The self-made man • Hacker News Board

Re: The self-made man

#51

Post by jeffreyrogers » Tue, Sep 30, 2014, 3:43 PM UTC

calinet6 wrote: post #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 te…

> 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.

This is a really good point, and it's something I've been thinking about lately too. Fortunately, I've seen a growing appreciation for the role luck and circumstance has in people's success, particularly with regard to educational opportunities and social class, so hopefully this is starting to change.

Re: The self-made man

#52

Post by hcarvalhoalves » Tue, Sep 30, 2014, 3:57 PM UTC

calinet6 wrote: post #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 te…

I think you're right, but it's equal parts being prepared to when the opportunity arise and purposefully putting yourself in situations that increase your odds.

E.g., nobody ever got laid staying at home, no matter how pretty, nice, rich or lucky.

Re: The self-made man

#53

Post by ancap » Tue, Sep 30, 2014, 4:01 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #23

spindritf wrote: post #21

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…

> the economy should strive to give people credit for what they choose to do

The economy is an inanimate abstract. It does not strive for anything. It is not interested in anyone's perception of what is fair any more than my phone is interested in vulgar language.

The economy consists of billions of individuals getting together and saying "I have x to offer, I want y". To try to force some idea of justice, morality, fairness, equality, etc. into this equation is to say individuals do not have the right of free association; that they, the simpletons they surely are, are not smart enough to choose for themselves and judgement must be deferred to some all-knowing third-party.

Please, just don't.

Re: The self-made man

#54

Post by dragonwriter » Tue, Sep 30, 2014, 4:03 PM UTC

waterlesscloud wrote: post #36

dragonwriter wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you were stranded in the wilderness and needed to survive from scratch, would you rather be with a group of attractive people or a group of smart people? The naively obvious answer is "smart", but given that what people have evolved to find attractive in general (before distortions from makeup, etc., designed to fool natural attraction) is somewhat tied to health and physical fitness, and ability to contribute i…

I knew someone would likely make that response. Fitness is related to, but not the same as, attractiveness. Of course it's possible to imagine a scenario of puny or fat nerds vs gorgeous athletes, but that's adding in things that don't necessarily relate and it's pretty clearly avoiding the intent of the scenario.

> Fitness is related to, but not the same as, attractiveness.

Sure, and if you have free reign to choose on any traits you want, you'd probably not consider attractiveness directly, but instead consider a balance of general health, physical fitness, survival experience (and specific context if the expected survival situation was known in more detail), and general intelligence (though the latter wouldn't necessarily be very high on the list of priorities.)

If all you have is intelligence and attractiveness, though, given that attractiveness has a correlation with (even though it isn't identical to) important things other than general intelligence that the hypothetical has prevented you from considering directly, you'd be ill advised to neglect it in favor of intelligence alone.

In fact, the whole reason attractiveness evolved is is exactly about choosing who to be stuck in a long-term survival situation with (which is why it is linked to both general health and physical fitness.)

Re: The self-made man

#55

Post by mcelroyian » Tue, Sep 30, 2014, 4:08 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #23

spindritf wrote: post #21

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…

I choose how wealth is distributed every time I make a purchase. As do you.

Re: The self-made man

#56

Post by dkokelley » Tue, Sep 30, 2014, 4:08 PM UTC

calinet6 wrote: post #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 te…

Would you say this is true for most cases of success, or primarily for extreme cases of success? I can imagine that winning the "startup lottery" has much to do with fortunate market timing and circumstances, but can the same be said of a small business owner, CPA partner, doctor, etc.?

Re: The self-made man

#57

Post by ap22213 » Tue, Sep 30, 2014, 4:22 PM UTC

lukifer wrote: 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…

It's pretty easy to see the effects of this if we compare the number of successful people from rich countries to the number of successful people from the other several billion people in the world. Where one is born and in which family is hugely (if not primarily) important.

I'm from the US, and I've seen quite a few highly intelligent and hard-working (but poor) people end up as heroin dealers or working odd jobs, with no steady employment. Conversely, I've seen relatively mediocre people, born to wealthy families, succeed wildly. And, I'm sure I'm not the only one who's seen this.

It's something to think about in a world where around 2400 billionaires (~0.000033% of the population) own ~7% of the world's wealth.

Re: The self-made man

#58

Post by calinet6 » Tue, Sep 30, 2014, 4:22 PM UTC

dkokelley wrote: post #56

calinet6 wrote: post #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 te…

Would you say this is true for most cases of success, or primarily for extreme cases of success? I can imagine that winning the "startup lottery" has much to do with fortunate market timing and circumstances, but can the same be said of a small business owner, CPA partner, doctor, etc.?

I'd say it is true for most success in this complex market.

It's not a matter of whether success is attributed to the individual or to the situation; it's both.

A wire is connected to the electricity, which powers the bulb. The bulb cannot light without the electricity, and it cannot light without the wire. Is the success of the bulb attributable to the wire, or the outlet?

Re: The self-made man

#59

Post by happyscrappy » Tue, Sep 30, 2014, 4:22 PM UTC

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #22

twoodfin wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Meanwhile average mobility in the US continues to be worse than mobility in other countries. What's the best study you can find that demonstrates this? I haven't seen any that don't appear to succumb to the flaws I mentioned elsewhere in this thread, such as measuring relative mobility instead of absolute mobility.

We should probably define terms first. Which definitions of absolute and relative are you using? (There are a few, and they're not identical.)

Do you have a citation or not?

Re: The self-made man

#60

Post by cpwright » Tue, Sep 30, 2014, 4:25 PM UTC

waterlesscloud wrote: post #36

dragonwriter wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you were stranded in the wilderness and needed to survive from scratch, would you rather be with a group of attractive people or a group of smart people? The naively obvious answer is "smart", but given that what people have evolved to find attractive in general (before distortions from makeup, etc., designed to fool natural attraction) is somewhat tied to health and physical fitness, and ability to contribute i…

I knew someone would likely make that response. Fitness is related to, but not the same as, attractiveness. Of course it's possible to imagine a scenario of puny or fat nerds vs gorgeous athletes, but that's adding in things that don't necessarily relate and it's pretty clearly avoiding the intent of the scenario.

There are studies that claim attractiveness is also correlated with intelligence. (And others claim that it is not).

It is one of this science "just-so-stories", but the idea being that other attributes being equal more intelligence would allow you to more successfully mate with attractive people.