is coming from increased population. Becoming really good at ONE thing is the only way to make yourself worth something when being average puts you against more than 7 billion people.
That worked until about 40-50 years ago. These days the specialization has often gone so far that if educating a specialist would only include training in their own specific field they couldn't communicate with each other in that room. One solution is to promote interdisciplinarity and widen the scope of basic training, or train other individuals with the specific task of communicating between fields.
>in a natural environment he would have starved why do people bring this up? Who gives a shit? We don't fucking live in the wilderness anymore. There's literally no point in ever saying shit like this. "In a natural environment" you wouldn't be on facebook shit talking someone you've never met. fucking pointless
He'd probably have more chance of survival than a skinnyfat homosexual who's spent his entire life optimising a literally useless academic metric (muh social commentary).
I'd rather be the best at lifting metal things above my head than one out of millions of mediocre academics who only stay relevant because teenagers think that their posturings are meaningful in some way.
>>35980291 except interdisciplinarity doesn't work as well because there is so much fucking knowledge hyperspecialisation is the name of the game if you want to advance anywhere deeper at this point you need a metaspecialisation in interdisciplinarity so you can use the hyperspecialists as a project manager
>>35980401 Ecologist here. We do still live in a natural environment. Nothing we do or invent will ever change that cause we're part of nature. In our natural environment, people don't starve anymore, and natural selection strongly favors low intelligence (chavs, nigs and turks have more kids).
This. He's slating over specialisation and treating human beings like an insect colony not athletes. It could easily apply in a work environment to someone who has been trained and knows only one very specialist role which then gets outsourced say. Fucking morons.
>>35976104 He's basically one of the retards that's like PEOPLE WHO TRAIN REALLY HARD TO DO GOOD IN A SPORT ARE STUPID BECAUSE IF WE LIVED IN CAVEMAN DAYS THEY WOULD DIE BC THEY CANT CUT DOWN TREES AND HUNTS DUUUUURRRRRRRRR
basically a scrawny faggot who thinks he's cool. its usually hamplanet guys or hicks that post this shit. making fun of modern men's fashion because they can't cut down a tree, shoot guns, or fuck their cousins or something
In the book he mentoined and mathpro who emigrated from the soviet union. He could solve all the Integrals and other mathematical stuff. But he couldn´t create the Integrals. So both were working on wall street and taleb created the Integrals (which by himslef he could not solve) and the soviet math dude solved them for him. But the soviet dude could not but the world into these Integrals. Taleb made a lot of money and the soviet dude stayed math autist, he couldn´t make his skill work in the real world.
I've listened to interviews with Nassim and he's borderline crazy. He even claims that he will only walk on uneven pavement in order to create a chaotic environment at a subatomic level that way he doesn't stay stagnant in his life; a true loon. He is, however, highly intelligent in terms of academic achievements, but his papers on chaos have been refuted and laughed at by physicists and mathematicians.
Also, comparing a man in today's day and age to the hunter-gatherer society is absurd. The mechanisms that allowed the power lifter to become one of the strongest men on the planet didn't even exist back then. If that man were born into a hunter-gatherer society, he would have no conception of what olympic weight lifting even was. However, if his interest in strength were still intact, he may use a rudimentary means of becoming a strong hunter for his tribe.
What I'm trying to say is that I can easily pick a race car driver that has honed his abilities to the highest degree and say "this man is not optimized for running and capturing his food. Place this man in hunter-gather times and he would starve from his lackluster endurance."
Using these kinds of comparisons in modern times is silly, to say the least.
>>35976149 Vassily kept fit after his weight lifting career by chopping wood and other chores. Heres a little article about that motherfucker http://chaosandpain.blogspot.com/2010/08/baddest-motherfuckers-ever-17-vasily.html?m=1&zx=af4ea4d4f38dba03
>>35985189 I should also add that Nassim points out the effects of becoming an expert at one particular skill as opposed to creating a wide skill set. This is kind of silly as well considering that experts are needed in our society in order to function at an optimum level. An aerospace engineer has practiced his craft in a very specific way--and although he may not be able to install the seats inside a jet, or design the interior in an attractive way, his specific skill is more valuable than someone who has a mediocre understanding in a multitude of areas. Although both of these types of people are needed, the specialist is more valuable in terms of productivity and advancement.
Nassim, in my humble opinion, suffers from delusions because he himself, although more intelligent than the average Joe, is nothing noteworthy in terms of academia.
