Talent, luck and success: simulating meritocracy and inequality • Hacker News Board

Re: Talent, luck and success: simulating meritocracy and inequality

#121

Post by s73v3r_ » Mon, Mar 19, 2018, 4:42 PM UTC

SheepSlapper wrote: post #9

chongli wrote: post #4

Is talent not just a form of luck? It doesn't matter how hard you work at your low post game, you'll never learn to be seven feet tall. Those who are of that height are extremely lucky, giving them a huge advantage over other contenders for that NBA center position. Other forms of athletic talent are less visible than height but I see no reason not to attribute them to luck (genetics, access to nutrition, coaching et…

All the things you mention are forms of luck, yes. And there's no way to control for them outside of some nightmarish eugenics scenario. It's a fact of life that people are different, and will excel in different facets of their lives to different degrees. In a free market system there will always be winners, losers, and a lot of us in the middle. That's a result of the system BEING an equal playing field, talent and…

I think you're going to have to make an argument that there actually is a level playing field. I think most of us here would hotly dispute that.

Re: Talent, luck and success: simulating meritocracy and inequality

#122

Post by chmln » Mon, Mar 19, 2018, 4:43 PM UTC

newyankee wrote: post #2

One of the biggest lie sold in the West is that if you work hard, give everything you should succeed. This has grave implications on policy and really blinds people born with a silver spoon to the real problems in society as they have a 'i deserve it and they don't syndrome'. Contrast this with a poor society that is growing rapidly where you see islands of wealths with certain individuals, at least people over there…

> One of the biggest lie sold in the West is that if you work hard, give everything you should succeed

I think this used to be true decades ago when you could without much effort get a well-paying manufacturing job with just a high school diploma.

It would be foolish these days to rely on just "working hard". Not everyone "works hard" equally - it is important to work hard in the right direction.

To work as say a Starbucks barista even full-time and expect a house, a car, and a luxurious lifestyle, then after failing to achieve that exclaim "meritocracy doesn't work" is narrow-minded at best.

Re: Talent, luck and success: simulating meritocracy and inequality

#123

Post by s73v3r_ » Mon, Mar 19, 2018, 4:45 PM UTC

troupe wrote: post #84

joshuaheard wrote: post #65

Luck = Skill + Opportunity. That is, you must have the skill set to become successful, but also be in the right place at the right time to apply these skills.

Fortunately, you can increase your skill through training, reading, etc. You can increase your opportunity just by trying when you fail. Someone who only applies to a single job is less likely to be employed than someone who keeps on applying until they are hired. But then that would mean that luck is greatly a matter of how hard you are willing to work and that doesn't seem to be a popular opinion these days.

Because it's not. Donald Trump has not worked hard a day in his life; nor have his offspring. Yet they have quite a privileged position.

Re: Talent, luck and success: simulating meritocracy and inequality

#124

Post by psyc » Mon, Mar 19, 2018, 4:49 PM UTC

kaolti wrote: post #44

rectang wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It depends on who you are. If there are structural factors arrayed against you, less success and more failure will come your way for the same amount of work.

Yeah, but that doesn't mean that "work hard and you'll succeed"is a lie.

It’s a half truth at best, which many regard as a kind of lie. Hard work, even smart hard work, is often necessary for success. It’s often not sufficient by itself.

Re: Talent, luck and success: simulating meritocracy and inequality

#125

Post by aaron-lebo » Mon, Mar 19, 2018, 4:56 PM UTC

FranzFerdiNaN wrote: post #111

fullshark wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Depends what you define as success. Hard work generally does lead to gainful employment and the ability to afford a home/car which used to be the canonical symbol of success in America. If you think success is "be as rich and respected as I desire to be" then that absolutely will not hold.

Yes, if the baseline for the richest country in the world is "has a roof" then hard work mostly is enough to succeed. But there are too many people who work extremely hard, sometimes at two or three jobs, who barely can afford to eat and need government assistance. So no, hard work is not a good terminology. There simply isn't a link between "working hard" and any measure of success above the lowest baseline. Some pe…

The difference is where you start. If you start lower middle class or working class, odds are working hard will get you at best stable employment and the ability for your children to do something. Start upper middle class or upper class and you're going to the best high schools, best colleges, and have a shot at politics or being worth 70 billion dollars.

I've met too many poor and undereducated people who are as capable as my coworkers who went to Harvard, but the poor and uneducated have to work extremely hard, be extremely lucky, and do things others can't imagine to succeed.

The system is rigged against them, and it's hard for the well-off to admit that they got a 30-yard head start or for them to begin to understand it. Maybe that's why the system remains as it is, with the same millionaires and billionaires telling people who make 30k a year how they should live.

Re: Talent, luck and success: simulating meritocracy and inequality

#126

Post by reggieband » Mon, Mar 19, 2018, 4:57 PM UTC

kaolti wrote: post #44

rectang wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It depends on who you are. If there are structural factors arrayed against you, less success and more failure will come your way for the same amount of work.

Yeah, but that doesn't mean that "work hard and you'll succeed"is a lie.

I think that the weak claim: "Hard work contributes to success" is supportable but the strong claim "Hard work guarantees success" is not supportable.

Maybe I'm overly logical and can't shake the whole "Necessary and sufficient" aspects of causality [1]. The charitable argument is that working hard can contribute to success but it is neither necessary nor sufficient.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality#Necessary_and_suffic...

