5 ms·

I'm glad OP took the road less traveled. I'm getting pretty tired of people living up to their stereotypes.

by gvd 10y ago

sean_patel 10y ago
Not disputing that. Very brave. But you never hear of the 95% + stories that end in tragedy / poverty. You only see the Glory Stories.
- inestyne 10y ago
  The ones that end in complete failure are the most valuable.
  - sean_patel 10y ago
    How so? Please explain.
    - user837387 10y ago
      From Wikipedia: >>Survivorship bias, or survival bias, is the logical error of concentrating on the people or things that "survived" some process and inadvertently overlooking those that did not because of their lack of visibility. This can lead to false conclusions in several different ways.
- GavinMcG 10y ago
  > 95% + stories that end in tragedy / poverty Do they? I agree, it's almost certainly riskier than the survivorship bias suggests. But by how much?
  - Noseshine 10y ago
    Depends on how you answer that question: Do we have so many people working in corporations (often in Dilbert jobs) as a result of people being smart or people being stupid? Note that this is not about the actual intelligence of people, but about the intelligence of the entire process that is much larger than individuals, into which the IQ of individuals goes as just one variable. The larger process has its own logic, just like the constructions of insects are system outcomes. The situation we have is the result of such a process. Personally, I think the process has spoken - the outcome is what it is for a reason. Assuming "individual human incompetence" when looking at large-scale and long-term outcomes IMHO would be wrong. So I think we have people seeking safety in large established organisations for very good reasons - whatever they may be when you ask them. Note that answers from people may not be useful: What would a bee or an ant be able to even see about the organization they are in, the grander outcomes? Asking individuals leaves out the big picture that they inevitably are to small to even notice. So just like in marketing talking to people only takes you so far I'd say it is the same here: Looking at individual experiences, no matter how many, IMHO is too limited. There is a larger (to us mostly invisible) system at work here.

I'm glad OP took the road less traveled. I'm getting pretty tired of people living up to their stereotypes.

by gvd 10y ago

I'm glad OP took the road less traveled. I'm getting pretty tired of people living up to their stereotypes.

Not disputing that. Very brave. But you never hear of the 95% + stories that end in tragedy / poverty. You only see the Glory Stories.

inestyne 10y ago
The ones that end in complete failure are the most valuable.
- sean_patel 10y ago
  How so? Please explain.
  - user837387 10y ago
    From Wikipedia: >>Survivorship bias, or survival bias, is the logical error of concentrating on the people or things that "survived" some process and inadvertently overlooking those that did not because of their lack of visibility. This can lead to false conclusions in several different ways.
GavinMcG 10y ago
> 95% + stories that end in tragedy / poverty Do they? I agree, it's almost certainly riskier than the survivorship bias suggests. But by how much?
- Noseshine 10y ago
  Depends on how you answer that question: Do we have so many people working in corporations (often in Dilbert jobs) as a result of people being smart or people being stupid? Note that this is not about the actual intelligence of people, but about the intelligence of the entire process that is much larger than individuals, into which the IQ of individuals goes as just one variable. The larger process has its own logic, just like the constructions of insects are system outcomes. The situation we have is the result of such a process. Personally, I think the process has spoken - the outcome is what it is for a reason. Assuming "individual human incompetence" when looking at large-scale and long-term outcomes IMHO would be wrong. So I think we have people seeking safety in large established organisations for very good reasons - whatever they may be when you ask them. Note that answers from people may not be useful: What would a bee or an ant be able to even see about the organization they are in, the grander outcomes? Asking individuals leaves out the big picture that they inevitably are to small to even notice. So just like in marketing talking to people only takes you so far I'd say it is the same here: Looking at individual experiences, no matter how many, IMHO is too limited. There is a larger (to us mostly invisible) system at work here.