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

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

technologyreview.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 356 posts

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

#111

Post by regular_person »

anon9001 wrote: post #106
citronlakris wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

For Americans, getting rich should be the top priority. There's not much of a safety net if you fall ill and can't work. You have to use your healthy/productive years to build up wealth so you won't be homeless later.

This is a great point. It's not (necessarily) that Americans are just inherently money-hungry; we just have to be because we live in a system that is really callous and unmerciful compared to other places in the world.

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

#112

Post by newfangle »

throwaway13372 wrote: post #18
pmoriarty wrote: post #8

"So if not talent, what other factor causes this skewed wealth distribution? "Our simulation clearly shows that such a factor is just pure luck," say Pluchino and co. "The team shows this by ranking individuals according to the number of lucky and unlucky events they experience throughout their 40-year careers. "It is evident that the most successful individuals are also the luckiest ones," they say. "And the less su…

Still the comment about citing one unique sample to overthrow a general assessment from much larger sample size... You seem to be blindly lucky and do not really appreciate that...

This article isnt referencing a "general assesment", its based on a computer model that tried to simulate human behavior.

Its clear that you need to be lucky to become a billionaire but i think a more interesting question is how much luck is involved in becoming a multi millionaire.

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

#114

Post by isoskeles »

olcor wrote: post #78
katmannthree wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 peer…

That comment says "class of games", and you've started writing about "class games" and then "class differences" in your interpretation of the comment. Not saying you did something bad here, but it sounds more like the telephone game than discussing what was written, all because of the omission of the preposition "of."

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

#115

Post by program_whiz »

pmoriarty wrote: post #8

"So if not talent, what other factor causes this skewed wealth distribution? "Our simulation clearly shows that such a factor is just pure luck," say Pluchino and co. "The team shows this by ranking individuals according to the number of lucky and unlucky events they experience throughout their 40-year careers. "It is evident that the most successful individuals are also the luckiest ones," they say. "And the less su…

I think the explanation is that you can't guarantee success without luck, but you can guarantee failure e.g. its random how long you'll live, but you can ensure your death at any time. Its random whether your next business goes exponential, but you can walk away and it implodes at any time. Its random whether you stumble on the "big kill" and the tribe feasts, but you can guarantee failure by refusing the hunt.

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

#116

Post by akhilcacharya »

ttul wrote: post #109

I went to an elite engineering school. My colleagues are all really smart. After 20 years, some are wealthy, some are poor. There is no apparent link between how hard they worked and how rich they became. However you can definitely trace how a few good breaks led to one guy being rich and another not. Did the guys who went to work for Google take any additional risk? Yet, they are now millionaires. How about the entr…

> Did the guys who went to work for Google take any additional risk? Yet, they are now millionaires.

They probably are smarter though! If they weren't, they wouldn't get in.

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

#117

Post by gdubs »

citilife wrote: post #99

Perhaps "talent" is the wrong term. I can be talented at hammering nails, that doesn't mean I'll be super wealthy. What you need is a talent that earns revenue and the foresight to retain the net income and increase revenue. "It's all about leverage". Another approach I have personally done is taking out a $30k loan, invested it and doubled my money paying back the loan. What does that mean, I started with zero, and…

Plenty of smart people lose money through investments, even conservative ones. There’s risk in anything, and wherever risk plays a part, so does luck.

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

#118

Post by program_whiz »

Watch a survival documentary. 10 contestants, many battle-hardened. The conclusion after watching 5 seasons of "Alone" is -- its all luck. The fittest didn't win, it was the person who happened to be dropped off in a relatively safe area, with access to resources, and had some good luck day to day. The people who randomly dropped into areas filled with predators or hazards, they were forced out (despite many being hardened survivalists). People with random equipment failures, or where the fishing suddenly dries up, they have to quit too. No matter how hard your will, if the resources disappear you aren't going to win (one contestant stumbles on a moose and literally has hundreds of pounds of food fall in his lap, only to have the fat stolen by a wolverine).

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

#119

Post by pmoriarty »

regular_person wrote: post #111
anon9001 wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For Americans, getting rich should be the top priority. There's not much of a safety net if you fall ill and can't work. You have to use your healthy/productive years to build up wealth so you won't be homeless later.

This is a great point. It's not (necessarily) that Americans are just inherently money-hungry; we just have to be because we live in a system that is really callous and unmerciful compared to other places in the world.

There are plenty of people in America who continue to chase money long after their safe retirement is assured.

I don't know if I'm qualified to compare Americans to Europeans, but many Americans really are enamored with money and judge material wealth as the be all and end all goal of life.

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

#120

Post by noize »

rolltiide wrote: post #95
citronlakris wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I’ve been surprised at how uncomfortable people are with capitalism in various parts of Europe Talk about my fintech venture or trading and young people are visible apprehensive Very distinct from the general awe and congratulations and “wow but you're so young!” that comes with completely misunderstanding what personal and liquid monetary wealth is Outside of Monaco and Zug I just started telling people I was a stud…

nah, people are just suspicious of people calling bitcoin "fintech"
Post reply on HN