Live data from Hacker News

The self-made man

slate.com

41–50 of 88 posts

Re: The self-made man

#41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

any person who succeeds does so by some combination of both individual grit, and support from society and loved ones And genetics, and the general culture, and luck, which is just a word we use for many factors we can't even name yet mixed with true randomness. And then there's a fair bit of interplay between all the factors. Why do some people work 60 hours a week when others barely crack 10? That "grit" doesn't com…

Why do some people work 60 hours a week when others barely crack 10? That "grit" doesn't come from nowhere. Are you suggesting the people "cracking" only 10 lack the ability to work 60 hours weekly?

I'm not sure what you are asking, but I directly observe that, when presented with the choice between doing something hard that pays off a lot, or doing something easy that pays off little or not at all, that there are a bunch of people in the first camp and a bunch in the second camp.

This doesn't strictly break down by SES, either, although there are certainly trends.

You can come up with all sorts of reasons for the second camp's behavior, and many of those reasons are likely true for some subset of that camp. But at some point you have to recognize people's agency in their own behavior, or else they are just children in your eyes.

Re: The self-made man

#42
post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd rather be with a group of backwoods rednecks to be perfectly honest. But I digress. The economy isn't about heros fighting nature to save the day. Its about everyone working together to make an environment where creation is possible. You take Zuckerberg and leave him in the middle of the woods, and what happens? Does he still create wealth? No, he's useless without being plugged into the larger economy. That larg…

>You take Zuckerberg and leave him in the middle of the woods, and what happens? Does he still create wealth? If I were to bet on it, I'd bet very heavily on him creating wealth under those circumstances. As measured by creating a system for survival. Obviously not as well as someone trained in such things (as implied by your dodge), but better than someone who lacked his intelligence, and more importantly, his drive…

IMHO, it has nothing to do with importance or impact of the work one does. It has to do with the supply and demand: Even if we assume the irrational that e.g. a cleaner's work is 100x more important than Zuckerberg's work, the fact that for every Zuckerberg we can find much more than 100 cleaners means that a Zuckerberg is much more important than a cleaner, not that cleaning is more important or less important that Zuckerberg's work. In fact, personally, the impact from absence of cleaning would be much bigger than the impact from absence of Facebook. But if I take the importance of cleaning and multiply it by the scarcity of cleaners I get a smaller product than multiplying the importance of Facebooks with the scarcity of Zuckerbergs.

Re: The self-made man

#43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>And what on earth does it mean, to contribute to an economy wherein only 'non-ordinary' folks benefit? I have no idea where that came from or what it means, so I can't respond to it. I made a point of saying that I respect the importance of ordinary workers. I've spent most my life in ordinary jobs, your assumptions about me aside. However, the fact remains that individually their contribution to the economy is much…

Glad to hear about respecting 'ordinary' workers. Still, I suspect there's a difference between respect and understanding the importance of these workers. If the pay of 'ordinary' jobs is to be set to some low minimum level, then the 'job making' or 'economy building' of the non-ordinary people will have no benefit for most folks. Its fine to brag about building wealth; but if its the highly-educated building wealth…

I agree with you in general, but you are not winning any loyalties to your idea with this attitude. Shaming a person and accusing of snobbery is a bad way to drive your point across.

When I debate the social good aspect of entrepreneurship and tech entrepreneurs priorities, I try to appeal to the rationality of the self-interested agents. We, as a humanity, have two unambigous pathes in future. Either everything is really good or everything is equally bad. We are heading to near-utopia or to full-blown dystopia.

Tech entrepreneurs and investors hold the power to change the world faster than anyone else. More wealth inequality --> closer to the dystopia. It rational for anyone with power to influence the world and possible future to contribute to the decrease of wealth inequality.

I guess such approach to discussion would be more beneficial to your cause.

Re: The self-made man

#44
post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Glad to hear about respecting 'ordinary' workers. Still, I suspect there's a difference between respect and understanding the importance of these workers. If the pay of 'ordinary' jobs is to be set to some low minimum level, then the 'job making' or 'economy building' of the non-ordinary people will have no benefit for most folks. Its fine to brag about building wealth; but if its the highly-educated building wealth…

I agree with you in general, but you are not winning any loyalties to your idea with this attitude. Shaming a person and accusing of snobbery is a bad way to drive your point across. When I debate the social good aspect of entrepreneurship and tech entrepreneurs priorities, I try to appeal to the rationality of the self-interested agents. We, as a humanity, have two unambigous pathes in future. Either everything is r…

>> Tech entrepreneurs and investors hold the power to change the world faster than anyone else. More wealth inequality --> closer to the dystopia. It rational for anyone with power to influence the world and possible future to contribute to the decrease of wealth inequality.

Unless they think that their lives will be better by increasing inequality, particularly in their individual case (cf. Tragedy of the Commons). And that may well be true, as they would disproportionately hold power and capital. Is it better to be a rich man in a society slowly going to hell or a poor one in a society slowly on the rise?

It's a non-empathic viewpoint, but I can understand why some would consider it rational and self-interested.

Re: The self-made man

#45
Aside from the political discussion bound to happen here, I was surprised and happy to see the story of Hilltop highlighted. I used to buy filet mignon there for $7 a pound back in 2009 when I was living in Chelsea, as a recent migrant from California. I was very sad when it closed, and never knew the story.

