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

121–130 of 356 posts

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

#121

Post by bjornsing »

wklauss wrote: post #89
bjornsing wrote: post #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 c…

> 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. It's been proven time and again that IQ numbers are more or less meaningless. Setting that aside, I think the point of the article is exactly that you might not need a huge sample to find someone with the potential to do these things, key wor…

I agree IQ is largely meaningless, and I could have formulated my standpoint better, but...

> I think the point of the article is exactly that you might not need a huge sample to find someone with the potential to do these things

If it is then I'm quite sure this conclusion is in no way backed by the referenced scientific article.

> nor these things require a different order of magnitude in talent or intelligence, just the right combination of drive, luck, inspiration, opportunity, etc...

It would be great if this was true, but it's just not. For example, I see myself as a few standard deviations out on the mathematical talent/ability scale, but I would not stand a chance against somebody like Andrew Wiles or Terence Tao. Why is it so important to pretend that it isn't so...?

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

#122

Post by tempsy »

I guess it depends on the definition of "rich".

We live in a frothy time when a relatively jr software engineer in SF can make $300k/year. It wouldn't take that much discipline to save 60%-70% as a single person and have a million saved in a few years time with the right mix of discipline and investing.

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

#123

Post by marcus_holmes »

umvi wrote: post #51
DoreenMichele wrote: post #21

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…

Next time just say: "I am a millionaire, and more. My kids are worth more than I could have imagined"

"If money is all that you want, money is all that you will have" - no idea who first said this, but so true.

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

#124

Post by gumby »

epx wrote: post #59
DoreenMichele wrote: post #21

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.

That's an unnecessarily reductio characterization. That kid might, say, end up working for a business started by someone without kids.

New people are only an element of a diverse, functioning economy.

For the record I'm a parent myself, and glad to be, but it's not right for everyone, and, I believe, not right for a significant percentage (>10%?) of those who do have them.

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

#125

Post by mywittyname »

__s wrote: post #9
omarhaneef wrote: post #3

Ugh, I wish the author had made the point without the computer simulation. I think there might be merit to the argument people make more money than their intelligence, or effort, seems to indicate. And the author lays out some basic arguments here: "But there is a problem with this idea: while wealth distribution follows a power law, the distribution of human skills generally follows a normal distribution that is sym…

IQ tests are also a bad example because they have a normal distribution by design. It's like saying grades fall into a normal distribution when you're graded on a normal distribution curve

It's a good example because most human traits are normally distributed. There aren't any 1000IQ humans, just like there are no 18ft tall humans, or ones that could run a marathon in under an hour.

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

#126

Post by ttul »

akhilcacharya wrote: post #116
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.

Haha. They are all smart. Not everyone chooses to apply for a job at Google.

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

#127

Post by gumby »

I told my kid the benefits of good eduction and a willingness (but not fetish) for hard work was 1 - a more interesting life and 2 - the opportunity to "buy" more lottery tickets for the things you might ed up wanting (which aren't always $).

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

#128

Post by jelliclesfarm »

epx wrote: post #59
DoreenMichele wrote: post #21

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.

Or not. Society might just as well support adults who are a net net loss and expense. There is no telling if the future generation would be productive.

Making progeny is not a ‘virtue’. Willing to procreate should not be considered a speculative way to raise monies for taxes.

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

#129

Post by meiraleal »

DoreenMichele wrote: post #21

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…

> Divorce, scandal, drug addiction and various other personal issues can all be financially ruinous.

Smart people get past their personal issues and back on track stronger. If not, they aren't smart. A little bit above average is not smart, nor be really great at one thing (like computing) but not be able to fix your own lifestyle, money expending, health and eating habits.

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

#130

Post by gdubs »

diminoten wrote: post #27

True, but you can't be lucky if you don't roll the dice, and some people roll the dice more than others.

In life, you really don’t get to choose not to roll the dice, because there’s risk in everything including doing nothing.
Post reply on HN