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

The Role of Luck in Life Is Still Misunderstood

joshuaballoch.github.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–196 of 196 posts

Re: The Role of Luck in Life Is Still Misunderstood

#191

Post by fvdessen »

pron wrote: post #19
thanatropism wrote: post #8

I still think the focus on wealth/income inequality rather than on absolute poverty is irrational. I've seen people justify it to me on the grounds that people care about relative poverty, which to me reads "people are jealous". But then the result is: 1) A focus on inequality is irrational. 2) People focus on inequality for irrational reasons. This means that if policy-makers and intellectuals fully give in to the p…

The reason we care so much about inequality has nothing to do with jealousy and everything to do with power[1]. As resources are a major source of power (and often vice-versa), and because power is relative, inequality of resources means inequality of power. And as power means influence (and so the ability to reduce another's freedom), inequality reduces overall freedom. As freedom can never be total[2], the question…

Why should power and freedom be distributed equally rather than proportional to competence and virtue ?

Re: The Role of Luck in Life Is Still Misunderstood

#192

Post by aje403 »

KozmoNau7 wrote: post #190
aje403 wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Frankly, I think it is often jealousy. It is not blatantly false that if you work harder, take a second job, take night classes, save and start a business, that you can rise up in the social ladder and provide more opportunity for your children. I have some personal biases here. There are very different shades of privilege here. The bank director may have been the son of an immigrant, had straight A's in school, got…

It is not purely luck, it is also about being in the right position and circumstance to make use of lucky happenstances, and actually about being in a position in life that makes those lucky happenstances more likely to happen. Luck doesn't do much if you can't act on it. Conversely, lucky breaks happen more often to people who are able to expose themselves more to the possibility.

What you're saying is basic common sense (although apparently people are actually handed money to research this as well, which strikes me as scientific welfare).

Here is a recipe to have more "luck" in your life and to eventually be able to "capitalize on luck":

Smoke less weed

Drink less

Don't have kids without stable finances

Get a second job or work more hours or find a better job

Save money

Go home and read books, study, learn a skill, or prepare to go book to school

Start a business that can deliver value to consumers and/or society or work on side projects

Network with people and build relationships or mentors

Here is how to lose your ability to "capitalize on luck":

Whine about your life circumstances online

Complain that life is unfair online

Smoke weed and drink multiple times a week

Sit indoors all day watching tv and playing video games

Settle down and have kids before you have a stable life and have achieved the life goals you want to

I'm not sure what you are specifically complaining about more unless it is just a vacuous whinefest about life not being fair. That seems to be the case.

I do not think it is fair that the children of billionaires and movie stars are connected to half the planet via their parents and can get into nearly any door they want to, if that is the specific scenario you are referring to. We have been gradually shifting away from this for centuries - quite nearly only the children of nobles had access to education ~400 years ago.

Re: The Role of Luck in Life Is Still Misunderstood

#193

Post by pron »

fvdessen wrote: post #191
pron wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reason we care so much about inequality has nothing to do with jealousy and everything to do with power[1]. As resources are a major source of power (and often vice-versa), and because power is relative, inequality of resources means inequality of power. And as power means influence (and so the ability to reduce another's freedom), inequality reduces overall freedom. As freedom can never be total[2], the question…

Why should power and freedom be distributed equally rather than proportional to competence and virtue ?

First, it's important to note that when I talk about equality I mean statistical equality within acceptable margins. I.e., not that all people personally have equal power. As to your question, it's a matter of values. As I said in another comment, Western democratic (aspirational) values are such that all lives have equal value. Your personal values may differ. We can't justify our values based on some mathematical formula; that's the meaning of values. They are core beliefs.

Nevertheless, we could point out some obvious problems with different value systems from the Western democratic ones. For example, how is it even possible to distribute anything based on virtue and competence? We cannot distribute power based on actual competence and virtue, but only on perceived or measured competence and virtue, and that is very different. Measured competence and virtue are circumstantial, and in our real world (as opposed to some imagined utopia), reality is that power may strongly influence circumstance (and so our perception of competence and virtue). Say, if a powerful country exploits a less powerful one, steals its resources and enslaves its people, it creates a circumstance where those exploited people may have adversarial conditions to display their competence and virtue. So we would say that even if our values were such that we believed that power should be distributed based on competence and virtue, doing so would be impossible, and attempting to do so (based on measured competence and virtue) would actually result in something very different. This is why the term meritocracy is satirical (or, at least, it was coined as a satirical term), because it's obvious that true merit cannot really be measured, and any attempt at meritocracy would be no better than a system based on, say, hereditary value (nobility).

Having said that, to some acceptable degree, even in democratic societies we do want to reward virtue and competence. We put criminals in prison (taking most power from them), and reward competent virtuous people with success that imbues power. But we don't want the disparity to grow too large because we're aware that 1. our measurement of virtue and competence is flawed, and 2. too large a disparity causes great harm to freedom.

