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

71–80 of 196 posts

Re: The Role of Luck in Life Is Still Misunderstood

#71

Post by aje403 »

noelwelsh wrote: post #67
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…

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 p…

In no way am I supporting or agreeing with unfettered inherited wealth and you're making an obvious statement. With that being said, someone with high intelligence and a strong work ethic does have opportunity for success, especially in the US, more so than someone with average intelligence and a strong work ethic. Of course other factors come into play. That is basic common sense.

Re: The Role of Luck in Life Is Still Misunderstood

#72

Post by Applejinx »

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…

On the contrary: experiments show that even in a completely merit-less, artificial environment, we still get a power-law distribution of wealth (there is just no specific agent who'll be the one ultra-wealthy one).

More relevantly, you can manipulate this model in various ways to create either a less exponential curve with no completely poor agents, or undifferentiated equalness. You can code in things like income tax and so on.

The single most effective way to make the curve (on completely meritless income, remember) cease to impoverish anyone without cause, is to apply an incredibly tiny WEALTH tax. Then it takes care of itself, and you can jack up your 'income' all you want, and hey if you spend it all then you don't pay wealth tax! It requires about three percent each cycle. Not 50%, not 95%: 3%.

This is in the total absence of effort, merit, or indeed quality of labor or thought. If you would like more income and you're a special snowflake, by all means work harder and smarter and have more income. If you spend it, you'll have a lot of fun, and if you hoard it, it will eventually dwindle, but you'll be in a society where you can easily make more.

Re: The Role of Luck in Life Is Still Misunderstood

#73

Post by KozmoNau7 »

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…

>However, everyone still wants the hot girl and the jet.

No. Just give me a functioning society with a solid safety net and adequately funded social services in place, and a life of reasonable means that will allow me to grow old in peace and comfort, and which guarantees my children and grandchildren and their grandchildren's grandchildren the same benefits.

Re: The Role of Luck in Life Is Still Misunderstood

#74

Post by js8 »

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…

You listed 3 ways in which the model is "unrealistic". However, it seems to me that neither of the ways that are supposed to be more realistic will actually help the talented against the lucky.

Maybe you disagree and can expand why do you think making things more realistic in some aspect will make it behave better for the talented (especially on the high end of income distribution).

Re: The Role of Luck in Life Is Still Misunderstood

#75

Post by brut »

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…

You are distorting the argument as well.

The correlation between money earned for work and the relative value of that work is rather low. There is no "group, who by and large, has contributed more to the society". There is only "society", nothing exists in a vacuum.

Do you think Steve Jobs could have achieved what he did had there not been any firefighters, primary school teachers, steelworkers, lumberjacks, bus drivers, janitors, soldiers, etc to indirectly or directly support his liberty to achieve his dreams? Do you think factory workers in China have had any impact on Jobs' success? All of them earn less than he did. Are they somehow lazy and deserving of their situation?

The reduction of income/power inequality isn't a bad thing that the poor, lazy masses want in order to get rich doing nothing. Quite the contrary. The point is to raise the standard of living of people doing jobs that, if some part of society had their say, would probably not even be paid. Reducing the wealth gap doesn't mean you can't be successful anymore.

Re: The Role of Luck in Life Is Still Misunderstood

#76

Post by KozmoNau7 »

aje403 wrote: post #69
hfdgiutdryg wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>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.

A very large portion of those people have contributed more suffering to the world, and continue to do so through the continued exploitation of the worker class and lower classes.

Re: The Role of Luck in Life Is Still Misunderstood

#77

Post by naasking »

dsacco wrote: post #62
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?

> Are you saying you don’t find the point convincing because it’s vacuous?

I'm saying the article's objection that the "results are built into the design" is indeed vacuous, because this will be true of every mathematical model.

The question is how well the model's results match reality, which can yield insight on reality.

That said, there is of course a "spectrum" of tautologies. Models with simpler input parameters should carry more weight, because they would yield clearer insights and would be easier to match against reality. Models with complex input parameters are not only less likely to match reality, they don't yield much insight into fundamental causes.

Re: The Role of Luck in Life Is Still Misunderstood

#78

Post by KozmoNau7 »

frgtpsswrdlame wrote: post #53
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…

What makes you think that often it boils down to intelligence and work ethic and the exceptions are inherited wealth. The law of averages is just as likely to support the idea that those who are born into high class families will stay high class as it is what you're proposing.

It's a classic example of the just world fallacy.

Re: The Role of Luck in Life Is Still Misunderstood

#79

Post by ksec »

mapcars wrote: post #2

I'm not quite getting how can you put talent vs luck, when talent is based on luck you got from your genes, parents, environment etc. I see it as the same thing.

I tried to explain ( or briefly mention ) something similar that luck plays apart in one's success in job interviews. I thought I was being humble, and in truth I do think luck plays a part in many ways.

After a few times I stopped mentioning it. It is clear the world doesn't buy this idea.

Re: The Role of Luck in Life Is Still Misunderstood

#80

Post by fenwick67 »

barrkel wrote: post #33
matte_black wrote: post #3

The original model was so abstracted that it was absurd. There is no such thing as “luck”, it is only a name for what we call the intersection of preparation and opportunity. Both can be controlled. People tend to think opportunities are random and based on chance – they aren’t. They are the result of smaller intersections of preparations and opportunities that happened previously.

If someone gets killed in a plane crash, which intersection of preparation and opportunity caused that? Or was it just bad luck?

They should have prepared better by bringing a parachute \s
Post reply on HN