Re: Talent, luck and success: simulating meritocracy and inequality

#127

Post by sametmax » Mon, Mar 19, 2018, 4:59 PM UTC

troupe wrote: post #92

new_hackers wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is truth to this, however there has also been major changes to how we live and the expectations. "my grand parent could buy their own house while only one was working, and a job that didn't require any diploma" Yes, but they probably couldn't buy a house anywhere in the world they wanted. The house size was probably much smaller than the sizes of today's suburban houses. I would argue that one could by a small,…

I think most people have no idea of what it was like living back in those time periods. Yes, you could get a job back then without a diploma. You might be digging ditches or loading hay in 100-degree weather. I really haven't run across someone willing to work hard like that today who can't get a job somewhere.

No, grandpa was selling shoes.

Re: Talent, luck and success: simulating meritocracy and inequality

#128

Post by sametmax » Mon, Mar 19, 2018, 5:02 PM UTC

new_hackers wrote: post #62

sametmax wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure the Y-generation would agree it worked for them. The student loads have never been such a burden. The cost of housing skyrocketed. If they want to eat for the same price as their grand parents they need to eat junk food. I mean: my grand parent could buy their own house while only one was working, and a job that didn't require any diploma. But the flat screen prices are very cheap so they got that going…

There is truth to this, however there has also been major changes to how we live and the expectations. "my grand parent could buy their own house while only one was working, and a job that didn't require any diploma" Yes, but they probably couldn't buy a house anywhere in the world they wanted. The house size was probably much smaller than the sizes of today's suburban houses. I would argue that one could by a small,…

He was selling shoes. Their house has 4 bedrooms, 3 living rooms, 2 offices, a garden, a court, a garage, a basement, a 2 cellars, an attic, and 2 bathrooms.

And yes, not in a big city. But his job paying the house was not in a big city either.

While housing prices in is little town are indeed way lower than in most parts of the country, so are the wages.

I agree for the food though. If you have somebody to do the shopping to several shops and cook, you can get something similar. But today, both spouses work quite often.

Now I'm just back from the US, and the only decent provider of vegetables that match what I'm used to eat in France and group everything was wholefood. $4 for a salad is very expensive to me. Granted I'm not native to the country and only passing by so you have options that are cheaper I don't know about. Still. I never seen that price on a salad anywhere except Japan. And I travel a lot.

Re: Talent, luck and success: simulating meritocracy and inequality

#129

Post by cookiecaper » Mon, Mar 19, 2018, 5:02 PM UTC

rectang wrote: post #118

cookiecaper wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a natural power law distribution to many things. Economics is a natural force. We can't change it just by dictating that we'd like some things to change, just like we can't change other natural elements by fiat. There's a process, a technology, a science that has to be applied to shape and command natural forces. Human psychology is no exception. Things must be done within workable, realistic parameters. We c…

> Economics is a natural force. The extent to which "natural" inequality is amplified by institutions varies. Dictatorship is a very "natural" way to distribute rewards. We don't have to accept dictatorship as our destiny just because it is "natural", nor do we have to accept current levels of economic inequality as immutable.

First, dictatorships are anything but "natural". They require a massive amount of effort and savagery to maintain and enforce effectively.

Second, I'm not saying that we should treat economic inequality as something that's static or immutable any more than any other natural force. I'm saying that we have to recognize that natural forces dictate behavior and economics, and that you can't change natural forces by decree alone (e.g., passing a law that says "everyone now must share"). We have to really appreciate and understand the processes and motivations that drive the behaviors if we want to address them in a meaningful way.

We have to be honest about how changeable certain things are. For example, we have not, as yet, found a way to control the weather explicitly, but we have coping mechanisms like air conditioning that mitigate some of the negative effects. This didn't happen by saying "It shall always be 74 degrees indoors at all times" and then laying down stringent ideological enforcement to ensure that everyone accepted and believed that it was always 74 degrees. It happened by experimentation, tinkering, and respect for the constraints of the reality that allowed us to discover a non-ideal but workable solution that mostly handled the problem of uncomfortable heat.

There is not necessarily any reason to believe that the current mix of inequality conditions are particularly cruel or unfavorable. American free-market enterprise may not be perfect, and I'm not saying that there are no systemic issues or that things aren't worsening, but our economic system is historically workable and reasonably well-tuned. It has proven much better than many competing systems. We have to be honest about where we are and what's possible.

We can't simply change "the rules" and expect a good outcome, as the comment I replied to implied. There is no magic wand and no overnight perfection.

Re: Talent, luck and success: simulating meritocracy and inequality

#130

Post by pintxo » Mon, Mar 19, 2018, 5:07 PM UTC

cookiecaper wrote: post #104

rectang wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a choice that society has made, through laws and institutions which benefit the wealthy -- such as treating corporations as people. It doesn't have to be that way.

There's a natural power law distribution to many things. Economics is a natural force. We can't change it just by dictating that we'd like some things to change, just like we can't change other natural elements by fiat. There's a process, a technology, a science that has to be applied to shape and command natural forces. Human psychology is no exception. Things must be done within workable, realistic parameters. We c…

We can absolutely change economics. We - our societies by the means of our governments - have set rules for the economy for centuries. Think taxes and regulations.