4 ms·

The article suffers from the just-world fallacy. You only need to be slightly better than your competition, but if you are able to maintain a slig

by rectang 10y ago

The article suffers from the just-world fallacy. You only need to be slightly better than your competition, but if you are able to maintain a slight edge today and tomorrow and the day after that, then you can repeat the process of winning by just a little bit over and over again. A 1% advantage doesn't mean 1% "better" if it is the result of network effects or historical accident. It's certainly plausible that accumulative advantage leads to winner-take-all effects, but if being "better" was the only factor, Betamax would have beaten VHS. Succeeding means securing advantage. Those who expect to succeed only by being "better" are doomed fools.

pcarolan 10y ago
"Better" also applies to marketing.
TheOtherHobbes 10y ago
"Better" is circularly self-defining, because it really just means "More successful in a given niche." You don't really know what's going to be more successful in a given niche until it becomes obvious. As you say, there's no reason it has to mean "Worked harder", "Was technically superior", "Practiced more", or any of the other things it would mean in a less arbitrary world. You can often increase your odds of success with all of the above, but a 1% change - whatever that means in practice, and however you're supposed to measure it - is always going to be swamped by effects outside your control.
- Retric 10y ago
  That's just circular reasoning, your King because your father was the King who'd was King because his father was the King... But, the reality is someone is King because of their ancestors actions and accidents of birth etc. Further fitness is defined by inheritable traits. You can have a billion descendants with blue eyes you can't have a billion descendants who are all kings of England at the same time. PS: A useful rule of thumb is a justification sounds like a value judgement something else is going on.
jasode 10y ago
>, but if being "better" was the only factor, Betamax would have beaten VHS. Betamax was "better" than VHS if you only compare 1 dimension such as "picture quality". However, if one also compares other dimensions such as: + recording time: VHS records 2-hours vs Betamax 1-hour + licensing fee: JVC less expensive than Sony royalties ... to combine pq+capacity+price into a composite score, VHS was "better".
- rectang 10y ago
  Monopolists win through regulatory capture. Are they "better"? "Better" connotes a value judgment. The author of the article takes the neutral concept of "accumulative advantage" and inappropriately ascribes moral value to it, corrupting the insight of the Pareto principle.
  - dsacco 10y ago
    I didn't read that from the author's article. I never heard any moral value being ascribed to the principle. If anything, the author seemed to be speaking about it in a fairly detached way, and describes it more as an emergent, amoral property of nature. Where did you infer moral value in the author's words?
    - RodericDay 10y ago
      He implies over and over that it's all very innocent: the 1% are "better", but unfortunately the rewards for being "better" are in a feedback loop that makes them ultra outsized. This way, it basically removes culpability and replaces malfeasance with a technical bug. It's a very moralizing article.
      - MichaelBurge 10y ago
        That sounds more like the reader ascribes a moral perspective to the 1%, and a neutral position subtracts from that.
erichocean 10y ago
> but if being "better" was the only factor, Betamax would have beaten VHS This is stupid: Betamax was significantly more expense at virtually every level than VHS, not to mention its production was (overly?) restricted by Sony. It gets worse: Betamax did win, just not in the consumer space. Professionals used (and continue to use to this day) Sony's "Beta" format because they could afford to, and it was technically superior (if more expensive). For most things in life, there is no way to define "better", because life (and products) are multi-dimensional, "better" in same areas and "worse" in others. Thus, it's impossible to say that the "best" product won (or didn't win), Betamax/VHS included.

by rectang 10y ago

pcarolan 10y ago

"Better" also applies to marketing.

TheOtherHobbes 10y ago

"Better" is circularly self-defining, because it really just means "More successful in a given niche." You don't really know what's going to be more successful in a given niche until it becomes obvious. As you say, there's no reason it has to mean "Worked harder", "Was technically superior", "Practiced more", or any of the other things it would mean in a less arbitrary world. You can often increase your odds of success with all of the above, but a 1% change - whatever that means in practice, and however you're supposed to measure it - is always going to be swamped by effects outside your control.

Retric 10y ago
That's just circular reasoning, your King because your father was the King who'd was King because his father was the King... But, the reality is someone is King because of their ancestors actions and accidents of birth etc. Further fitness is defined by inheritable traits. You can have a billion descendants with blue eyes you can't have a billion descendants who are all kings of England at the same time. PS: A useful rule of thumb is a justification sounds like a value judgement something else is going on.

jasode 10y ago

>, but if being "better" was the only factor, Betamax would have beaten VHS. Betamax was "better" than VHS if you only compare 1 dimension such as "picture quality". However, if one also compares other dimensions such as: + recording time: VHS records 2-hours vs Betamax 1-hour + licensing fee: JVC less expensive than Sony royalties ... to combine pq+capacity+price into a composite score, VHS was "better".

rectang 10y ago
Monopolists win through regulatory capture. Are they "better"? "Better" connotes a value judgment. The author of the article takes the neutral concept of "accumulative advantage" and inappropriately ascribes moral value to it, corrupting the insight of the Pareto principle.
- dsacco 10y ago
  I didn't read that from the author's article. I never heard any moral value being ascribed to the principle. If anything, the author seemed to be speaking about it in a fairly detached way, and describes it more as an emergent, amoral property of nature. Where did you infer moral value in the author's words?
  - RodericDay 10y ago
    He implies over and over that it's all very innocent: the 1% are "better", but unfortunately the rewards for being "better" are in a feedback loop that makes them ultra outsized. This way, it basically removes culpability and replaces malfeasance with a technical bug. It's a very moralizing article.
    - MichaelBurge 10y ago
      That sounds more like the reader ascribes a moral perspective to the 1%, and a neutral position subtracts from that.

erichocean 10y ago

> but if being "better" was the only factor, Betamax would have beaten VHS This is stupid: Betamax was significantly more expense at virtually every level than VHS, not to mention its production was (overly?) restricted by Sony. It gets worse: Betamax did win, just not in the consumer space. Professionals used (and continue to use to this day) Sony's "Beta" format because they could afford to, and it was technically superior (if more expensive). For most things in life, there is no way to define "better", because life (and products) are multi-dimensional, "better" in same areas and "worse" in others. Thus, it's impossible to say that the "best" product won (or didn't win), Betamax/VHS included.