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

91–100 of 196 posts

Re: The Role of Luck in Life Is Still Misunderstood

#91

Post by KozmoNau7 »

aje403 wrote: post #31
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…

I agree with you completely. I got downvoted on a thread several weeks ago for finding issue in the US placing below Mexico on a "(relative) child poverty" measure. Regardless of whether their methodology or even results are correct - I think it's guaranteed that many readers will distort that information and propagate that distortion onward. But, pardon my cynicism and condescension, but, try arguing that with a gro…

>people, who frankly, are jealous of others and want more.

That's always what it boils down to, isn't it? The one argument the hardcore libertarians and FYGM people always fall back to is "well, you're just jealous. If you just worked harder, you could afford it too", which has been shown again and again to be blatantly false and a clear example of a just world fallacy.

Luck plays an enormous part in how successful you are in life. There is obviously also a factor of being able to do something with those instances of luck, and again being born into the right family, having gone to the right school or having had the right encouragement is a huge factor. Once again, it boils down to luck, especially being born into the right family, with resources and support and an already-in-place social network to groom you and give you those opportunities.

Do you think the son of an alcoholic single mother has the same chances in life as the son of a bank director?

Social mobility is possible, but the deck is severely stacked in favor of those who already have the most.

Re: The Role of Luck in Life Is Still Misunderstood

#92

Post by dclowd9901 »

xer wrote: post #42

From my experience you can increase your luck in life by exposing yourself to more choices. This can be something as simple as having saved up money so you can quit your job whenever you want to. That in turn gives you the "luck" to get a better job if the opportunity presents itself.

I do 100% agree with this, recognizing, of course, that merely being in a position to have choices to begin with is _also_ a factor of luck. (Parents’ socioeconomic status; your own intelligence; if you had someone around to have taught you this, etc)

Re: The Role of Luck in Life Is Still Misunderstood

#93

Post by maxxxxx »

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."

I hear that often but is it really true? Maybe they just have found a way to funnel money to themselves instead of it going to other businesses. For example has Walmart created anything or did they just take the money that would otherwise have gone to a lot of small businesses? For sure they were very smart but did they make the country better? I am not so sure.

Re: The Role of Luck in Life Is Still Misunderstood

#94

Post by KozmoNau7 »

amelius wrote: post #39
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.

Yes. Therefore, ultimately, in a society without work, wealth should be distributed according to the happiness it delivers. If one person loves reading books and another person loves driving expensive cars, then it's clear how the money should be distributed. On the other hand, this might take the fun out of driving expensive cars, because in a society with such wealth-distribution, having an expensive car doesn't me…

It could also mean "I simply enjoy driving cars with a lot of power and/or comfort, because the sensations are inherently pleasurable to me".

I love driving cars. Not to show off or because of prestige, I just really like driving, for some reason. I don't care if it's a 300hp grand tourer or a 60hp supermini, it's the act of driving that's enjoyable to me personally.

Not everything is a matter of "keeping up with the Joneses".

Re: The Role of Luck in Life Is Still Misunderstood

#95

Post by mi100hael »

drieddust wrote: post #66

Where Warren Buffet would have landed if he was born in Afghanistan? I have thought about this question a lot recently without any satisfaction.

I think Warren still would have done pretty well for himself. Maybe not richest in the world, but he was out selling all manner of things like gum, soda, and golf balls even when he was in primary school. He's a natural entrepreneur.

But Warren is an outlier among outliers. Bill Gates has said himself that he doesn't think he would have been able to become a billionaire with Microsoft had he not gone to a swanky private high school that had a computer back when no one had computers.

Re: The Role of Luck in Life Is Still Misunderstood

#97

Post by zip1234 »

wavefunction wrote: post #16
noelwelsh wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Luck is anything the individual cannot control. You don't get to choose your parents, for example. I don't see what your point is.

@matte_black There's a big component in American culture at least, that assumes that the success in life is due to talent. It provides an excuse for inequitable distributions of resources, for example, by justifying the distribution as a natural consequence of individual talent, skill, and hard work. This study shows that this cultural assumption is not true, that talent or hard-work alone are not enough to achieve s…

Well, as an American, I can say that it isn't an assumption that success in life is solely due to talent. However, there is a belief that one can be successful with an entrepreneurial, hard-working attitude. Everyone knows that ultimate level of success is influenced by things out of one's control, but the American work ethic is more about making the most of what one has. People choose to control what they can, which is effort and attitude, and not worry about that which they can't.

Re: The Role of Luck in Life Is Still Misunderstood

#98

Post by AndrewSChapman »

Let's face it - how intelligent you are, what if anything you're gifted at, how tenatious you are, where you were born, who your parents are, who you know, what opportunities life presents you, what you enjoy doing, how much you are driven to win... ALL of these things are out of your control. The real falacy is that rich and successful people think they somehow "deserve" their status and that other people just didn't try hard enough. The reality is that life is a random shitshow and the rich / successful have been extremely lucky.

Re: The Role of Luck in Life Is Still Misunderstood

#99

Post by ska »

mapcars wrote: post #46
ska wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you then assuming that two people with the same "talent" (your definition) would in probability then have the same outcomes? And the converse? Neither of these things are obviously true in practice, though measurements are admittedly difficult.

I didn't give any definition to talent, I just said that it is related, very closely, to luck so I don't see how you can oppose them to each other. I see it similar to asking "what is more important for a fruit - the peel or the meat?" while you can't have one without another, both are there together making a fruit what it is :)

That doesn't answer either of my questions. Sorry I was unclear about "your defintion" - it was implicit and allowed for folding in all the "luck" aspects you are including.

I see why you are saying the factors are somewhat confounded, but that does not implicitly mean that separable analysis is not possible or useful. I don't think your analogy holds and these are nearly as coupled concepts as parts of a fruit.

Re: The Role of Luck in Life Is Still Misunderstood

#100

Post by sdhgaiojfsa »

spicymaki wrote: post #44

America's aversion to the role of luck is based on the Protestant work ethic. There is no chance and everything is predetermined by God's grace. God's grace is demonstrated by hard work, frugality, and discipline. There is a concept of double predetermination where you already need to be saved to be saved. Which means the poor is poor not because of chance, but because they lack God's grace.

Be that as it may, this blog is about a specific paper and the strength of its claims. I don't really think puritanism has anything to do with whether this paper's model or inferences are sound.
Post reply on HN