However, he said it to be a "decent" approximation, and both "decent" and "approximation" are both loose and non-conclusive ways to estimate something. In my opinion, the fact of the matter is that he isn't even using playcount as his argument to say talent exists, but more so uses it to try and exemplify the difference it makes. It's a slight difference, but I think it matters. Either way, there's so many lurking variables that nothing can be 100% correct, but some people are mixing the two up (mixing playcount and pp is not a good representation of skill with talent being a predominant factor in being good). I'm sure you can find "evidence" for whatever argument you have considering our sample size in the rankings as well as the innate subjectivity of "effort spent" and "skill" though.
I mean really at this point I think people are just about to go in circles, so I'm just more or less advising to watch out for that.
Edit:
I mean really at this point I think people are just about to go in circles, so I'm just more or less advising to watch out for that.
Edit:
Again, going off-topic again. Railey's argument is that for two people who worked just as hard, the one with more talent will come out on top. Your evidence says nothing, because they explain that you can surpass a so-called talented person if you work harder than them. If not explicitly said, that's the major selling point.[Taiga] wrote:
If you decide to throw a lot of work into something what you love, hard work grow a talent which overcome just talented people who just hard work.