Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Survivorship Bias

xkcd.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 231 posts

Re: Survivorship Bias

#111

Post by libertymcateer »

ux-app wrote: post #23

Most people are missing the point a bit here. Survivorship bias doesn't relate to people who worked hard, improved themselves and now earn 1-10MM/yr. There are loads of stories like that. Survivorship bias is "Zuck did X, Y and Z, if I do the same then I'll be a multi-billionaire too!" Following the playbook of those that made it into the top 0.001% is foolish and does not properly account for the large part luck pla…

> Survivorship bias is "Zuck did X, Y and Z, if I do the same then I'll be a multi-billionaire too!"

This is also called "cargo cult behavior." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult#Metaphorical_uses_o...

Re: Survivorship Bias

#112

Post by kerbalspacepro »

thenomad wrote: post #43
ux-app wrote: post #23

Most people are missing the point a bit here. Survivorship bias doesn't relate to people who worked hard, improved themselves and now earn 1-10MM/yr. There are loads of stories like that. Survivorship bias is "Zuck did X, Y and Z, if I do the same then I'll be a multi-billionaire too!" Following the playbook of those that made it into the top 0.001% is foolish and does not properly account for the large part luck pla…

I would agree. One of the things I tell students is that studying success stories is extremely valuable, but only if you do it the right way. You're looking for two things: 1) Trends. 2) Ideas. Not blueprints. (On the med school survivorship bias comment: I don't know about the US medical system, but every other high-earning profession I'm aware of has a significant failure rate. Don't go to law school in the UK assu…

I think looking at "professional" areas isn't fair. The idea behind OP's comment is that there is still a rather high range of income that you can get to on an "if-then" basis.

Becoming a top-tier, MM lawyer is hard, but there is an instruction set that guarantees you'll be able to do it if you follow that instruction set. The more "random" aspect of it is if you actually have the predisposition to actually be capable of following that instruction set.

Re: Survivorship Bias

#113

Post by kerbalspacepro »

backpropaganda wrote: post #26
jacquesm wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Peter Thiel should be the last person on earth to argue against survivorship bias, being an excellent example of it himself.

Peter Thiel isn't arguing for startups here, but arguing against the idea that the world is just coin flips and some people randomly end up with 10 heads. So your comment is mostly ad hominem.

I think you're misusing ad hominem.

Re: Survivorship Bias

#114

Post by frgtpsswrdlame »

ux-app wrote: post #72
taneq wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There are loads of stories like that. Not compared with the loads of stories of people who worked hard, improved themselves, and still don't earn anywhere near $1M/yr. Otherwise thinking that those successes have some meaningful advice to offer wouldn't be survivorship bias, it'd actually be correct. > Following the playbook of those that made it into the top 0.001% is foolish and does not properly account for the…

>Not compared with the loads of stories of people who worked hard, improved themselves, and still don't earn anywhere near $1M/yr The vast majority of single digit millionaires are doctors, lawyers, construction company owners. I've even personally met a factory worker who retired with > $1mm in savings due to prudent money management (no lottery wins, just basic financial management for 30+ years). I live in a compl…

>He's super smart, hard working and I'm sure that accounts for the majority of his success.

Why are you sure? Social mobility in america is depressingly low right now. Our meritocracy is a meritocracy no more, if it ever was one.

Re: Survivorship Bias

#115

Post by paulcole »

ux-app wrote: post #23

Most people are missing the point a bit here. Survivorship bias doesn't relate to people who worked hard, improved themselves and now earn 1-10MM/yr. There are loads of stories like that. Survivorship bias is "Zuck did X, Y and Z, if I do the same then I'll be a multi-billionaire too!" Following the playbook of those that made it into the top 0.001% is foolish and does not properly account for the large part luck pla…

>Survivorship bias doesn't relate to people who worked hard, improved themselves and now earn 1-10MM/yr.

All those people earning 1-10MM/yr?

How many of them were born on third base and go around explaining to everyone how they too can hit a triple?

Re: Survivorship Bias

#116

Post by Noseshine »

989throwaway66 wrote: post #96
kk_cz wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

...so? what is it that you do?

Not sharing on a very public platform with so many readers, by fear that, even if 99.99% will yawn, someone will decide to try to compete with me... Living small, discreetly, living happy.

That is the trouble with you guys: You propose ideas that work - but only as long as only very few people do it. Thank you for demonstrating it so clearly - by the way, did you yourself even notice this catch?

It may work for anyone, but not for everyone. I love that in English those words sound so similar. I might be tempted to consider that's part of the problem (as part of the larger "how does language influence thought" topic, where the answer currently seems to be "generally not too much, but it depends"), but in my (non-English speaking) country the same kind of thinking isn't exactly unknown either.

Re: Survivorship Bias

#117

Post by paulcole »

majani wrote: post #38

I believe that success does largely depend on capitalizing on lucky breaks. However, I also believe that each and every one of us gets lucky breaks. What matters is can you spot lucky breaks,and when you do spot them, how do you react? I think it's very possible to train yourself to have the awareness to be able to analyze situations, recognize lucky breaks frequently and just run with them. In a word, you could call…

> I also believe that each and every one of us gets lucky breaks

Good personal philosophy but clearly false in a meaningful way.

Re: Survivorship Bias

#119

Post by aristus »

crusso wrote: post #75
pg314 wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There's no survivorship bias in going to med school, becoming a specialist and then earning 400k/yr. There is, just not as pronounced as in the lottery example. You ignore all the students who failed or dropped out of med school, didn't make the cut to become a specialist, or had to take a job that didn't make 400k/yr.

But if some make it to med school but then don't succeed, how many of those failure cases ended up not working hard enough? Once you have a class of medical students, it's not a lottery system on who succeeds. Short of those who, through no fault of their own, run out of money or have some unfortunate circumstance that takes them out of the program - the ones who succeed seem very likely to have made it on merit of s…

You'd be surprised. There are several pressures that keep doctor supply low in the US, not least the medical boards staffed by doctors who ahem have obvious moral hazard to constrain supply and maintain their 400k/year income.

A close friend of mine is now a cardiologist. As far as I can tell his residency was a three-year hazing ritual / sleep-dep experiment. To top it off, when he was finally done and out in San Francisco visiting us, he got the call to take some final test. The test had to be done the next day and had to be done in person at one of six cities in the country, the closest one being in LA. We scrambled to get him a plane ticket and some sleep.

He passed, but excuse me what the actual fuck? That's not character-building. That's straight up institutionalized caprice.

Re: Survivorship Bias

#120

Post by frgtpsswrdlame »

989throwaway66 wrote: post #65
arximboldi wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It is not that hard to become a millionaire, way easier than being a salaried person Sure. If it is not so hard, everyone would do it. If everyone was a millionaire, who would do actual unpleasant work? Who would clean, run hospitals, build infrastructure? Who would work for your startup so you can make money? Your comment is such an example of survivorship bias! Capitalism is a competition. You won, good for you.…

I am a small business owner, doing unpleasant work. My business has been doing well, exactly because it is unpleasant: a lot of people want to outsource what I do, even if it is a bit expensive. I also have found that many people are OK to do some jobs for me that I find really really unpleasant. You need to find the right person for the right "unpleasant" though. This is the beauty of capitalism. And I am now a mill…

How much of your success would you attribute to "luck"? How much to your upbringing?
Post reply on HN