What do you think of this, /adv/?

>>18473702
This is just some pessimistic bullshit from an edgy child.

Claiming that it's "too late" to do something is garbage. "Durr you might as well give up doing anything before you start because comparing yourself to others is the most important thing."

It takes a real dipshit to actually believe that his evaluation of someone's mental state should be more important to that person than their own.

It makes me want to shoot the author for being an insufferable cunt.

>>18473702
Very first panel actually has a pretty good point about "bridge the gap" thing, that's actually realistic and making sense, then from second panel to finish it's just a kind of edgy pessimistic negative rambling.

>>18473791
so what should you do, knowing you never actually be anything?

>>18473813
Whatever you want.

>>18473791
>Very first panel actually has a pretty good point about "bridge the gap" thing, that's actually realistic and making sense

It's nonsense. It completely ignores natural capacity or even just plain dumb luck.

You think that because you've been doing anything for longer to the best of your ability that it's impossible for someone to surpass you in success -- by whatever yardstick you choose to measure what "success" is? It's obvious in mental or physical endeavors, and it's obvious in occupation.

It also implies that what's most important is in comparing one's self to others. That's a subjective judgement of importance.

>>18473813
Why would you assume that you'll never be anything, simply because someone else is more proficient at something than you?

THAT is a loser mentality.

>>18473813
OP here. IMO, it doesn't mean you won't be anything. It just means you won't be as good as someone who's been trying since their teens.

HOWEVER. All skills have a plateau. After about...Say, ten years of doing something, you'll be about on par with someone who's been doing it for twenty years. And that's not taking into account people who plateau early by simply not improving.

So if you're a skilled painter by 19 because you started when you were 5, barring exceptional inborn talent, or exceptional work ethic, someone who started when they were 20 and at 30 will be ABOUT the same.

Of course, that's just for skills. Someone at 19 will have a better opportunity to break into a business than someone at 30. I think the panel is a little too dramatic, and it's taken from a Japanese perspective, which is different than Western values.

>>18473842
>Someone at 19 will have a better opportunity to break into a business than someone at 30.

Why do you believe that? Unless you simply believe that others will discriminate against the 30 year old because of their age. Even if so, "worse opportunity" does not mean "no opportunity".

What's logical to think is that someone who starts at 19 will have a better chance of being "successful" by the age of 30, compared to the person who starts at the age of 30. That doesn't mean the person who starts at the age of 30 can't become "successful".

>>18473842
What complete bullshit. 19 is a kid. Nobody can start something successful at that age. You need to be min 30.

>>18473857
I believe young talent folks just have a better shot than older, skilled folks. It's more true in some industries than others.

It's logical because you need to think of this kind of stuff when selecting a career. HOWEVER, it's not usually true. I don't completely agree with the dude in the panels because again, that's Japan, and Japan is way more rigid and its standards are different. America is much more flexible and inclusive to people who aren't super talented.

It's bullshit. First of all, success doesn't always even have anything to do with actual skills. Just look at artists for example, there are so many incredibly skilled artists that never really "make it", while some people with the artistic skills of a 10 year old can make successful web comics and have online stores and whatnot because they cater to the tastes of a specific group, or just get lucky. Look at youtubers, how many of them are actually good at games, instead of just being "likeable" to the mass and screaming memes. Sure, the recipe for the biggest success, people who are world famous is often a combination of talent, practice, determination and luck, but even just one of them can definitely make you relatively successful. This weird idea that "because you'll never be the absolute best and someone will always be more talented than you so why even try" is bullshit. So what? If you do what you like and have a decent following, maybe even make a living, what does it matter if someone has even more than you? It doesn't affect your happiness and life in any way if some dude somewhere has more followers, more money and more fame. Also nothing wrong with being happy with the little things in life, not everyone needs to aim for fame and fortune. Why focus on what other people have when you can just try and build something that makes your own everyday life as nice as possible, and fulfills you.

Tl;dr: It's shit advice.

>>18473859
I'm talking about young and talented, not normal kids. The kind of success I'm talking about is like, high achieving success. Again, in America being an overachiever isn't required. You can do mediocre work, and so long as you network well you can have some success.