4 ms·

At what point do we reward human accomplishment instead of throwing it all away to "luck"? I hear this all too often nowadays that any kind of success can alwa

At what point do we reward human accomplishment instead of throwing it all away to "luck"? I hear this all too often nowadays that any kind of success can always be attributed to luck and therefor you have a moral obligation to those less "lucky" than you. Don't get me wrong - I agree with the moral obligation to help those less lucky than you. I don't always agree with the looseness in which the word "luck" is applied these days. The problem is if you look at basically anyone's life, there's always SOMETHING you can point to that was "lucky" compared to their peer(s). Yes, some more than others. But perhaps we can begin to give people the benefit of the doubt when they say they learned a difficult craft, and a new language, to lift themselves out of a shitty situation. It discounts his hard work to say it all came down to lucky brain genetics.

rayiner 9y ago
Why do we need to reward people just for being the winners of the cosmic lottery? If you outperform what would be expected given your parental income, early education, intellect, and various other factors that are the result of mere chance, then maybe you should get a cookie. Otherwise, why celebrate the predictable outputs of predictable inputs?
- programmarchy 9y ago
  Why are basketball players tall? Because tall people typically provide more value to winning basketball games. Similarly, people with desirable traits like beauty and intelligence are rewarded (e.g. options for sexual reproduction, accumulation of wealth) because they have the best chance of advancing the fitness and survival of our species.
  - rayiner 9y ago
    That's clearly not the reason, because birth rates go down with income: https://www.statista.com/statistics/241530/birth-rate-by-family-income-in-the-us https://www.statista.com/statistics/241530/birth-rate-by-fam....
    - harryh 9y ago
      Jinx!
    - programmarchy 9y ago
      Not sure what you're responding to. How are you arguing that people who are beautiful don't have more options for mate selection, or that intelligent people aren't more likely to accumulate wealth? I understand the difference between r vs K selection, but that seems like a non sequitur in response to my previous post.
      - tptacek 9y ago
        Birth rates go down with income. You don't have to reason you way to that from first principles, because it's an empirically observable fact.
        programmarchy 9y ago
        Right... I'm not disputing that. But it does not relate to my point.
        tptacek 9y ago
        I think it refutes your point. You claimed that the ability to accumulate wealth is rewarded because those people have the best chance of improving the fitness of the species. But those people are the least likely to do anything to perpetuate the species.
        programmarchy 9y ago
        I see now. I suppose fitness is an overloaded term, but in terms of survival of a species, I think it'd be difficult to argue that an r-selected reproduction strategy is better than a K-selected reproduction strategy in terms of improving fitness. That'd be like saying antelope are more adapted to their environment than lions. In human terms, I'd argue that K-selected children are much more likely to make the types of breakthroughs that will advance the human species e.g. curing disease, scientific discovery, space travel, etc.
  - harryh 9y ago
    In modern American society birth rate is negatively correlated with household income[1]. By your standards we should be taking away money from those with desirable traits to encourage them to have more kids. 1. https://www.statista.com/statistics/241530/birth-rate-by-family-income-in-the-us/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/241530/birth-rate-by-fam...
    - programmarchy 9y ago
      To clarify, by 'options for sexual reproduction' I meant a better selection of mates, not the amount of children.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
Mikeb85 9y ago
> It discounts his hard work to say it all came down to lucky brain genetics. How many people work hard their entire life only to not be rewarded? It's not like everyone who doesn't see success is lazy or doesn't work hard. Labourers work hard, tradesmen work hard, and yes, programmers work hard too. I live in Alberta right now, which is in the midst of an economic recession/depression. In my city unemployment is at 10%, despite being probably the youngest, most educated city in the country. All of my peers have degrees (or better), and most don't have jobs in their fields. All have worked hard, all still work hard, most are underemployed. > At what point do we reward human accomplishment instead of throwing it all away to "luck"? I hear this all too often nowadays that any kind of success can always be attributed to luck and therefor you have a moral obligation to those less "lucky" than you. I personally hate the idea of a moral obligation to do anything. Shaming people into certain behaviours is shitty. But we do live in a society amongst other people. Poverty begets crime and social unrest, and it's not in anyone's interest for this to happen. So we attempt to construct the best society we can for all our benefit. Having a highly-stratified society, even if we feel it's 'fair', isn't a good thing.
- programmarchy 9y ago
  > Poverty begets crime Does it, or is it the other way around? Crime in an area will cause businesses and capable people to leave, which causes an area to become poor. I'd concede that it may be a two way street, but also think it's worth considering how that cycle works in both directions. There have been many studies in criminology that strongly link crime and IQ. This is an unpopular viewpoint, because IQ is primarily genetic and seemingly fixed at birth. However, if it is true then it would explain why our current approaches of throwing money at the problem aren't working (e.g. welfare, increased spending in education). And in that case, instead of doubling down on failing policies, we need to think of new ways to address the issues at a genetic level. For example, what if instead of increasing welfare, the government subsidized IVF, allowing poor people to select embryos with genetic markers for high IQ or without markers for disease like diabetes or sickle cell anemia? Perhaps a tough sell, and maybe there are better ways. But I think we need to move beyond the reasoning that all our problems are socioeconomic, and start looking at the full picture which requires us to accept some unsettling evidence about biology, race, and IQ.
anigbrowl 9y ago
At what point do we reward human accomplishment At the point where you start finding lots of nice houses and comfortable-looking cars. Lot so fo people already enjoy substantial rewards for accomplishment. That's great. The problem is that sometimes all the benefits are ascribed to accomplishment and luck is completely discounted. Look, you've played Monopoly, right? You take a bunch of players of about equal skill level, put them into a game, and who is doing well after 10 rounds of the board is a matter of both skill and luck. Eventually one player will end up with all the money and the others will go bankrupt, because that's the outcome the game is structured to produce. Now, Monopoly is just a game and so players could in a tournament play multiple games to minimize the luck factor and figure out which players have the greatest skill. But in the real world you don't get to try out a different life strategy every year and then reset on January 1 for a fresh round. If you start out with poor luck, then your disadvantages can accumulate just as your advantages can. Further, people don't all start out with the same beginning conditions as they do in a game of Monopoly. Nobody wants to come in and join a game of Monopoly already in progress because many of the strategic options have already become unavailable. Likewise it would be a less fun game to play if initial cash allocations were random and some players started out with much more or less than others.

