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

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

#141

Post by k__ » Mon, Mar 19, 2018, 5:38 PM UTC

AstralStorm wrote: post #134

k__ wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Why would the military filter if below average people could do meaningful work today?

Okay they don't filter 50%, only 15% but that's still many people

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

#142

Post by jpadkins » Mon, Mar 19, 2018, 5:42 PM UTC

ihm wrote: post #117

sol_remmy wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't think your definition of inequality, which basically equals popularity, is a useful one. The article is about income inequality. My definition is perfect. High popularity -> high income -> inequality. If you bandwagon onto a popular author like J.K. Rowling, then you are further enriching her and causing inequality. If you want to legislate away inequality for say, Twitch streamers, then pass a law that no…

It doesn't have to be the case that high popularity -> high income. That's how we structure it in our society currently but there's no reason it has to be that way. We could still have popular things, and even reward their creators with a lot of money, but less than we currently do.

how?

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

#143

Post by Retric » Mon, Mar 19, 2018, 5:42 PM UTC

quotemstr wrote: post #119

Retric wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You assume the ability to gain capital has anything to do with the ability to invest well. A quick check of sports stars shows this is very far from the case. Talent is not universal, being a great Doctor has little to do with being a great painter or investor.

> Talent is not universal, being a great Doctor has little to do with being a great painter or investor. You might like to think so, but g says otherwise.

Correlation != a 1:1 relationship. Top Hollywood actors might do better than the average person on average, but plenty of high income people live in vast amounts of debt.

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

#144

Post by alexashka » Mon, Mar 19, 2018, 5:47 PM UTC

Rescis wrote: post #139

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

Maybe it should be a little more clear what is considered 'valuable', before people spend years of their life's efforts and a great deal of money on education.

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

#145

Post by andrei_says_ » Mon, Mar 19, 2018, 5:54 PM UTC

kaolti wrote: post #96

falcolas wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hard work only increases the chance for opportunities, to a certain ceiling. It is not, however, the only factor. Or even the most important factor. Let's use a few sterotypes for examples: A hard working trucker will take years to set aside $10,000 in savings. An average programmer at a financial institution can do the same in months. A debutante able hire a stock broker to invest their slush fund can do the same in…

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?

Positing that hard work guarantees anything is the lie. It is a narrative that has been perpetuated by all those who benefit by exploiting hard work.

Smart work ought to be more beneficial than hard work but the narrative focuses on “hard work” with connotations of pushing oneself beyond one’s comfort zone and limits, which implies increased exploit-ability.

It is an immoral statement which left without investigation causes suffering and inequality for many.

Hard work depletes the worker and is therefore ineffective as it creates an imbalance which that person, their family etc. need to pick up. This balance is not reflected by the accounting of the employer so economically it is hard to detect.

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

#146

Post by rectang » Mon, Mar 19, 2018, 5:58 PM UTC

cookiecaper wrote: post #129

rectang wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 decre…

> There is not necessarily any reason to believe that the current mix of inequality conditions are particularly cruel or unfavorable.

This is precisely the arbitrary value judgement that we do not have to accept. You (and others) don't believe that it's particularly cruel or unfavorable, and you're just wrapping that judgement in a mantle of inevitability.

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

#147

Post by andrei_says_ » Mon, Mar 19, 2018, 6:00 PM UTC

castlecrasher2 wrote: post #64

kaolti wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is it a lie? Do you disagree that hard work leads to success, within limits?

I recently read Stealing the Corner Office which gives great insight into this. The premise is that incompetent high-level executives exist, so the answer isn't simply hard work. The author doesn't specifically state it but the problem, at least in my case, is one's definition of work; I don't think I'm alone when I used to think my code spoke for itself and that's that. There are a few problems with that but essenti…

I would also like to question the definition of “hard”. What does that mean?

Is it like the hard work of someone driven by enthusiasm and intrinsic motivation, in the state of flow? IN my experience that’s the most productive I can ever be. But it doesn’t feel hard at all.

Who and what defines the line where work becomes “hard work” and what is that extra unit worth?

I think it has a lot with the worker pushing beyond what is reasonable and sacrificing other important life aspects and needs they have in order to produce more units of work.

I find this immoral in any structure based on exploitation, which is most structures.

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

#148

Post by lanius » Mon, Mar 19, 2018, 6:02 PM UTC

DoreenMichele wrote: post #94

sol_remmy wrote: post #58

Everyone in this thread directly supports inequality through their buying decisions and I'm callin' them out. Anytime you use Netflix, Google, HackerNews is supporting inequality. Every time you bought a Harry Potter book as a kid you supported inequality. You're giving more money to the winners. If you want to reduce inequality, then buy books from unpopular authors. Use unpopular OSes like TempleOS instead of givin…

I really hate arguments like this. I saw this concept mocked in a book once. Among other things, it had pretty women intentionally making themselves less attractive. We need to find ways to make smaller organizations more robust and less vulnerable to having their lunch eaten by large organizations. But this advice to not buy anything popular and only go with that which is unpopular is not the right way to do this.

Was that book Harrison Bergeron?

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

#149

Post by DoreenMichele » Mon, Mar 19, 2018, 6:04 PM UTC

lanius wrote: post #148

DoreenMichele wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really hate arguments like this. I saw this concept mocked in a book once. Among other things, it had pretty women intentionally making themselves less attractive. We need to find ways to make smaller organizations more robust and less vulnerable to having their lunch eaten by large organizations. But this advice to not buy anything popular and only go with that which is unpopular is not the right way to do this.

Was that book Harrison Bergeron ?

I don't recall. It may have been a short story rather than a book. I read it a long time ago.

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

#150

Post by s73v3r_ » Mon, Mar 19, 2018, 6:06 PM UTC

SheepSlapper wrote: post #140

s73v3r_ wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ope…

I think you're going to have to prove that, for one, Free Markets actually do lead to those things, and for two, that our current situation is one that could reasonably be called a Free Market.

"Interested in why you think the playing field isn't level"

I think all one has to do is look at places like the inner city, where poverty is common, and where the opportunities are simply not there. And I feel it is extremely defeatist to say "We can't do anything about unfairness". I believe we absolutely can. We just don't seem to want to.