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

301–310 of 356 posts

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

#301

Post by dorgo »

clairity wrote: post #294
nostrademons wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I agree, but I think the discussion is not about luck vs skill.

Imagine a poker tournament. The winner is determined by a combination of luck and skill. But somebody who didn't play had no chance to win.

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

#302

Post by michaelmrose »

winrid wrote: post #66
michaelmrose wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What percentage of the population can do so financially?

That's a good point. Have to risk debt at that point.

Nobody wants to lend a poor person a large sum of money the fact that you are presently poor is sufficient proof that you are a bad risk.

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

#303

Post by not_a_cop75 »

It's nice to say it's luck, sure, and make everyone feel like they have a fair chance. However, I'm pretty certain the ones that obsess and plan the most to get rich and squeeze every little bit out they can into their plans have the best chance. Some lazy slob without the same attention to detail and effort just isn't going to make it.

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

#304

Post by jkingsbery »

I'm sure the authors will not use this paper in their grant proposals or on their resumes: "Oh, no, don't count that paper, we were just lucky on that one."

More seriously: without reading the work more in depth, this seems to show that luck is sufficient to have the current distribution, not that it's necessary.

Anecdotally, there sure seem to be people out there that are 10x or 100x as productive, not by doing the same tasks faster but by identifying a different set of tasks that accomplish the same thing, or by imagining new possibilities that others couldn't. Clearly, some luck is involved in that, but so is some skill, and this paper seems to exclude that as a possibility.

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

#305

Post by viklove »

imgabe wrote: post #230
overthemoon wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're still wealthy, though, that's the main point. It's not that wealthy parents = billions of dollars, it's that the path to billionaire status overwhelmingly starts with abnormally good starting conditions.

Billionaire is a bad metric. These are outliers of outliers. Obviously everyone can't be a billionaire. That's like asking why everyone isn't an Olympic gold medalist. Of course the path to a billionaire is going to start with abnormal conditions. It's also going to be completely abnormal along the way, too. It's an abnormal outcome. Why would you expect anything different?

Because if you're not born rich your chances of dying rich are astronomically low. We pretend social mobility exists when in reality it does not, or at least it's extremely rare (even in the US, now more than ever).

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

#306

Post by viklove »

ChrisLomont wrote: post #285
anigbrowl wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When an IPO happens, for example, and a company owner holding 50% of the company is suddenly valued at $20B, that value did not come from taking $20B from other people. Unless you were the first to market in a completely new field, it's very possible that some of a firm's worth comes from gaining market share from existing players. That's the whole 'disruption' effect. This might be more economically efficient from o…

>Unless you were the first to market in a completely new field, it's very possible that some of a firm's worth comes from gaining market share from existing players. It is possible, but you can simply check that the size of the US and world economy has grown tremendously, so that argument doesn't explain the growth. >So what? Make co-op financing better, There are plenty of ESOP companies. If they consistently did we…

> It is possible, but you can simply check that the size of the US and world economy has grown tremendously, so that argument doesn't explain the growth.

Can it keep growing forever? If not, how much longer can it keep growing? Should we alter our economic system to account for the change in economic environment?

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

#307

Post by viklove »

tempsy wrote: post #122

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.

> We live in a frothy time when a relatively jr software engineer in SF can make $300k/year.

This is just a lie.

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

#308

Post by diminoten »

gdubs wrote: post #212
diminoten wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You absolutely get to choose not to roll the dice, by staying at home, by not starting that company, by not pursuing that guy/girl, by not interviewing with that company, by generally refusing to put yourself out there and see what happens.

You missed my point: in life, even doing “nothing” is a choice, with it’s own element of risk.

That's not a point it's a reduction to absurdity on the definition of risk, it's not the kind of risk being discussed, and it's an excuse to ignore risk by devaluing the meaning.

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

#309

Post by diminoten »

zornado wrote: post #90
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.

And what guarantees that rolling the dice will always be profitable. Rolling the dice can bring profits or losses.

Nothing guarantees it, but without risk there is no reward.

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

#310

Post by EugeneOZ »

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…

Agree. And that raise of socialism is also annoying. But some of US citizens are communists, not just socialists, so it's not just Europe :)
Post reply on HN