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

The Role of Luck in Life Is Still Misunderstood

joshuaballoch.github.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 196 posts

Re: The Role of Luck in Life Is Still Misunderstood

#61

Post by gameswithgo »

thanatropism wrote: post #8

I still think the focus on wealth/income inequality rather than on absolute poverty is irrational. I've seen people justify it to me on the grounds that people care about relative poverty, which to me reads "people are jealous". But then the result is: 1) A focus on inequality is irrational. 2) People focus on inequality for irrational reasons. This means that if policy-makers and intellectuals fully give in to the p…

> we'll accept decreases in wealth in exchange for more equality indefinitely.

That doesn't necessarily follow, I imagine that there is a level of inequality where total wealth, or at least total utility, even for the rich, starts to go down. For instance once you start having to go to private school, and live in a walled off community to keep the unwashed proletariat out so they don't steal from you / kill you.

You have to accept that people are irrational and deal with it, or modify them genetically.

Re: The Role of Luck in Life Is Still Misunderstood

#62

Post by dsacco »

naasking wrote: post #10

> It could be that the results were built into the model’s design. Every true mathematical proposition is a tautology. I don't find this point particularly convincing. As long as the model's predictions match reality in interesting ways, it can lend possible insights on why reality might have certain characteristics. > Like getting an improbable series of heads when flipping a coin long enough, improbable clusters of…

> Every true mathematical proposition is a tautology. I don't find this point particularly convincing. As long as the model's predictions match reality in interesting ways, it can lend possible insights on why reality might have certain characteristics.

I don’t really understand what you’re trying to say here, do you mind clarifying? Are you saying you don’t find the point convincing because it’s vacuous?

Re: The Role of Luck in Life Is Still Misunderstood

#63

Post by frgtpsswrdlame »

thanatropism wrote: post #25
pron wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reason we care so much about inequality has nothing to do with jealousy and everything to do with power[1]. As resources are a major source of power (and often vice-versa), and because power is relative, inequality of resources means inequality of power. And as power means influence (and so the ability to reduce another's freedom), inequality reduces overall freedom. As freedom can never be total[2], the question…

This is an interesting answer. But I'm not sure if inequality-of-power-driven-by-inequality-of-wealth can be problematized (put into the discussion and on the agenda) and fought in such a way that equalizes power. We're shuffling power around and the dynamics of power inequality aren't clear at all.

It has to do with universal commodification. Check out Michael Walzer and 'Spheres of Justice.' He makes the case for a kind of 'complex equality' where power in one sphere doesn't bleed into another. Thus having a lot of money would allow you to buy fancy paintings and a nice car and typical commodities but when it comes to something like healthcare, we'd be better off if money couldn't be used to buy a better version of it. The easiest thing to make the case to be a separate sphere is education. Should a wealthy parent really be able to opt-out of public education and pay for a better one? Perhaps all of society would benefit if we put everyone 'on the same side' so to speak and the rich and poor alike had to advocate for improvements to the same universal system.

Re: The Role of Luck in Life Is Still Misunderstood

#64

Post by aje403 »

TremendousJudge wrote: post #54
aje403 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a distortion. Young men see rich men with beautiful women flying to anywhere they want on the planet. Only a few of them will get that when they're older, and it oftens boils down to intelligence, work ethic, cleverness, other abilities like athletics and looks, and a few lucky breaks that they take advantage of. Exceptions being inherited wealth. Law of averages, those who do make it are hard working and int…

You contradict yourself. You say that "those who do make it are hard working and intelligent", while also acknowledging that there are people who "made it" who aren't "hard working and intelligent" (Scott Disick, Donald JR).

I mentioned there are exceptions to that and explicitly mentioned it is a law of averages rather than an absolute rule...which is basically your comment.

Re: The Role of Luck in Life Is Still Misunderstood

#65

Post by RobertoG »

aje403 wrote: post #45
pron wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reason we care so much about inequality has nothing to do with jealousy and everything to do with power[1]. As resources are a major source of power (and often vice-versa), and because power is relative, inequality of resources means inequality of power. And as power means influence (and so the ability to reduce another's freedom), inequality reduces overall freedom. As freedom can never be total[2], the question…

This is a distortion. Young men see rich men with beautiful women flying to anywhere they want on the planet. Only a few of them will get that when they're older, and it oftens boils down to intelligence, work ethic, cleverness, other abilities like athletics and looks, and a few lucky breaks that they take advantage of. Exceptions being inherited wealth. Law of averages, those who do make it are hard working and int…

If you think that the problem that we have with inequality is that some people have jets and hot couples you are missing the point of the parent's post.

I couldn't care less that Mr.Rich have a jet, I care that Mr.Rich decide to mess with the political process in order to get more jets. I care that in the more advances societies of the world in the most rich period of history, there are people that struggle to get necessary health-care or a roof over their heads (probably because Mr.Rich is messing with the political process).

>>"Should the group, who by and large, has contributed more to the society not have proportionally more say?"

Of course they should. It's only that, probably, we have different views about who that group is.