It highlights a more general point: we, as humans, have a profound attribution bias. It's psychological. We tend to attribute success to our own individual characteristics, actions, and free will. Americans significantly more so.[http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2786780?uid=2&uid=4&si...]

This would be fine, if it were true; however this attribution bias causes a significant departure from reality. When people succeed, we tend to focus on their personal attributes and actions, instead of looking at the situation surrounding them. When we do that, we tend to think of them as "rising above their situation," or "using their advantages well." We like to think we can do the same, but it is truly a kind of collective delusion.

We have to recognize that this is simply fantasy. It's not backed up by truth. Statistics says much the opposite: that most people who try will fail, and that people will be significantly burdened by failure, and that people who have failed or succeeded are extremely affected by external effects; that most successes are the result of both individual and significant historical and contextual factors. Externalities are more important than we want to believe. They're not everything, but they deserve much, much more attention than they get, which is often nil.

We would be a different kind of society were we to match our perception of success and failure with the reality of that success or failure. We don't have to give up our sense of individualism and the respect for personal growth and contribution; we just need to back it up with a recognition of the surrounding factors that are extremely real and highly influential on all our lives. I know we would be a better society if we did.

Re: The self-made man

#46
post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hmm... I don't know about that. Justice is wildly different than reconditioning.

Not necessarily fixing those who are caught, but pour encourager les autres . There are no morals here, since we are all just machines, and we're just trying to get the machines to do what we want.

Okay, sure. We have evidence that certain behaviors are predictable, but that doesn't eliminate free will entirely, it just limits it.

It's also worth making a distinction between our subconscious and conscious choices, even if they are both more or less deterministic. At least we are aware of our conscious choices, and probably identify more strongly with them.

The original discussion was about when someone deserves credit for their actions. And if there are two poles of always and never, can we land somewhere in between? And where?

Re: The self-made man

#47
post #7

Humans have a problem with complexity and compound causality in general; any person who succeeds does so by some combination of both individual grit, and support from society and loved ones (even if indirectly), regardless of what the proportions happen to be (if one could even measure such a thing). Thinking that success must derive exclusively from either society or the individual is sheer absurdity, driven by a ne…

“Thinking that success must derive exclusively from either society or the individual is sheer absurdity, driven by a need to impose an idealized narrative upon messy reality.” Very astute postmodern summation. The only thing missing in this is the possibility that the myths of narrative (male hero), constancy (see genetics and scientism), etc. are all driven by ideology. In particular, capitalist ideology; the value…

Just out of curiosity, are you a student or recent graduate?

Re: The self-made man

#48
post #44
post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with you in general, but you are not winning any loyalties to your idea with this attitude. Shaming a person and accusing of snobbery is a bad way to drive your point across. When I debate the social good aspect of entrepreneurship and tech entrepreneurs priorities, I try to appeal to the rationality of the self-interested agents. We, as a humanity, have two unambigous pathes in future. Either everything is r…

>> Tech entrepreneurs and investors hold the power to change the world faster than anyone else. More wealth inequality --> closer to the dystopia. It rational for anyone with power to influence the world and possible future to contribute to the decrease of wealth inequality. Unless they think that their lives will be better by increasing inequality, particularly in their individual case (cf. Tragedy of the Commons).…

Wealth hoarding is mostly a hyperprophied survival instinct. The rational person would optimize for happiness, not wealth. The connection between those is not linear, see: http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2010/09/07/the-perfect-salary-fo...

Also helping other is a significant factor in emotional wellbeing.

I mostly blame the current snapshot of evolving social system, not the actors, even psychopathic ones.

Re: The self-made man

#49
post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“Thinking that success must derive exclusively from either society or the individual is sheer absurdity, driven by a need to impose an idealized narrative upon messy reality.” Very astute postmodern summation. The only thing missing in this is the possibility that the myths of narrative (male hero), constancy (see genetics and scientism), etc. are all driven by ideology. In particular, capitalist ideology; the value…

Just out of curiosity, are you a student or recent graduate?

Old. Very old.

Re: The self-made man

#50
post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

you shouldn't get credit for genetics Why not? Seems like a completely arbitrary standard. And pretty hard on everyone else. Are you not viscerally impressed by beautiful women, high IQ speakers, and so on? Even if you somehow get people to agree, and at least partially implement it, how can you credit anything then? Is there a human quality we care about not heavily influenced by genetics? How do you disentangle von…

You may not agree with it, but its not arbitrary to say that the economy should strive to give people credit for what they choose to do, rather than what you luck into. Its a distinction based on a well-defined criterion. I'm not really interested in discussing outliers like Michael Jordan, or tiny segments of the economy like sports or entertainment. I'm talking about how we distribute the proceeds of our industrial…

> You may not agree with it, but its not arbitrary to say that the economy should strive to give people credit for what they choose to do, rather than what you luck into. Its a distinction based on a well-defined criterion.

It's not well-defined at all. If person A is "smarter" than person B, how can you tell whether that's the result of A working harder than B or A having lucked into greater intelligence? Measure how much time each spent studying in college? If person C "chooses" to be an alcoholic and is therefore unproductive, how much of that is "free will" (what does that even mean?) and how much is bad luck?

Post reply on HN