Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Talent, luck and success: simulating meritocracy and inequality

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 197 posts

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

#131

Post by pintxo »

aantix wrote: post #75
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…

Whatever rules in life get laid out, whether it's scoring soccer goals or everyone gets X amount of food per month, someone always becomes good at "optimizing" those rules. We are humans born with different abilities with different tastes and strive for different things. Equalizing the outcomes of all by artificially holding some back suppresses the very creative life force in each one of us, ends in misery and progr…

Talking about the extremes, I agree.

Talking about defining sensible rules to allow a wider range of people to be successful than only those being a member of the local Golf Club, I disagree.

There should be no question that we need rules, and at the same time there should be intense discussions - if not intellectual fights - about which rules we need and how to implement and enforce them.

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

#132

Post by aantix »

s73v3r_ wrote: post #103
kaolti wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand and sympathise with that example. But surely you agree that not all lines of work can be equally compensated. That doesn't mean that hard work is ineffective and a lie though?

It kinda does. If the "types" of work that get compensated well enough for success are arbitrarily chosen, then that indicates that hard work itself is a lie.

What evidence do you cite that they are arbitrarily chosen?

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

#133

Post by cookiecaper »

pintxo wrote: post #130
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…

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.

Right, let me be clear. I'm not saying that we can't or shouldn't attempt to change anything about our economy. I'm just saying that we can't do this by dictum, because an economy is a natural force that emerges based on extant factors, like weather.

There are rules and laws, like taxes and regulations. These are meant to effect the underlying economy; they are not the underlying economy itself. The economy naturally emerges as people make trades based on what they believe their local optima.

We can (and probably should) do things to try to change peoples' perceptions of their local optima to better align with what we believe to better approximate global optima, but people won't simply accept the dictation of a new optimum if it doesn't align or compute internally. It has to make sense to them or they won't make the trades we want to incentivize.

The tax code is such a complex disaster for precisely this reason. It's the most direct way the government has to bias or influence the economy toward certain trades and away from others, so they adjust the tax system to try to affect the calculation of one's local optimum for a given trade.

The debate over which rules, regulations, incentives, and disincentives work best, as well as the holistic systemic approaches that tend to result in the best overall outcomes, is an entire field of academic study called "economics".

Economies cannot be trivially changed by fiat any more than the weather can. Yes, we have governmental standards around meteorology, but making a law that all thermometers must now read 74 degrees F does not magically modify the underlying system. It does not change the actual factors that occurring in the physical world. It just creates a credibility-destroying facade.

The same is true in economics. Pretending otherwise is simple naivete.

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

#134

Post by AstralStorm »

k__ wrote: post #77
Cthulhu_ wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do agree to equality of opportunity and not equality of outcome; those people with low IQ won't end up in the high tiers of e.g. the scientific world, simply because they can't. Equality of opportunity does not rule out a proper socialist system. You give everyone the same opportunities at life and work by e.g. affordable health care and insurances for everyone, but also scholarships for everyone so they can follow…

I don't really think this is the problem here. Sure, you shouldn't give any idiot a degree without doing something for it and yes, you shouldn't make it harder for intelligent people to get degrees, just because their parents are poor or something. But if you have low conscientiousness and low IQ, that was also given to you without asking. It's playing on the same level as poor parents. With your proposed change (whi…

This is only bad because of what, job market preferring to hire geniuses if not at least above average people making 50% of population or so unviable? In addition setting relatively insane filters on the other half limiting them too.

Often for quite dumb jobs too.

Sounds like a systemic problem.

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

#135

Post by s73v3r_ »

aantix wrote: post #132
s73v3r_ wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It kinda does. If the "types" of work that get compensated well enough for success are arbitrarily chosen, then that indicates that hard work itself is a lie.

What evidence do you cite that they are arbitrarily chosen?

I think you need to provide evidence that they are not. But for my evidence, I would put forth important positions, like teachers, being grossly underpaid as evidence that they are arbitrarily chosen.