Re: The Role of Luck in Life Is Still Misunderstood

#67

Post by noelwelsh »

aje403 wrote: post #45
pron wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reason we care so much about inequality has nothing to do with jealousy and everything to do with power[1]. As resources are a major source of power (and often vice-versa), and because power is relative, inequality of resources means inequality of power. And as power means influence (and so the ability to reduce another's freedom), inequality reduces overall freedom. As freedom can never be total[2], the question…

This is a distortion. Young men see rich men with beautiful women flying to anywhere they want on the planet. Only a few of them will get that when they're older, and it oftens boils down to intelligence, work ethic, cleverness, other abilities like athletics and looks, and a few lucky breaks that they take advantage of. Exceptions being inherited wealth. Law of averages, those who do make it are hard working and int…

Research suggests that intelligence (which is difficult to define) is not better than being born into wealth.

Exhibit 1:

"intelligence is a powerful predictor of success but, on the whole, not an overwhelmingly better predictor than parental SES or grades."

https://www.gwern.net/docs/iq/2007-strenze.pdf

Exhibit 2:

You can also look at measures of class mobility, which suggest that the rich are staying rich, and the poor poor, more so than they have in recent history.

Re: The Role of Luck in Life Is Still Misunderstood

#68

Post by naasking »

guiscreenshots wrote: post #43
naasking wrote: post #10

> It could be that the results were built into the model’s design. Every true mathematical proposition is a tautology. I don't find this point particularly convincing. As long as the model's predictions match reality in interesting ways, it can lend possible insights on why reality might have certain characteristics. > Like getting an improbable series of heads when flipping a coin long enough, improbable clusters of…

>> It could be that the results were built into the model’s design. >Every true mathematical proposition is a tautology. I don't find this point particularly convincing. As long as the model's predictions match reality in interesting ways, it can lend possible insights on why reality might have certain characteristics. I think the problem is that nothing about the model lines up with reality. For example: - Each agen…

> - Each agent begins with an identical amount of capital. -- nothing like the real world.

Not relevant. Part of the main point was that even in the case of equal opportunity/equal starting points, bad luck readily overcomes talent, good luck rewards even the less talented, and so talent isn't any kind of guarantee, contra many people's claims.

> - Every 6 months you have the possibility of doubling or halving your capital. -- nothing like the real world.

I don't think this is relevant either. You can pick any progression you want and it won't affect the final results. The point is to simulate regular opportunities of dramatically increasing one's wealth. So again, even when faced with equal opportunity, dramatic wealth inequality just due to luck seems inevitable.

> - Chance of doubling capital is proportional to talent. -- nothing like the real world.

The claim that wealth is proportional to "talent" is widely believed. This paper puts it to the test and refutes it. That's one of the main points.

> In my experience people seem to move a little bit up or down from their baseline, but I have never personally seen a swing from rags to riches or the other way around.

I addressed this in the post you replied to: small swings up and down are probably wage-driven. This doesn't explain wealth disparity, because dramatic swings in wealth will largely not be wage-driven. These events thus aren't of interest.

> If they had begun by drawing parallels to the ways in which we see the real world and letting the model simulate it into the future it would be more compelling.

Not as easy as you think. We have no idea what factors are involved. That's why we study models, and see how closely the results match with reality. That then gives us insight into how some parts of reality might work.

Re: The Role of Luck in Life Is Still Misunderstood

#69

Post by aje403 »

hfdgiutdryg wrote: post #56
aje403 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a distortion. Young men see rich men with beautiful women flying to anywhere they want on the planet. Only a few of them will get that when they're older, and it oftens boils down to intelligence, work ethic, cleverness, other abilities like athletics and looks, and a few lucky breaks that they take advantage of. Exceptions being inherited wealth. Law of averages, those who do make it are hard working and int…

However, everyone still wants the hot girl and the jet. I'd settle for decent healthcare and enough stable income to raise a family. Should the group, who by and large, has contributed more to the society not have proportionally more say? 1) They haven't and 2) no. You appear to be advocating plutocracy.

I'm not sure what to tell you, people who have built organizations that employee thousands of people have contributed more to society than average. If that needs further justification then I'm not even sure how to respond to that.

You're reading things into what I'm saying - if Elon Musk raises a campaign fundraiser for his favorite candidate, do I mind that? Do I mind him having more "power" in that people listen to his twitter account over joe schmo? Not at all. Is he colluding with other executives to fix automative prices and then pressuring his candidate to change regulations as a favor when they're elected? Yes. That makes me a "plutocracy supporter"?

Re: The Role of Luck in Life Is Still Misunderstood

#70

Post by drieddust »

thanatropism wrote: post #8

I still think the focus on wealth/income inequality rather than on absolute poverty is irrational. I've seen people justify it to me on the grounds that people care about relative poverty, which to me reads "people are jealous". But then the result is: 1) A focus on inequality is irrational. 2) People focus on inequality for irrational reasons. This means that if policy-makers and intellectuals fully give in to the p…

How that is possible when inflation adjusted wages have stayed flat lined or decreased?

I thought wealth follows power law which means eventually it concentrates so much that poor becomes poorer in absolute sense.

Post reply on HN