rayiner 9y ago

Why do we need to reward people just for being the winners of the cosmic lottery? If you outperform what would be expected given your parental income, early education, intellect, and various other factors that are the result of mere chance, then maybe you should get a cookie. Otherwise, why celebrate the predictable outputs of predictable inputs?

programmarchy 9y ago
Why are basketball players tall? Because tall people typically provide more value to winning basketball games. Similarly, people with desirable traits like beauty and intelligence are rewarded (e.g. options for sexual reproduction, accumulation of wealth) because they have the best chance of advancing the fitness and survival of our species.
- rayiner 9y ago
  That's clearly not the reason, because birth rates go down with income: https://www.statista.com/statistics/241530/birth-rate-by-family-income-in-the-us https://www.statista.com/statistics/241530/birth-rate-by-fam....
  - harryh 9y ago
    Jinx!
  - programmarchy 9y ago
    Not sure what you're responding to. How are you arguing that people who are beautiful don't have more options for mate selection, or that intelligent people aren't more likely to accumulate wealth? I understand the difference between r vs K selection, but that seems like a non sequitur in response to my previous post.
    - tptacek 9y ago
      Birth rates go down with income. You don't have to reason you way to that from first principles, because it's an empirically observable fact.
      - programmarchy 9y ago
        Right... I'm not disputing that. But it does not relate to my point.
        tptacek 9y ago
        I think it refutes your point. You claimed that the ability to accumulate wealth is rewarded because those people have the best chance of improving the fitness of the species. But those people are the least likely to do anything to perpetuate the species.
        programmarchy 9y ago
        I see now. I suppose fitness is an overloaded term, but in terms of survival of a species, I think it'd be difficult to argue that an r-selected reproduction strategy is better than a K-selected reproduction strategy in terms of improving fitness. That'd be like saying antelope are more adapted to their environment than lions. In human terms, I'd argue that K-selected children are much more likely to make the types of breakthroughs that will advance the human species e.g. curing disease, scientific discovery, space travel, etc.
- harryh 9y ago
  In modern American society birth rate is negatively correlated with household income[1]. By your standards we should be taking away money from those with desirable traits to encourage them to have more kids. 1. https://www.statista.com/statistics/241530/birth-rate-by-family-income-in-the-us/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/241530/birth-rate-by-fam...
  - programmarchy 9y ago
    To clarify, by 'options for sexual reproduction' I meant a better selection of mates, not the amount of children.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

