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

351–356 of 356 posts

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

#351

Post by lazyasciiart »

hnhg wrote: post #337
lazyasciiart wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given the starting numbers, the math is fine. But because the starting numbers are not real data, they had to create them out of a simplified model - and all the decisions that went into that model can be criticized and used as reasons that the output is wrong.

I don't think that's a problem. A lot of valid work has been done on simplified models and they're there to illustrate what might be going on rather than absolute proof. And yes you can criticise them, since that is the point.

Sure, but a lot of invalid work has been too. Ever heard the expression “assume a spherical cow?”

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

#352

Post by Wh1skey »

I don’t understand this line of thinking. My father worked a minimum wage job most of his life and was able to retire a multi-millionaire simply because he saved and invested his disposable income. Most people can become wealthy but they choose to drive fancy cars and go to the movie theaters instead then complain how unlucky they are. That’s simply not true. If people are lucky because they realized wealth was attainable then yes, the most successful people are lucky.

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

#353

Post by dragonwriter »

Wh1skey wrote: post #352

I don’t understand this line of thinking. My father worked a minimum wage job most of his life and was able to retire a multi-millionaire simply because he saved and invested his disposable income. Most people can become wealthy but they choose to drive fancy cars and go to the movie theaters instead then complain how unlucky they are. That’s simply not true. If people are lucky because they realized wealth was attai…

> My father worked a minimum wage job most of his life and was able to retire a multi-millionaire simply because he saved and invested his disposable income.

Inflation-adjusted federal minimum wage is lower today than it has been most of the time since the 1956, and if you measure against minimal needs it's even worse because CPI also includes hedonic adjustment. Sure, by historical standards (both before and since) the “Lost" Generation, the Boomers, and (to a lesser extent) the leading edge of Gen X spent all or a substantial share of their adulthood in times where, especially if you were a White man at least, there was unusually strong economic opportunity for the working class.

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

#354

Post by winrid »

michaelmrose wrote: post #302
winrid wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Nobody said how poor we're talking.

Anyway plenty of people are terrible with their money from a young age. When I'm a parent I hope I can instill better money management practices in my kids. :)

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

#355

Post by collinmanderson »

clairity wrote: post #295
nostrademons wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If I knew for sure that everything was deterministic, would I decide to live my life differently?

I think I would still experience the ability to discern, make decisions, and take responsibility for the direction of my life.

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

#356

Post by clairity »

collinmanderson wrote: post #355
clairity wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If I knew for sure that everything was deterministic, would I decide to live my life differently? I think I would still experience the ability to discern, make decisions, and take responsibility for the direction of my life.

self-awareness means that you might. it's why there are no sure things in the stock market, for example. we humans incorporate new information swiftly and deftly.
Post reply on HN