In America, many people are searching for the extreme versions of success, and we've been conditioned to see significantly above average levels of success as the baseline.
If you're going to have extreme success, I think it often takes some extreme variables in the equation. That might be extreme talent (or extreme wealth or extreme-ly valuable personal/professional networks), such that extreme work isn't required.
But sometimes extreme work and discipline is necessary if you want to achieve extreme results.
You may decide at some point you no longer value obtaining some extreme result enough to continue it's pursuit. I think that's wise, as I've found the cost is too high and life is too short.
Plenty of evidence.
Any that you find particularly clear and compelling?
Anyone following the role American football may play in long term brain injuries? Subconcussive hits to the head accumulating to cause problems?
Anyone have thoughts?
I was criticising the criticism of this post.
I feel like you're taking all of this way too seriously.
Fix the "RECENT ON RATIONALITY BLOGS"
Things you cannot control directly - what your metabolism actually does with the food you put in your mouth
Agreed. Some people have significantly higher metabolisms.
Things this model doesn't even mention - there are other important things about the food, not just calories
Agreed. I'm not talking about nutrition, just weight loss.
Bird watchers also tend to see more birds.
I'd imagine there are more sensors and eyeballs looking in the skies at high security facilities, thus more UAP.
What is the name of this bias?