4 ms·
> Yes, so you are simply begging the question. The reasons you give for skill being the more likely explanation are purely speculative. Erm, no. I gave a speci
by darawk 8y ago
> Yes, so you are simply begging the question. The reasons you give for skill being the more likely explanation are purely speculative.
Erm, no. I gave a specific argument. You can call it speculation I suppose, but it is certainly more than you've given here. And 'speculation' and 'begging the question' are very different things. I am not making a circular argument.
- foldr 8y agoYou claim that "the dynamical process that produces luck-based wealth is inherently more constrained by practical dynamics". I don't see any argument in support of that assertion except a list of luck-based mechanisms that don't yield billions of dollars. Here are some luck-based mechanisms that do: * Starting a business which succeeds owing to a lucky bet on what kind of product will sell well. * Taking a lucky guess at which high-risk investments will pay off.
- darawk 8y agoYes, those things can pay off. My argument is not that such things do not exist, but that there are fewer instances of those at the very tails than there are of talent-based success. You need only examine the right tail of the wealth distribution to see that this is so. The very richest people in the world are there because of their own skill and insight. Gates, Buffet, Bezos, Kochs. As you step further down into the wealth distribution, you'll see some family money, like the Waltons. If Sam Walton the original was still alive, he'd be near the top...but by exactly the process I described, his children are no longer there.