top | item 22849779

(no title)

dante_dev | 5 years ago

I'm not american, never heard of Mary Lou Retton, still I understood the concept by his explanation, and loved his anecdote that was 100% clear even for me that never heard of that person.

discuss

order

dghughes|5 years ago

I'm Canadian but I remember her because I was around in 1984 when she competed in the Olympics.

People who are not from the US but are younger than age 35 now probably don't have a clue who she is. My assumption being a 10 year-old in 1984 would be old enough to remember her name now in 2020.

But saying she was an exceptional Olympic athlete, often getting "all 10s" (10 is good so she must be good) would give context.

heymijo|5 years ago

What do you think enabled the analogy to work for you even though you hadn't heard of Mary Lou Retton?

dante_dev|5 years ago

The fact that he compared his sport skills (in that case skiing) with an olympionic sport skills. That in my mind sounded like: "Well, she clearly had talent & potential, but he got the Knowledge for skiing, thus was better in that moment"

flattone|5 years ago

I don't think the name matters. . the functional piece is someone highly adapted with KPT in their field had only T in the field of skiing. The olympics and her name are just dressing up for the story.