The Role of Luck in Life Is Still Misunderstood • Hacker News Board

Re: The Role of Luck in Life Is Still Misunderstood

#41

Post by noelwelsh » Thu, Mar 15, 2018, 1:48 PM UTC

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…

Unfortunately, human society is made up of humans, irrational though they may be. A high degree of inequality usually indicates one of two things: a dictatorship, or a society that is liable to vote in populist leaders (and hence potentially turn into a dictatorship). An highly unequal society is not a healthy society.

Re: The Role of Luck in Life Is Still Misunderstood

#42

Post by xer » Thu, Mar 15, 2018, 1:51 PM UTC

From my experience you can increase your luck in life by exposing yourself to more choices. This can be something as simple as having saved up money so you can quit your job whenever you want to. That in turn gives you the "luck" to get a better job if the opportunity presents itself.

Re: The Role of Luck in Life Is Still Misunderstood

#43

Post by guiscreenshots » Thu, Mar 15, 2018, 1:52 PM UTC

naasking wrote: post #10

> It could be that the results were built into the model’s design. Every true mathematical proposition is a tautology. I don't find this point particularly convincing. As long as the model's predictions match reality in interesting ways, it can lend possible insights on why reality might have certain characteristics. > Like getting an improbable series of heads when flipping a coin long enough, improbable clusters of…

>> It could be that the results were built into the model’s design.

>Every true mathematical proposition is a tautology. I don't find this point particularly convincing. As long as the model's predictions match reality in interesting ways, it can lend possible insights on why reality might have certain characteristics.

I think the problem is that nothing about the model lines up with reality. For example:

- Each agent begins with an identical amount of capital. -- nothing like the real world.

- Every 6 months you have the possibility of doubling or halving your capital. -- nothing like the real world.

- Chance of doubling capital is proportional to talent. -- nothing like the real world.

As an argument for such a simple model they provide:

> The previous agents’ rules are intentionally simple and can be considered widely shareable, since they are based on the common sense evidence that success, in everyone life, has the property to both grow or decrease very rapidly.

Sure, success/failure _can_ increase or decrease rapidly, but is it the rule? Arguing the basis of your entire model on "common sense" seems weak. It would be better if they had provided at least some real world data where this pattern emerges. In my experience people seem to move a little bit up or down from their baseline, but I have never personally seen a swing from rags to riches or the other way around.

If they had begun by drawing parallels to the ways in which we see the real world and letting the model simulate it into the future it would be more compelling. As it stands, it seems like a set of arbitrary rules designed to reach their desired conclusion, albeit weakly through "it looks pretty similar".

Re: The Role of Luck in Life Is Still Misunderstood

#44

Post by spicymaki » Thu, Mar 15, 2018, 1:52 PM UTC

America's aversion to the role of luck is based on the Protestant work ethic. There is no chance and everything is predetermined by God's grace. God's grace is demonstrated by hard work, frugality, and discipline. There is a concept of double predetermination where you already need to be saved to be saved. Which means the poor is poor not because of chance, but because they lack God's grace.

Re: The Role of Luck in Life Is Still Misunderstood

#45

Post by aje403 » Thu, Mar 15, 2018, 1:53 PM UTC

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…

This is a distortion.

Young men see rich men with beautiful women flying to anywhere they want on the planet. Only a few of them will get that when they're older, and it oftens boils down to intelligence, work ethic, cleverness, other abilities like athletics and looks, and a few lucky breaks that they take advantage of. Exceptions being inherited wealth. Law of averages, those who do make it are hard working and intelligent. Law of averages, those who do not are often less so. However, everyone still wants the hot girl and the jet. So what's the right thing to do? Take "power" from [Hard working and intelligent]U[Scott Disick, Donald JR] to normalize influence across everyone? Should the group, who by and large, has contributed more to the society not have proportionally more say? And then the issue becomes more nuanced when you take into account inheritance and things of that nature.

Re: The Role of Luck in Life Is Still Misunderstood

#46

Post by mapcars » Thu, Mar 15, 2018, 1:54 PM UTC

ska wrote: post #30

mapcars wrote: post #2

I'm not quite getting how can you put talent vs luck, when talent is based on luck you got from your genes, parents, environment etc. I see it as the same thing.

Are you then assuming that two people with the same "talent" (your definition) would in probability then have the same outcomes? And the converse? Neither of these things are obviously true in practice, though measurements are admittedly difficult.

I didn't give any definition to talent, I just said that it is related, very closely, to luck so I don't see how you can oppose them to each other.

I see it similar to asking "what is more important for a fruit - the peel or the meat?" while you can't have one without another, both are there together making a fruit what it is :)

Re: The Role of Luck in Life Is Still Misunderstood

#47

Post by noelwelsh » Thu, Mar 15, 2018, 1:55 PM UTC

mapcars wrote: post #22

noelwelsh wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Luck is anything the individual cannot control. You don't get to choose your parents, for example. I don't see what your point is.

This is an interesting statement. Because how much you can and can not control is already defined by your past luck :)

Luck certainly compounds.

Re: The Role of Luck in Life Is Still Misunderstood

#48

Post by frgtpsswrdlame » Thu, Mar 15, 2018, 1:55 PM UTC

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…

Inequality is intensely tied to social mobility. Check out the Great Gatsby Curve or this talk on snowball inequality. The common sense way to think of it is that as the rich entrench themselves further and further apart from the rest of us, it becomes harder and harder to jump the gap, the rich stay rich, the poor stay poor and we move from meritocracy to aristocracy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Gatsby_curve

https://voicerepublic.com/talks/snowball-inequality-meritocr...

Re: The Role of Luck in Life Is Still Misunderstood

#49

Post by scott_s » Thu, Mar 15, 2018, 1:57 PM UTC

pron wrote: post #38

thanatropism wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is an interesting answer. But I'm not sure if inequality-of-power-driven-by-inequality-of-wealth can be problematized (put into the discussion and on the agenda) and fought in such a way that equalizes power. We're shuffling power around and the dynamics of power inequality aren't clear at all.

Great inequality of wealth is virtually always an inequality of power, and so it is "problematized". You're right that all social dynamics are complex (even economics, or "the dynmaics of wealth", isn't known to the way it can be effectively controlled), but at the end of the day, policies are made based on values. A society that values the maximization of freedom would fight against growing wealth inequality beyond…

I agree with your comments, but I want to add to it. I agree that wealth inequality leads to power inequality. And I agree that curtails freedom. But I think it also tends to societal instability. Closing the loop, we care about wealth inequality because we don't want society to collapse.

Re: The Role of Luck in Life Is Still Misunderstood

#50

Post by jonbarker » Thu, Mar 15, 2018, 1:58 PM UTC

This is all interesting to me. Probably around 40 years ago someone in management decided that certain people were winning the economic game because they were better (meritocracy) and then when we went through a series of technological disruptions we came upon a funny variant which I will attempt to paraphrase "those who are successful are the best at increasing their at-bats and therefore their opportunity to have 'lucky' events." This system seems OK, it selects on people who aren't afraid of failure, and that can't be bad. However, the new problem we have is a situation where there are basically monopolies whose heads still have the 'fail fast' mantra stuck in their heads....