3 ms·

While I agree to some degree this also sounds overly dramatic. First, there's a ton of evidence that people also get promoted/appreciated for the right reasons

While I agree to some degree this also sounds overly dramatic. First, there's a ton of evidence that people also get promoted/appreciated for the right reasons, not just because they're a fancy Markov chain of buzzwords (example: serial entrepreneurs, like Musk). Second, there's underlying reality that eventually comes crushing people that fail to meet the expectations that they had built around themselves.

tokai 8y ago
>First, there's a ton of evidence that people also get promoted/appreciated for the right reasons You're gonna have to post some of that evidence please.
- wccrawford 8y ago
  That's basically the Peter Principle at work, which there is plenty of anecdotal evidence about by now. Basically, people get promoted for being competent at their current job. But they are being promoted into a job they may not actually be competent at. Sure, some people also get promoted or appreciated mistakenly or for the "wrong reasons", but that's often being done on purpose and not by accident.
  - tokai 8y ago
    Anecdotal satire from the 60's is a really low quality source.
- YjSe2GMQ 8y ago
  Sure, the correlations between X1:{IQ, conscientiousness} and Y:{income, educational attainment} are stronger than between, say X2:{agreeableness, height, race} and Y. Y are examples of what people want (wealth). X1 are examples of "valid" reasons to be recognized as useful and therefore attain wealth, X2 are examples of "less valid" or "completely invalid" reasons.
  - tokai 8y ago
    Your opinions are not evidence no matter how much you dress them up in notation. I asked for evidence as I could use it. Self-discipline is a better indicator for income and education than IQ.[0] So I know for a fact that your a priori fact is not valid. It's all good to share opinions, but please do not present them as reality when they are not. [0] https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2005.01641.x https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2005.01...
    - YjSe2GMQ 8y ago
      Oh well there's a misunderstanding. Conscientiousness is the psychometric term for self-discipline (not 100% the same, but extremely close): https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscientiousness https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscientiousness And I didn't bother to point out particular studies validating my claims because much of this has been known to humans for close to a 100 years. In the same vein as linking to a proof of the undecidability of the halting problem would be excess references given the nature of HN community. If you want an example study look at the "Health and longevity" section on the above linked Wikipedia page. Or to directly support my thesis about X1 and X2 separation, first look at Wikipedia IQ page and the "Social correlations" section, it's generally around 0.5: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient Or look at your own link. Second, height is correlated to about 0.29 with various measures of success: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Daniel_Cable/publication/8545837_The_Effect_of_Physical_Height_on_Workplace_Success_and_Income_Preliminary_Test_of_a_Theoretical_Model/links/00b495390a8394aea7000000.pdf https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Daniel_Cable/publicatio...
lordnacho 8y ago
> First... Sure but it's when people get promoted for the wrong reasons everyone gets frustrated. > Second, there's underlying reality that eventually comes crushing people that fail to meet the expectations that they had built around themselves. Not in a noisy environment. Stories abound of complete incompetents who take some inadvisable risk, only to find it paid off handsomely.
- YjSe2GMQ 8y ago
  Well that is genuinely impossible to tell apart. I mean you can always claim that a system or a person is "overfiting", and given enough time and/or data they/it will be proven wrong.

tokai 8y ago

>First, there's a ton of evidence that people also get promoted/appreciated for the right reasons You're gonna have to post some of that evidence please.

wccrawford 8y ago
That's basically the Peter Principle at work, which there is plenty of anecdotal evidence about by now. Basically, people get promoted for being competent at their current job. But they are being promoted into a job they may not actually be competent at. Sure, some people also get promoted or appreciated mistakenly or for the "wrong reasons", but that's often being done on purpose and not by accident.
- tokai 8y ago
  Anecdotal satire from the 60's is a really low quality source.
YjSe2GMQ 8y ago
Sure, the correlations between X1:{IQ, conscientiousness} and Y:{income, educational attainment} are stronger than between, say X2:{agreeableness, height, race} and Y. Y are examples of what people want (wealth). X1 are examples of "valid" reasons to be recognized as useful and therefore attain wealth, X2 are examples of "less valid" or "completely invalid" reasons.
- tokai 8y ago
  Your opinions are not evidence no matter how much you dress them up in notation. I asked for evidence as I could use it. Self-discipline is a better indicator for income and education than IQ.[0] So I know for a fact that your a priori fact is not valid. It's all good to share opinions, but please do not present them as reality when they are not. [0] https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2005.01641.x https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2005.01...
  - YjSe2GMQ 8y ago
    Oh well there's a misunderstanding. Conscientiousness is the psychometric term for self-discipline (not 100% the same, but extremely close): https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscientiousness https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscientiousness And I didn't bother to point out particular studies validating my claims because much of this has been known to humans for close to a 100 years. In the same vein as linking to a proof of the undecidability of the halting problem would be excess references given the nature of HN community. If you want an example study look at the "Health and longevity" section on the above linked Wikipedia page. Or to directly support my thesis about X1 and X2 separation, first look at Wikipedia IQ page and the "Social correlations" section, it's generally around 0.5: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient Or look at your own link. Second, height is correlated to about 0.29 with various measures of success: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Daniel_Cable/publication/8545837_The_Effect_of_Physical_Height_on_Workplace_Success_and_Income_Preliminary_Test_of_a_Theoretical_Model/links/00b495390a8394aea7000000.pdf https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Daniel_Cable/publicatio...

lordnacho 8y ago

> First... Sure but it's when people get promoted for the wrong reasons everyone gets frustrated. > Second, there's underlying reality that eventually comes crushing people that fail to meet the expectations that they had built around themselves. Not in a noisy environment. Stories abound of complete incompetents who take some inadvisable risk, only to find it paid off handsomely.

YjSe2GMQ 8y ago
Well that is genuinely impossible to tell apart. I mean you can always claim that a system or a person is "overfiting", and given enough time and/or data they/it will be proven wrong.