5 ms·

Ok, then, calculate the t-statistic of your income level with respect to your starting cohort then, if you want to be rigorous about it. I think my point stands

by darawk 8y ago

Ok, then, calculate the t-statistic of your income level with respect to your starting cohort then, if you want to be rigorous about it. I think my point stands.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
foldr 8y ago
That does nothing to show that it's not down to luck. By your logic, anyone who wins the lottery can claim to be "self made" (since so few other ticket holders had anywhere near the same degree of success).
- darawk 8y ago
  It is a necessary but not sufficient condition. In determining whether someone is self-made, you'd want to examine conditions like that. That being said, it is absolutely not the case that it "does nothing" to show it's not down to luck. Filtering by that criteria substantially increases the probability of someone being 'self-made'.
  - foldr 8y ago
    >Filtering by that criteria substantially increases the probability of someone being 'self-made'. Of course it does, because non-successful people by definition can't be "self-made"! (In order to be a self-made millionaire, you have to at least be a millionaire.) What it doesn't do is tell us anything about how much of any given person's success is down to luck. If you are just going to insist that a majority of successful people (as compared to their peers) are self-made, then you continue to beg the question at issue.
    - darawk 8y ago
      > Of course it does, because non-successful people by definition can't be "self-made"! (In order to be a self-made millionaire, you have to at least be a millionaire.) What it doesn't do is tell us anything about how much of any given person's success is down to luck. Yes it does. There is a certain base rate of people lucking into vast fortunes. There is a certain base rate of people making those vast fortunes under conditions we would describe as being 'self made'. As you step further out onto the curve of wealth, it becomes more and more likely that that wealth is 'self-made', because it gets harder and harder to luck into that kind of money. Jeff Bezos, Gates, Buffet, all qualify for being "self made". As you step down the curve, the proportion of people who lucked into it increases.
      - foldr 8y ago
        >because it gets harder and harder to luck into that kind of money. But it also gets harder and harder to get that kind of money by skill and hard work. Large amounts of money are more difficult to obtain by any means than small amounts of money. That tells us nothing about the role of luck. And again, if you are just going to assert that obtaining vast wealth by hard work and skill is more likely than obtaining it by luck, then you are begging the question.
        darawk 8y ago
        > But it also gets harder and harder to get that kind of money by skill and hard work. Large amounts of money are more difficult to obtain by any means than small amounts of money. You don't seem to be understanding the point. Let's take an example. Do you think that it is more common, in general, for the wealthiest person in the world to be the result of skill or luck? I think empirically, and simply reasoning a priori we should conclude that the wealthiest person in the world will most commonly be skill-based, in all possible worlds. Why is that? Well, because the dynamical process that produces wealthy people through luck has a squashed distribution relative to the one that produces them through skill. Skill allows you to create new things that have never existed before (tech billionaires) or understand the world in some new way that is statistically outlying (e.g. the very wealthiest investors, Buffet, Simons, etc.). The dynamical process that produces luck-based wealth is related to knowing people, gambling, and/or inheritance. That process is inherently more constrained by practical dynamics. Nobody is going to be your counterparty to multi-billion dollar gambles, inheritances tend to get split among many heirs, lotteries don't generally mint deca-billionaires, etc.. > And again, if you are just going to assert that obtaining vast wealth by hard work and skill is more likely than obtaining it by luck, then you are begging the question. I am not asserting that, at least, not exactly. I am asserting that the distribution of wealth produced by each is different, and that has consequences for the base rates of either in the general population. The skill-based wealth distribution has a longer tail than the luck-based one. Which means, that at the very edges of the distribution, the ratio of luck to skill should favor skill.
        8y ago
- fzeroracer 8y ago
  I think it's obvious that someone who won the lottery did so purely out of their own hard work. Only someone with the proper knowledge and skills would be able to execute on the narrow opportunity of winning the lottery and be willing to take said opportunity in the first place.

by darawk 8y ago

Ok, then, calculate the t-statistic of your income level with respect to your starting cohort then, if you want to be rigorous about it. I think my point stands.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

foldr 8y ago

That does nothing to show that it's not down to luck. By your logic, anyone who wins the lottery can claim to be "self made" (since so few other ticket holders had anywhere near the same degree of success).

darawk 8y ago
It is a necessary but not sufficient condition. In determining whether someone is self-made, you'd want to examine conditions like that. That being said, it is absolutely not the case that it "does nothing" to show it's not down to luck. Filtering by that criteria substantially increases the probability of someone being 'self-made'.
- foldr 8y ago
  >Filtering by that criteria substantially increases the probability of someone being 'self-made'. Of course it does, because non-successful people by definition can't be "self-made"! (In order to be a self-made millionaire, you have to at least be a millionaire.) What it doesn't do is tell us anything about how much of any given person's success is down to luck. If you are just going to insist that a majority of successful people (as compared to their peers) are self-made, then you continue to beg the question at issue.
  - darawk 8y ago
    > Of course it does, because non-successful people by definition can't be "self-made"! (In order to be a self-made millionaire, you have to at least be a millionaire.) What it doesn't do is tell us anything about how much of any given person's success is down to luck. Yes it does. There is a certain base rate of people lucking into vast fortunes. There is a certain base rate of people making those vast fortunes under conditions we would describe as being 'self made'. As you step further out onto the curve of wealth, it becomes more and more likely that that wealth is 'self-made', because it gets harder and harder to luck into that kind of money. Jeff Bezos, Gates, Buffet, all qualify for being "self made". As you step down the curve, the proportion of people who lucked into it increases.
    - foldr 8y ago
      >because it gets harder and harder to luck into that kind of money. But it also gets harder and harder to get that kind of money by skill and hard work. Large amounts of money are more difficult to obtain by any means than small amounts of money. That tells us nothing about the role of luck. And again, if you are just going to assert that obtaining vast wealth by hard work and skill is more likely than obtaining it by luck, then you are begging the question.
      - darawk 8y ago
        > But it also gets harder and harder to get that kind of money by skill and hard work. Large amounts of money are more difficult to obtain by any means than small amounts of money. You don't seem to be understanding the point. Let's take an example. Do you think that it is more common, in general, for the wealthiest person in the world to be the result of skill or luck? I think empirically, and simply reasoning a priori we should conclude that the wealthiest person in the world will most commonly be skill-based, in all possible worlds. Why is that? Well, because the dynamical process that produces wealthy people through luck has a squashed distribution relative to the one that produces them through skill. Skill allows you to create new things that have never existed before (tech billionaires) or understand the world in some new way that is statistically outlying (e.g. the very wealthiest investors, Buffet, Simons, etc.). The dynamical process that produces luck-based wealth is related to knowing people, gambling, and/or inheritance. That process is inherently more constrained by practical dynamics. Nobody is going to be your counterparty to multi-billion dollar gambles, inheritances tend to get split among many heirs, lotteries don't generally mint deca-billionaires, etc.. > And again, if you are just going to assert that obtaining vast wealth by hard work and skill is more likely than obtaining it by luck, then you are begging the question. I am not asserting that, at least, not exactly. I am asserting that the distribution of wealth produced by each is different, and that has consequences for the base rates of either in the general population. The skill-based wealth distribution has a longer tail than the luck-based one. Which means, that at the very edges of the distribution, the ratio of luck to skill should favor skill.
        8y ago
fzeroracer 8y ago
I think it's obvious that someone who won the lottery did so purely out of their own hard work. Only someone with the proper knowledge and skills would be able to execute on the narrow opportunity of winning the lottery and be willing to take said opportunity in the first place.