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

#136

Post by pintxo »

cookiecaper wrote: post #133
pintxo wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Right, let me be clear. I'm not saying that we can't or shouldn't attempt to change anything about our economy. I'm just saying that we can't do this by dictum, because an economy is a natural force that emerges based on extant factors, like weather. There are rules and laws, like taxes and regulations. These are meant to effect the underlying economy; they are not the underlying economy itself. The economy naturally…

Agreed. Thx for the clarification.

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

#137

Post by stcredzero »

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.

How is this a lie? There is no guarantee, just good odds.

at least people over there do not harbor illusions of meritocracy.

[Citation Needed]

May be sometime in the future we would have a universal human rights charter that expands and decides what are the basic needs of a human that a society should provide in exchange for basic responsibilities.

There was already a Declaration of Universal Human Rights from a commission headed by Eleanor Roosevelt.

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

#138

Post by CompelTechnic »

k__ wrote: post #27
rb808 wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Chris Dillow is my favorite economics blogger. http://stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com One of his quotes from memory is "Meritocracy is the myth that justifies inequality", which explains a lot of the current world.

Some parties here in Germany actively pushing this. They talk about equality of opportunity and not equality of outcomes. But what can you do? You're phenotype is mostly determined by stuff you can't control. If you have low conscientiousness and a low IQ, you're basically f*cked and you can't control this either. Even if you're high on openness and have a average to high IQ, you're still playing a high risk game.

>If you have low conscientiousness and a low IQ, you're basically f-cked and you can't control this either.

The point about IQ is definitely worth worrying about. But the idea of moralizing a person with low conscientiousness as particularly f-cked (implying that they have gotten an injust dessert) seems odd to me. I have seen several sociological studies linking high conscientiousness with high income and other good economic/ health outcomes. To me it seems that not having the characteristic trait of "wishing to do what is right, especially to do one's work or duty well and thoroughly" would have predictable bad outcomes, and there is nothing other than changing your approach that would result in anything otherwise. There is no injust dessert; there is only reality here.

Even with government/charitable intervention that is both well-intentioned and well-designed, those who are not conscientious will lag behind.

Edit: this particular comment has led me to a fair bit of introspection. Perhaps a Utilitarian formulation would be a good way to state the problem. Let's build a hypothetical world with two (otherwise equal) groups. A Utilitarian might explain the two populations (the conscientious and the unconscientious) as follows: a group that has a high utility associated with (aka highly values) good outcomes, and a group that has a low utility associated with (aka does not highly value) good outcomes. This definition is of course viewed through the lens of what we define as a good outcome.

If we let the two groups act out their personalities over time, one could say that the resulting outcomes are simply the two groups expressing their preferences. When the unconscientious group sees that the conscientious group has built better outcomes for themselves, how do we express the morality of this situation?

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

#139

Post by Rescis »

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #53
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.

Depends on what you define as hard work. There's stories on Reddit's late stage capitalism subforum about a graduated biochemist entertaining customers at Starbucks with random facts; it was considered cute by the original poster, like, wow, a smart barista. While it was sad that he worked hard to get his papers but couldn't land a job.

Simply because they worked hard to get the degree doesn't mean that the degree is useful, or benefits society.

If there is currently an over saturation of bio-chemists in relation to the amount of jobs open, he cannot add anything to the greater food. From that, there is no reason that his degree/hard work should grant him personal benefits, as he would be taking more than he is giving. Very few people would argue that someone who does a bunch of worthless hard work (something like digging ditches and refilling them) deserves stuff, simply because it required a lot of effort, as what they are doing adds no value to society. Therefore, if the biochemist has a degree that took him a lot of time and work, but isn't needed, there is no reason he should get benefits just because he did work.

I believe the issue is people saying "hard work leads to success" fail to add on that "hard work leads to success, given that you are doing something valuable".

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

#140

Post by SheepSlapper »

s73v3r_ wrote: post #121
SheepSlapper wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Free markets are as close to egalitarian as is possible with markets. Supply and demand set prices while skill set and productivity set wages. It's not perfect, but it's better than anything else we've tried.

Interested in why you think the playing field isn't level, outside of the "luck" aspects I mentioned earlier (since there's nothing to be done about that, life doesn't care about fairness unfortunately). I'm open to new info :)

Post reply on HN