Re: The Role of Luck in Life Is Still Misunderstood

#194

Post by KozmoNau7 »

aje403 wrote: post #192
KozmoNau7 wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is not purely luck, it is also about being in the right position and circumstance to make use of lucky happenstances, and actually about being in a position in life that makes those lucky happenstances more likely to happen. Luck doesn't do much if you can't act on it. Conversely, lucky breaks happen more often to people who are able to expose themselves more to the possibility.

What you're saying is basic common sense (although apparently people are actually handed money to research this as well, which strikes me as scientific welfare). Here is a recipe to have more "luck" in your life and to eventually be able to "capitalize on luck": Smoke less weed Drink less Don't have kids without stable finances Get a second job or work more hours or find a better job Save money Go home and read books…

You've obviously bought into a narrative, and you refuse to even consider opposing viewpoints.

It's a classic case of just world fallacy.

Re: The Role of Luck in Life Is Still Misunderstood

#195

Post by aje403 »

KozmoNau7 wrote: post #194
aje403 wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What you're saying is basic common sense (although apparently people are actually handed money to research this as well, which strikes me as scientific welfare). Here is a recipe to have more "luck" in your life and to eventually be able to "capitalize on luck": Smoke less weed Drink less Don't have kids without stable finances Get a second job or work more hours or find a better job Save money Go home and read books…

You've obviously bought into a narrative, and you refuse to even consider opposing viewpoints. It's a classic case of just world fallacy.

I'm speaking from personal experience with the people I have met and observed. I do not subscribe to any conservative ideology or the hyper-liberalism espoused by many on this site. I am a reasonably intelligent white male with good parents born in the US with no disabilities so I am EXTREMELY fortunate. However, I also believe in the American social system that has produced virtually all of the technology in the world for the past 200 years that has drastically reduced global poverty and likely is the reason why slavery no longer exists, and I believe those who provide significant value to society should be lauded and allowed to "keep what they kill" to preserve our culture of achievement. While they should be taxed heavily, they should not be required to hand everything away so that people like you, who play doom and complain on the internet, can buy a new iPad with the proceeds of the redistributed wealth, or so that a new senator can spend the government surplus on a vacation and some hookers. Once social mobility, educational opportunity, access to similar healthcare, and basic human rights are preserved, rich people don't owe you crap despite what you think. Our society is clearly not perfect and certainly requires continuous work, but there is nothing stopping a hungry and intelligent kid in the US whose parents feed him and shelter him from becoming a multi-millionaire in this country or even president. If you want more, stop complaining and go earn it. If you think things are unfair, then stop complaining and go help people.

Re: The Role of Luck in Life Is Still Misunderstood

#196

Post by KozmoNau7 »

aje403 wrote: post #195
KozmoNau7 wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You've obviously bought into a narrative, and you refuse to even consider opposing viewpoints. It's a classic case of just world fallacy.

I'm speaking from personal experience with the people I have met and observed. I do not subscribe to any conservative ideology or the hyper-liberalism espoused by many on this site. I am a reasonably intelligent white male with good parents born in the US with no disabilities so I am EXTREMELY fortunate. However, I also believe in the American social system that has produced virtually all of the technology in the wor…

Again with the completely baseless strawman attacks, holy shit.

>"they should not be required to hand everything away so that people like you, who play doom and complain on the internet, can buy a new iPad with the proceeds of the redistributed wealth"

Please point out exactly where I have even come close to advocating this idea, which seems to only exist in the heads of conservative tax dodgers.

>"Once social mobility, educational opportunity, access to similar healthcare, and basic human rights are preserved, rich people don't owe you crap despite what you think."

They don't owe me anything personally, but they do owe society as a whole a hell of a lot.

>"there is nothing stopping a hungry and intelligent kid in the US whose parents feed him and shelter him from becoming a multi-millionaire in this country or even president."

Really? How about cultural stigma, institutional racism, old boys networks, country club nepotism, access to prestigious higher education, and a whole host of other factors?

Firstly, there are a lot of kids whose parents can barely feed and shelter them (hungry and well fed, can you make up your mind?), either despite their best efforts, or because they spend everything on booze or drugs. Secondly, even if they are adequately fed and sheltered, there is still massive societal pressure to not "rise beyond your station", both from above and below.

US society seems tailor made to keep the rich rich and the poor poor, by constantly putting obstacles in the way of progress, all because rich white old men are terrified they'll lose even a small part of their mountains of money.

No one (apart from hardcore old-school concrete commies) are advocating for 100% equal distribution of wealth. I believe that if someone puts their neck on the line and makes it big, good for them. But they should also pay their goddamn taxes and contribute back to society, and not with some excuse along the lines of "I'm investing the money in my own pet causes, so I shouldn't have to pay taxes". That's what's happening currently, the super rich don't feel any connection or responsibility towards keeping society running. They need a good strong lesson in humility.

I'm sure everything seems possible from your ivory tower, but that's not reality.

Post reply on HN