Personally I would have put the main idea as the ‘plus’. Perhaps overstated but clearly not wrong.
If the quality of works is distributed around a mean then more works you produce the more likely it is for a high quality work to emerge. The most remarkable works will come from the very best authors when they are having a really good day (or month or year). Producing more from the same distribution will obviously give more chances for you to produce something that is outstanding.
On a related note a ‘one hit wonder’ can be said to be regressing to his mean when his other works flop.
Not ‘just wrong’. It’s just obvious and less important overall than the training effect.
Not all that wrong it would seem.
The “plus” is right, the main idea is wrong.
Personally I would have put the main idea as the ‘plus’. Perhaps overstated but clearly not wrong.
If the quality of works is distributed around a mean then more works you produce the more likely it is for a high quality work to emerge. The most remarkable works will come from the very best authors when they are having a really good day (or month or year). Producing more from the same distribution will obviously give more chances for you to produce something that is outstanding.
On a related note a ‘one hit wonder’ can be said to be regressing to his mean when his other works flop.
Not ‘just wrong’. It’s just obvious and less important overall than the training effect.