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

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

#21

Post by fullshark » Mon, Mar 19, 2018, 3:12 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…

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.

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

#22

Post by RcouF1uZ4gsC » Mon, Mar 19, 2018, 3:12 PM UTC

One of the biggest issues that discussions of inequality ignore is generational issues. People view wealth as an individual thing. However, if you look at American society, probably the majority has been generational. Each generation worked and saved to better their children's lives.

An example of this is probably in immigrants. Many people came with practically nothing but he clothes on their back. They took whatever job they could find and worked like crazy and saved like crazy and pushed their children like crazy. Their children in turn started out better than their parents and worked and saved and pushed their children and their children did even better. After a few generations, the descendants of immigrants have entered the highest ranks of society.

What drives the "myth" of the American dream is not necessarily that I who started out with nothing will be well off. It's that through my hard work and their hard work my children will be better than me and my grandchildren and their children will be well off even though I started with nothing.

That version of the American dream has worked far more reliably than the individualistic model. Even once persecuted and discriminated against immigrant communities in the US have succeeded in this version of the American dream.

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

#23

Post by hliyan » Mon, Mar 19, 2018, 3:12 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…

What if the problem is that the results of merit accumulate geometrically, so that beyond a certain threshold, some people just start rapidly pulling ahead of the pack?

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

#24

Post by rectang » Mon, Mar 19, 2018, 3:12 PM UTC

kaolti wrote: post #16

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…

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

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.

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

#25

Post by mistermann » Mon, Mar 19, 2018, 3:12 PM UTC

kaolti wrote: post #16

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…

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

As an absolute, binary statement, yes, because it is not always true, not even close.

Hard work is only one component of success. Physical attractiveness and charisma are often at least as important, even though logically they seem irrelevant. Dealing successfully with humans is often not terribly intuitive.

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

#26

Post by ZeroGravitas » Mon, Mar 19, 2018, 3:14 PM UTC

rb808 wrote: post #5

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…

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.

See also, the "Just-World Hypothesis", which investigates why people feel this need to blame victims:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis

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

#27

Post by k__ » Mon, Mar 19, 2018, 3:15 PM UTC

rb808 wrote: post #5

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…

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.

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

#28

Post by rectang » Mon, Mar 19, 2018, 3:20 PM UTC

hliyan wrote: post #23

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…

What if the problem is that the results of merit accumulate geometrically, so that beyond a certain threshold, some people just start rapidly pulling ahead of the pack?

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.

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

#29

Post by dalore » Mon, Mar 19, 2018, 3:20 PM UTC

Thiez wrote: post #13

> The new term, wT is the amount of one’s paycheck. w represents the importance of the paycheck. The higher it is, the more pay you get. w is multiplied by the talent parameter T to implement a meritocratic idea: the more talented you are, the fatter the paycheck you get. Perhaps I misunderstand the situation, but it seems like the author is baking meritocracy directly into the model: if you have high talent then you…

Perhaps talent in this case refers to ones talent at salary negotiation?

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

#30

Post by kaolti » Mon, Mar 19, 2018, 3:21 PM UTC

mistermann wrote: post #25

kaolti wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

As an absolute, binary statement, yes, because it is not always true, not even close. Hard work is only one component of success. Physical attractiveness and charisma are often at least as important, even though logically they seem irrelevant. Dealing successfully with humans is often not terribly intuitive.

I don't think anyone is saying they are irrelevant, nothing is black and white. For practical purposes however, hard work does lead to success.