Live data from Hacker News

The most successful people are just the luckiest, a new computer model confirms

technologyreview.com

71–80 of 356 posts

Re: The most successful people are just the luckiest, a new computer model confirms

#71
post #49
post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dang, your friend of the family could use a little more tact. I loath those kinds of questions.

Microeconomics classes in America teach undergrads that 'rational' people only care about increases in wealth and do not care about non-wealth-increasing activities. It is such a wrong model about human behavior but it gets repeated like gospel every year at most schools in the country. So it's no wonder that people are out there, suggesting that we're all idiots for not focusing exclusively on wealth accumulation th…

"Microeconomics classes in America teach undergrads that 'rational' people only care about increases in wealth and do not care about non-wealth-increasing activities."

This is not true, (or if it is being taught, the professor doesn't understand what he is supposed to be teaching.) What first year economics courses do teach--what is meant by the term 'homoeconomicus'--is that in aggregate, people rationally pursue their own self interest. 'Self-interest' is defined here as a subjective utility threshold. So, for example, if someone cares about their children, they will work hard and make a lot of sacrifices to support their children. The idea is that the market follows the aggregate self interest of people and so we don't have to worry about the miss-pricing of goods because the market will take care of that.

The difficulty with this idea isn't that people have wrong values--modern economics presupposes that values are inherently subjective and thus cannot be judged--it's that people are capable of making consistently rational decisions in pursuit of their subjective goals despite information disparities and cognitive biases.

Re: The most successful people are just the luckiest, a new computer model confirms

#72
post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

2-4 are great examples of survivorship bias. For every success story with those traits are thousands of failures. If Bill Gates had been born and raised in Ruanda, you wouldn't know his name today. Same IQ, same hustler. But no parents with connections, no upbringing devoid of war and violence. It's just like in sports. Usain Bolt is not the fastest man alive. He is the fastest professional runner. Within a sample se…

Is it still survivorship bias if it took 20 failed attempts before a successful one?

Yeah, of course. If the chances of some success are distributed geometrically, so that "winners" are randomly chosen at e.g. 0.001% per year, then somebody who wins the dice roll looks pretty smart to themselves and the rest of the world, having done something seemingly difficult. However across a population of a million individuals, 10 or so will achieve that success in the first year.

What is usually achievable through hard work, and worth achieving, is an honest life, a home of one's own, and for some, kids. These are things that bring contentment and happiness. Wealth and power beyond a reasonable measure only endangers these things.

Re: The most successful people are just the luckiest, a new computer model confirms

#73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

However, 2, 3 and 4 can be reduced to 1. You don't choose your genes or where you are born. Those factors, which are blind luck, determine all of the other lucks for your whole life. In the end, everything is just blind luck, but our egos want to feel like they are in control somehow.

Seems like this is a free will argument. In a reductionist view, yes, everything is all blind luck because the universe was set in motion at the Big Bang and has evolved according to the laws of physics since. If you got rich through intelligence, determination, and good choices, that was still luck because your intelligence and determination are largely determined by your genes and your choices by your environment,…

But, the best we know is the laws of physics are not deterministic!

The quantum states that your neurons fire to is unknowable in advance and determined only at the point of measurement.

Therefore, you are _free_ in the exact results of your neural mass are unknowable in advance and truly random. There's certainly a distribution of probability to the randomness... but be free and don't by the deterministic, 19th century nonsense!

Re: The most successful people are just the luckiest, a new computer model confirms

#74
post #53
post #7

Rich people got "lucky" but they don't define what luck is to begin with. To quote Naval, there are 4 kinds of luck. 1. Blind luck - Where I just got lucky because something completely out of my control happened 2. Luck from hustling - luck that comes through persistence, hard work, hustle, motion. Which is when you’re running around creating lots of opportunities, you’re generating a lot of energy, you’re doing a lo…

You can't frame things like this without talking about misfortune in the same terms. Lots of things can happen that are 'unluckly', but are vastly skewed to certain demographics. Being unlucky like: * Receiving little or no schooling * Having to labour as a child * Being abused * Having your primary carers be addicts of some kind * Growing up in a relatively poor/deprived * ... Really this list is endless, and other…

That reminds me a short fictional story by Jorge Luis Borges (if you excuse the quasi non-sequitur): The Lottery in Babylon. It describes how the lottery became so popular in Babylon that they began not just to play for money, but all kind of prizes, and then not only prizes but punishments. Finally, they decided that people didn't even need to buy a ticket. Everybody was implicitly part of the game, where good or bad things could be made to happen to you just by random chance... At the end of the day, The Lottery in Babylon became indistinguishable from normal life.

Re: The most successful people are just the luckiest, a new computer model confirms

#75

Years ago, a friend of the family said "You're so smart. Everyone thought you would be a millionaire by age thirty. What happened?" I pointed at my kids and said "They happened. And they take all my time." I was a full-time wife and mom. This is not a career known to lead to great wealth. So, for starters, not all interests or career paths have equal potential to lead to wealth. Intelligence in no way guarantees that…

Are you from america?

