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

1. The article assumes that IQ is "normally distributed" and that there are no extreme outliers, but how true is this really? First of all, IQ is a constructed metric that consists of multiple dimensions, and is normalized to mean 100, std 15. That's means it will be approximately normal, but not actually. In particular, AFAIK IQ tests can't reliably distinguish between extremely high IQ scores (140+). So we don't really have reliable data about the tail of the distribution... what we do have is strong anecdotal evidence that some people are extreme outliers (in either intelligence or performance) (Ramanujan, Elon Musk, John von Neumann, Steve Jobs). We also know from other examples that extreme outliers are possible, even though they're rare - example is breeding (of plants like corn or animals like chicken [1]), where just (unnatural) selection can produce phenotypes (from combinations of existing genes) that are multiple standard deviations above the original average.

2. Ok, so we have a model that produces some result. Does that make it a good model? Not necessarily! The point of Central Limit Theorem is that all models (within certain constraints) produce the same outcome.

Have we tried any alternative models? Basically their model is, Success = payoff * (a * luck + b * talent) and they argue that a is much bigger than b. But what if a was 0? In the present world, with companies like Google, Facebook, Amazon - i.e. a "winner-takes-all" scenario - I'd argue that even if success was completely skill-based, as long as the winners get outsized gains, you'd still expect 80-20 (or worse) wealth distribution.

3. Can we improve on it? Does it really make sense for the society to allocate resources / rewards equally to everyone? Maybe in academia (I'm not too familiar with that area), but in general, I'd argue not. The problem is, what means equally? Ok, so we had Fleming who discovered penicillin by chance. So, we should equally reward him, as well as the 9 other researchers that were also doing research in X and could have also stumbled upon the same substance, but were unlucky and didn't. But the bigger picture here is that we discovered antibiotics. I'm sure there were uncountable other lines of research that didn't yield any useful products or results or discoveries! (I've no experience with research, but I've read on Gwern that math discoveries are distributed with geometric (memoryless) distribution, i.e. more time spent on it does not increase your chances of solving it... that parallels my experience with math competitions, where you can be the smartestest of all but if you're approaching the problem along the wrong direction, there's no way for you to reach the goal.) Also, "same reward for same effort" sounds like a metric that can be very easily gamed.

So, in general, while I'd argue for more meritocracy and more equal rewards for producing results (i.e. inventors / workers get more money, not just investors / owners), I'm fairly biased against rewarding mere effort, and this article (X) definitely doesn't tilt my bias otherwise.

[1] https://infoproc.blogspot.com/2014/10/big-chickens.html

(X) I think it's definitely possible that the article is much worse than the study, and that the study actually addresses all of my concerns... Journalism is mostly sensationalism these days, especially science journalism.

I've never been rich. Most so-called "friends" have wanted something from me while having little or nothing to offer me in return.

This became crystal clear while I was homeless for years. People continued to want something for me, continued to act like I deserved nothing in return and used my poverty as justification for why the things they wanted from me "weren't worth anything" and shouldn't lead to money.

Wealth just makes it apparent you can't trust people. People tend to be assholes. It's not like poor people are all surrounded by wonderful, loving, caring friends who would go to the ends of the Earth for them.