Listen to his interview with James Altucher and you will see my point illustrated perfectly. He's an intelligent psuedo intellectual.
>>35976104 Taleb is one of the best risk theorists in the world.
Here he's explaining why single parameter optimization is bad when one is trying to model complex systems.
In academia best example of this is REF in UK, where research is rated in an incredibly weird way that allows Oxbridge to fall under Essex in some fields, ranks LSE under UCL for economics, does not allow economic historians to submit anything nor do any interdisciplinary work to be praised. A second example would be the tenure path in USA where your publication ability gets you your tenure meaning that you're fucked if you have one super-good field changing article in Nature as that chump with 4 "good" articles in Nature would pass you due to you having a single article.
In sports you have people that have lost any kind of athleticism in order to gain maximum strength. He's using Vassily Alexeiev in order to demonstrate what would happen if you try to apply optimisation logic let's say in economics: You end up having "growth" only to see that your subjective well-being is in the trash can and your country in tatters.
>>35985283 Isn't that a really obvious thing though? If you're competing at the highest level you need to completely focus on your thing and not care about others because some other dude out there is going to and you can't waste your time doing stuff that wont improve yourself. I don't see how that's bad either, without people focusing entirely one thing we wouldn't have breakthroughs, or they would be much slower because everyone just kinda good at lots of things, rather than extremely good at only one thing.
>>35985321 For strength athletes that are living in the modern world? Yes
He's saying that despite him being an absolute best in his field it does not make him "fittest" or "a survivor".
A "real world example": For a country that has already developed growth is to be focused.
But only focusing on pure numeric growth would create problems. Such as corruption, drop in life standards or income inequality.
So he's saying that do not focus on a single parameter unless you are living in a protective bubble.
In academia you are currently being punished if you focus on a single paper and being forced to pump up papers instead of focusing on a one big single topic. Which results in a steep drop in academic work quality in proportion.
>>35976196 >Basically: that extreme specialization in narrow athletic and academic pursuits alike, without a holistic approach, has massively displaced us from the way our bodies were meant to function and how true intelligence works.
I think for the regular joe this is very important to consider once taking into account the idealization of specific sports. We should be more athletic overall, not so muscle focused. Let professional athletes do their thing.
>>35985321 >If you're competing at the highest level you need to completely focus on your thing and not care about others because some other dude out there is going to and you can't waste your time doing stuff that wont improve yourself. Think long term. More skills means that you're resistant to high-impact, low probability random events and could possibly benefit greatly from chaos.
I have lived a chaotic lifestyle for 7-8 years now without having a job. I have friends who are specialists in their field and make great money. I also have friends who are highly specialized but can't work in their field because there are currently no jobs. Anyway, I have skills in electronics, computers, networks and various other random things. I'm currently running a tourism business offering tours in my home town. Business is good. I also do computer work on the side - fix phones and laptops, build public wifi networks, resell refurbished hardware. I build websites and have friends who do design. I never know what I'm doing the next day. Lets say tourism and economy collapse because of a civil war or Russian invasion - I can still make money with my skills in electronics, electric engineering and repairing shit while my friends currently working in offices would be royally fucked. My income fluctuates a lot, but on average I make more money than most of my specialized friends and live a comfortable life and even have savings. I literally don't even know how much I make a month since I do lots of cash business and spend it on the go. It's irrelevant because I can never count on it in the long run. I'm fine knowing my current funds and estimated income for the next week or two.
>>35976196 I agree with this, but it is important to recognize that although humans don't need to be the best at one specific thing, it is important to learn about multiple subjects. I believe lifting helps, how can you take care of the mind if the body is in bad shape? Certainly it is possible, but wouldn't it be easier with proper nutrition and habits?
The point is not to train all day to be the best lifter or academic, it is to understand more about human culture through learning of past knowledge so you are able to make an informed opinion when it comes to governing your own body in the world today.
>>35979919 >He thinks life is some sort of RPG where you spend points. If x dude is really good at y then he must be really shit at everything else. This so much. People I know think I'm some kind of meathead and a lumbering slow retard. I'm not even fucking ottermode. They also don't understand what lifting for strength is.
>>35976237 >>implying strength isn't necessary for natural function of the human body It really isn't. You can just ask others for help. 10 people are stronger than 1 guy that has ten times the strength of each single one. That's why intelligence is more important, it only scales with the square root. So you'd only need someone that is thrice as intelligent as 10 people to replace them and he'd still be stronger.
Thread replies: 97 Thread images: 9
Thread DB ID: 515346
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with the post's information.