As a european, this assumption that everyone would value getting as rich as possible as their top priority seems really weird.

Re: The most successful people are just the luckiest, a new computer model confirms

#76
post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You don't choose your genes I agree with this one. > or where you are born Not really agree with this, you can change the country you live in. And it's more important where you live not where you are born. For example lots of people from poor countries go to US or Europe and are quite successful there. > 2,3 can be reduced to 1. Don't agree either. Let's be realistic, what are the chances of success for a person wh…

>Let's be realistic, what are the chances of success for a person who stays at home watch movies vs. someone who go out talk with people get involved in all sorts of activities + prepare the homework for those social events. Probability of success depends what environment you are in. A person with poor uneducated and possibly negligent parents living in a slum with no network has a very different probability of "succ…

Totally agree with you, parents and environment is one of the most important factor but this is not 100% of the odds, there are still things that you can influence yourself (especially in these times when we have access to the internet).

Re: The most successful people are just the luckiest, a new computer model confirms

#77
post #59

Years ago, a friend of the family said "You're so smart. Everyone thought you would be a millionaire by age thirty. What happened?" I pointed at my kids and said "They happened. And they take all my time." I was a full-time wife and mom. This is not a career known to lead to great wealth. So, for starters, not all interests or career paths have equal potential to lead to wealth. Intelligence in no way guarantees that…

It is the same for men, too. I had everything set up to retire at 35... then I married. Sure, I am a more socially productive person now. My kid will someday pay taxes that will finance the retirement of people that didn't bother to have kids.

>My kid will someday pay taxes that will finance the retirement of people that didn't bother to have kids.

All things considered, that is definitely not a given.

Social security for instances is tied to one's lifetime earnings, throw in the correlation between life time earnings and longevity and it smooths out to getting what you put in (roughly).

There are also a lot of benefits, both employer funded and tax payer funded that goes to people with children.

Re: The most successful people are just the luckiest, a new computer model confirms

#78
post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm being totally serious: The more I learn about riches & fame, the less I want them. I'll be honest: I'm not quite to the point where if someone tried to thrust a million dollars into my hand, I'd say no. (That isn't even necessarily enough to take you out of "middle class" anymore as a one-off payment, honestly.) But I think I'd say no to 10 million and I'm fairly certain I'd say no to 100 million. Or really wish…

It really doesn't force you into anything. You could just throw it into a savings account at your nearest national bank, lose a bit year over year to inflation being higher than the current interest rate, and have a whopper of an emergency fund. That would give you peace of mind if nothing else. If you wanted to be smart you could invest it in any number of ways to not lose wealth to inflation, but that's by no means…

I guess what the OP is trying to say is that throwing a million or more into a savings account, not having to worry, and peace of mind is in itself a class game. Few people have that luxury; I got a chance to be a bit better off and immediately felt much differently and more attuned to class differences than I was before. I now have the luxury of time, choice and pecuniary freedom I did not have, and a lot of my peers don’t have. If I had a billion dollars I can’t even imagine the effect it would have on how I think about things.

I feel I have that mentality of valuing the security the money gives me because I read books like Millionaire Next Door, Intelligent Investor, FIRE subreddits, etc and come from a family that has similar ideals.But I’m also aware that a lot of people are very different from that, and are known to end up playing differently with their money (status symbols, lifestyle upgrades, etc). Cultural aspects of many societies value the latter more than the former.

Re: The most successful people are just the luckiest, a new computer model confirms

#79
> So some people are more talented than average and some are less so, but nobody is orders of magnitude more talented than anybody else. This is the same kind of distribution seen for various human skills, or even characteristics like height or weight. Some people are taller or smaller than average, but nobody is the size of an ant or a skyscraper. Indeed, we are all quite similar.

I realize this is the politically correct world view in many circles, but it’s simply not true. The variation in cognitive ability is enormous. You can ask yourself for example how many randomly selected people would you need to produce a score aver 200 on an IQ test, produce a proof of Fermat’s Last Theorem or build something like the SpaceX Falcon.

(Now that fact is not a justification for the enormous economic inequality we see on this planet. Neither is it proof that luck is not a major component in success.)

Re: The most successful people are just the luckiest, a new computer model confirms

#80

Years ago, a friend of the family said "You're so smart. Everyone thought you would be a millionaire by age thirty. What happened?" I pointed at my kids and said "They happened. And they take all my time." I was a full-time wife and mom. This is not a career known to lead to great wealth. So, for starters, not all interests or career paths have equal potential to lead to wealth. Intelligence in no way guarantees that…

> I was a full-time wife and mom. This is not a career known to lead to great wealth.

I would say it leads to the greatest form of wealth. We just do not measure it in $$$.

A society that has bad parents will soon be a bad society.

Post reply on HN