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

Careless People

pluralistic.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

471–480 of 575 posts

Re: Careless People

#471

Post by tpoacher »

sokoloff wrote: post #190
lordnacho wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You've won the lottery, but you don't want to acknowledge that you won the lottery. You want to feel they you deserve your position through hard work and talent. You're living in a society where people are credulous, to some degree they believe that hard work and talent are related to success. So what will happen? Everyone you hire ends up patting you on the back, telling you what a great guy you are.

> to some degree they believe that hard work and talent are related to success Does anyone actually believe that hard work and talent are either zero or negatively correlated to success? I don't think the correlation is 1.0, but I firmly believe that it's positive for both.

To throw some controversy onto the mix, they are related, but in the same way that [some race] is correlated to [some behaviour] in the extremes of the probability distribution, but mostly makes no difference at the overwhelming core of it.

And therefore when people say [some race] makes no difference in [some behaviour], and other people say "Why is it always [some race] when we see [some behaviour]", and others say "the observation that [some race] leads to [some behaviour] is false because 50% of the time I see [some other race] being worse than [some race] in terms of [some behaviour]" they are all completely right, but just focusing on different properties of the distribution.

So back to your example, yes, in the extremes, many people who are ultrawealthy may have had those behaviours. But by far and large those behaviours don't make much of a difference to the overwhelming majority of the population, and therefore it's likely that other factors were far more important in terms of making an ultrawealthy person becoming ultrawealthy in the first place. At best, someone who was destined to be ultrawealthy didn't make it because they didn't have those behaviours, but that's more like winning the lottery and being too forgetful to go cash it in, rather than having characteristics that will help you win the lottery in the first place.

Re: Careless People

#472

Post by sokoloff »

tpoacher wrote: post #471
sokoloff wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> to some degree they believe that hard work and talent are related to success Does anyone actually believe that hard work and talent are either zero or negatively correlated to success? I don't think the correlation is 1.0, but I firmly believe that it's positive for both.

To throw some controversy onto the mix, they are related, but in the same way that [some race] is correlated to [some behaviour] in the extremes of the probability distribution, but mostly makes no difference at the overwhelming core of it. And therefore when people say [some race] makes no difference in [some behaviour], and other people say "Why is it always [some race] when we see [some behaviour]", and others say…

In the case of talent and hard work, I think it works the other way: the vast majority of people will see better results in their “normal/broad-middle” lives from increases in hard work or, said otherwise, suffer negative outcomes from lapses in effort [getting fired for lack of attendance or having worse health outcomes from a lack of exercise being concrete examples].

It’s not that interesting or relevant to me whether Musk, Gates, Zuckerberg, Bezos had talent or work ethic as significant elements of their success. It is interesting and relevant to me as an adult, parent, and mentor the role that talent and hard work play in outcomes for my family and the students I mentor.

I strongly doubt it’s anything other than a positive correlation and believe that the correlation is relevant for normal people.

Re: Careless People

#473

Post by ninetyninenine »

Llamamoe wrote: post #454
ninetyninenine wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s not a common reaction with humans. When people are the best, there’s a huge serotonin rush. Like literally this is measurable in humans. Serotonin regulates dominance hierarchies and is associated with happiness. It’s so biological in nature that the same effect can be witnessed in lobsters. People or lobsters high in dominance have more serotonin and are generally happier. Your story is not only anomalous. Bu…

It sounds like the commenter above is just less insecure about themselves and more excited for opportunities to discuss and learn than you and whoever you're describing here are.

No im saying dominance hierarchies are the natural order of things and it’s ingrained in biology.

Pretending that hierarchy doesn’t matter and that you don’t care where you are in that hierarchy is lying to yourself.

It’s like saying the janitor is equal in respect to the software engineer. We don’t like to admit but the janitor is less respected and looked down upon. I’m annoyed by people who pretend it doesn’t matter.

Re: Careless People

#474

Post by throaway1989 »

TheAceOfHearts wrote: post #9

> There's Zuck, whose underlings let him win at board-games like Settlers of Catan because he's a manbaby who can't lose (and who accuses Wynn-Williams of cheating when she fails to throw a game of Ticket to Ride while they're flying in his private jet). Why does this seem to be a recurring pattern among the modern ultrawealthy? Does anyone who fails to bend over backwards for them just end up getting exiled? Have th…

Maybe you just hate to lose, which drives you to relentlessly pursue "success?"

Re: Careless People

#475

Post by Arisaka1 »

3np wrote: post #450
sokoloff wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pick any of those 8 billion. Have them work half as hard. Have them have half as much talent. Do their outcomes remain the same , get better, or get worse? You’re arguing that there are other factors that also influence outcomes (and that those other factors are stronger forces). I agree with that point, but that’s not a refutation to the notion that the coefficients on talent and hard work are positive, nor a convin…

Saying it's literally 0 implies a belief that free will doesn't exist (predeterminism), right? If so, who are you trying to convince here? :p It's complex.

To play devil's advocate: Free will not existing doesn't mean that your environment doesn't affect your outcomes. On the contrary, in fact. So convincing you means that I am the environment that affects you.

Re: Careless People

#476

Post by gessha »

pseudalopex wrote: post #352
optymizer wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was the TL on a Facebook app feature driven by us, the engineers, that was 100% in the category of "good for humanity and it solves a problem for billions of people". I had to fight internal org leads to launch it, because there was almost no benefit for FB. Jane leaked the feature and put this entire 'evil Facebook' shade on it, with no real proof, just wildly false speculation based on what she thought the featur…

Who was Jane? Tell us the feature so we can evaluate your claim. Absolute certainty, bitter criticism, and expectation of unearned trust do not build confidence in your ability to judge what is good for humanity.

It should be Jane Manchun Wong but she has covered a number of FB features.

Re: Careless People

#477

Post by gessha »

ranger207 wrote: post #356

Doctorow touches on this, but I really think the biggest problem with society today is simply that too many people in power simply don't experience consequences

I think the problem is people feel so entitled they think they can avoid consequences. And much to everybody’s surprise, they can do it if they pay the right people.

Re: Careless People

#478

Post by aredox »

pixelatedindex wrote: post #417
aredox wrote: post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

She certainly didn't code that contact form. Still an oversight from her, but...

But what? It’s her website and is ultimately responsible. “I didn’t code it” is not an excuse.

Do you assume full responsability for all the dependencies of all the software you write and use?

Re: Careless People

#479

Post by 3np »

Arisaka1 wrote: post #475
3np wrote: post #450

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Saying it's literally 0 implies a belief that free will doesn't exist (predeterminism), right? If so, who are you trying to convince here? :p It's complex.

To play devil's advocate: Free will not existing doesn't mean that your environment doesn't affect your outcomes. On the contrary, in fact. So convincing you means that I am the environment that affects you.

I don't see how that complicates things?

This is the thread GP was supposed to be a reply to:

> > Does anyone actually believe that hard work and talent are either zero or negatively correlated to success?

> I do.

Re: Careless People

#480

Post by obscurette »

watwut wrote: post #467
obscurette wrote: post #368

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that's true for our society in general at the moment. Everyone can behave like an asshole and it's completely OK for a society if they say "I had a tough childhood and haven't received a professional help".

Literally none of these people claims that. What they actually say is "acting like an asshole is a cool manly thing". Meanwhile, the help for people with tough childhoods is slashed and protection for kids is scaled back. People who had tough childhoods and did not received professional help are getting roughly no help or benefit of doubt.

I didn't talk about these people, I was talking about society in general. And the problem with even slight erosion of responsibility is that sociopaths benefit most.
Post reply on HN