Tautological for some values of 'most'. Statistical innumerracy.
The most successful people are just the luckiest, a new computer model confirms
291–300 of 356 posts
Re: The most successful people are just the luckiest, a new computer model confirms
#292Earlier quoted context omitted.
I didnt mean have your ex back. I meant have someone you appreciate approximately as much, though maybe for different reasons.
dude... you find one true love in life. if you haven't been married, you won't know what I mean... and if you are married, then you don't want to find out what I mean.
I used to think the same thing, but after my divorce I found a new love.
Nobody is perfect, and there are so many women out there. The chance that you had the most "optimal" one is very small.
You have what my wife would call a "limiting belief". Believe that you can find an even better match than before, and maybe you will. I'm sure the chance of that happening is higher than you think.
Re: The most successful people are just the luckiest, a new computer model confirms
#293I 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.
Aren't there huge costs associated with living in SF?
No not necessarily. Most of the housing stock in SF are houses, and people rent rooms and have roommates. On top of that, 70% (now more with the new statewide rent control law) of homes/apartments are rent-controlled.
I know very few people who rent a 1-bedroom by themselves. If you're renting a room you might be paying $1500-$2000.
Re: The most successful people are just the luckiest, a new computer model confirms
#294Earlier 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,…
it doesn't have to be a free will argument at all, but rather luck overwhelming skill when it comes to outcome. we still have some margin of control, but on a much smaller scale (and effect) than we believe.
it's not even surprising we'd jump to such conclusions: our brains are designed to tease out and magnify the significance of the things that we do and control.
Re: The most successful people are just the luckiest, a new computer model confirms
#295Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 cent…
My physics professor met with the Dalai Lama to discuss this exact point - whether the indeterminacy in quantum mechanics can give rise to free will. The thing is, the randomness in quantum mechanics isn't really the same as what we talk about with "free will". Quantum mechanics is really a statement about coupling - it finds that you cannot separate the results of a measurement from the act of measuring, and so you…
free will doesn't necessarily require quantum uncertainty. it could also be that the force that set this universe in motion (as opposed to one of the infinitely many other possibilities) is the same stuff that composes our own free will. we simply don't know enough to believe in the lack of free will, either.
Re: The most successful people are just the luckiest, a new computer model confirms
#296Ugh, 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…
The simulation is useful in the sense that they managed to obtain a wealth distribution similar to the real world based on that argument. That's how science works in general. Build a model and make it match the observations. That model is what will be used to test the hypothesis. Without a model, it is just speculation with little value.
This isn't how science works! I can make a model giving similar results as real world data which shows that wealth is 100% determined by talent, or 100% determined by luck, or any number in between, doesn't prove anything at all.
Re: The most successful people are just the luckiest, a new computer model confirms
#297Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Fortune favors the prepared mind." not "Fortune rewards the prepared mind." Although the latter is effectively Calvinism, which the US culture was founded on. It will probably echo through the ages.
I've never heard Calvinism talk about either "fortune" or the "prepared mind". I get that you're denigrating Calvinism here rather than making a precise statement, but what part of Calvinism are you referring to? The Calvinists I know would be more likely to say that God willed your situation or gave you the preparation for your mind. This is more akin to fate than fortune. ("Fate" being what will inevitably happen,…
If you work hard and sacrifice you will be rewarded. Frequently it is presented as quid pro quo.
At the end of the day if you work hard and do well, you could still have been lucky. Rather than that negating all of your hard work, a better reaction to this fact is a bit of charity for others. And I’m not talking donations, I’m talking about being a decent person and not judging others who haven’t got what you got.
Re: The most successful people are just the luckiest, a new computer model confirms
#298Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
> that is really callous and unmerciful compared to other places in the world like Europe, which has a level of public spending that many view as unsustainably high? Edit: plenty of economists are saying this! It's hardly a controversial view
The US is #15 on the debt relative to GDP country list according to [1,2]. So you are saying in the US "spending is unsustainably high" AND "life is really callous and unmerciful" at once?
[1] https://www.gfmag.com/global-data/economic-data/public-debt-...
[2] Sorted: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vTcH12ah_hJh...
Re: The most successful people are just the luckiest, a new computer model confirms
#299Rich 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…
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…
>2-4 are great examples of survivorship bias.
>For every success story with those traits are thousands of failures.
I guess that is the reason why 2-4 start with "luck from...".
I read it like this: from the ones who do/are X only a few lucky succeed. But (almost) all who don't do/are X fail. To succeed you need both: luck + X.
Re: The most successful people are just the luckiest, a new computer model confirms
#300Looks like folks that believe they are smart and not rich love to side with such articles.
Successful people might be LUCKIEST, but it's not mostly luck.
If you wish to be successful, you need more than luck, hard work, determination, grit, laser like focus, working on the right stuff, working smart, proper time management, proper project organization, scheduling and prioritization of activities will make you successful.
We can't all be billionaires, but if your come from a family making an annual wage of $40k with a net worth of $0 to $10k and you one day are making $100k+ and have a net worth of $500k or a million, you are successful. Success is relative to where you start from.
It's true that some have a head start, but it is what it is. Anyone in the western hemisphere who is healthy and has their freedom can really move themselves forward if they are willing to work and apply themselves.
It's the uncomfortable truth, but the sooner you embrace it the sooner you can get on the right path if you're not already on it.