Mikeb85 9y ago

> It discounts his hard work to say it all came down to lucky brain genetics. How many people work hard their entire life only to not be rewarded? It's not like everyone who doesn't see success is lazy or doesn't work hard. Labourers work hard, tradesmen work hard, and yes, programmers work hard too. I live in Alberta right now, which is in the midst of an economic recession/depression. In my city unemployment is at 10%, despite being probably the youngest, most educated city in the country. All of my peers have degrees (or better), and most don't have jobs in their fields. All have worked hard, all still work hard, most are underemployed. > At what point do we reward human accomplishment instead of throwing it all away to "luck"? I hear this all too often nowadays that any kind of success can always be attributed to luck and therefor you have a moral obligation to those less "lucky" than you. I personally hate the idea of a moral obligation to do anything. Shaming people into certain behaviours is shitty. But we do live in a society amongst other people. Poverty begets crime and social unrest, and it's not in anyone's interest for this to happen. So we attempt to construct the best society we can for all our benefit. Having a highly-stratified society, even if we feel it's 'fair', isn't a good thing.

programmarchy 9y ago
> Poverty begets crime Does it, or is it the other way around? Crime in an area will cause businesses and capable people to leave, which causes an area to become poor. I'd concede that it may be a two way street, but also think it's worth considering how that cycle works in both directions. There have been many studies in criminology that strongly link crime and IQ. This is an unpopular viewpoint, because IQ is primarily genetic and seemingly fixed at birth. However, if it is true then it would explain why our current approaches of throwing money at the problem aren't working (e.g. welfare, increased spending in education). And in that case, instead of doubling down on failing policies, we need to think of new ways to address the issues at a genetic level. For example, what if instead of increasing welfare, the government subsidized IVF, allowing poor people to select embryos with genetic markers for high IQ or without markers for disease like diabetes or sickle cell anemia? Perhaps a tough sell, and maybe there are better ways. But I think we need to move beyond the reasoning that all our problems are socioeconomic, and start looking at the full picture which requires us to accept some unsettling evidence about biology, race, and IQ.

anigbrowl 9y ago

At what point do we reward human accomplishment At the point where you start finding lots of nice houses and comfortable-looking cars. Lot so fo people already enjoy substantial rewards for accomplishment. That's great. The problem is that sometimes all the benefits are ascribed to accomplishment and luck is completely discounted. Look, you've played Monopoly, right? You take a bunch of players of about equal skill level, put them into a game, and who is doing well after 10 rounds of the board is a matter of both skill and luck. Eventually one player will end up with all the money and the others will go bankrupt, because that's the outcome the game is structured to produce. Now, Monopoly is just a game and so players could in a tournament play multiple games to minimize the luck factor and figure out which players have the greatest skill. But in the real world you don't get to try out a different life strategy every year and then reset on January 1 for a fresh round. If you start out with poor luck, then your disadvantages can accumulate just as your advantages can. Further, people don't all start out with the same beginning conditions as they do in a game of Monopoly. Nobody wants to come in and join a game of Monopoly already in progress because many of the strategic options have already become unavailable. Likewise it would be a less fun game to play if initial cash allocations were random and some players started out with much more or less than others.