7 ms·

Society deify successful people when in reality they are nothing more than serial lottery winners. For every "Ronaldo" there are a myriad of people trying to ge

Society deify successful people when in reality they are nothing more than serial lottery winners. For every "Ronaldo" there are a myriad of people trying to get there that will end their life as losers because they made an high-stakes bet and lost. The truth in unconfortable and nobody wants to listen about it.

astrodev 7y ago
To be fair, Ronaldo is known for exceptional work ethic.
- georgespencer 7y ago
  That's kinda the point. Work ethic and obsession are not enough: you have to also win a series of lotteries -- genetic and environmental -- to succeed in his field.
  - rhlsthrm 7y ago
    Yes, but work ethic and obsession are the absolute baseline you need.
    - malnourish 7y ago
      I think even that point is debatable depending on how you define success. If the definition of success is wealth or notoriety, there are certainly people who achieve it without those traits.
      - icelancer 7y ago
        The fact that people become successful and/or notorious due to luck does not invalidate the fact that work ethic and your efforts play the largest controllable role you have. To focus on pure chance outcomes is unproductive and nonsensical.
    - pmoriarty 7y ago
      I find it sad and disturbing that so many people worship being a workaholic.
      - friedman23 7y ago
        People worship success. Turns out to be better than other hard working people you need to work extremely hard.
        fzeroracer 7y ago
        Being better than other hard working people can also involve simply kicking the ladder from underneath you, playing the social status game or making bets at the edge of the law and shoving that risk onto other people. And sometimes no matter how hard you work, you're one of those people under the rungs.
        pmoriarty 7y ago
        Success (by which most people mean financial success, fame, or winning in some competition) is certainly worshipped. However, just being "a hard worker" in itself is considered a virtue by many people. I hesitate to call it the Protestant Work Ethic or the Puritan Work Ethic, as it's far from limited to Protestants or Puritans, but that's really what it is. The harder you work, the more virtuous you are considered to be, and working less is considered sinful or lazy (in other words, unvirtuous and blame-worthy).
    - jiux 7y ago
      Those do help. Have you given thought to whether these are the absolute baseline...or actually the consequences of practices more fundamental?
    - philwelch 7y ago
      Most professional athletes aren’t obsessive just because they have a weirdly specific passion for their sport. They’re obsessive because they’re pathologically competitive. There’s stories about eg Michael Jordan buying a ping pong table and obsessively practicing at ping pong because he had a teammate who beat him at ping pong once and he wasn’t able to let it go until he beat the guy in a rematch. Obsession can come from many sources.
  - rumanator 7y ago
    > That's kinda the point. Work ethic and obsession are not enough: you have to also win a series of lotteries -- genetic and environmental -- to succeed in his field. Ok, you've heard of Cristiano Ronaldo. Yet, have you heard of Dani? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dani_(footballer,_born_1976) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dani_(footballer,_born_1976) Like Ronaldo he was launched int Sporting Clube de Portugal's first team when he played for the club's U17 team. Unlike Ronaldo, Dani didn't had a heart condition. Unlike Ronaldo, Dani had more appearances in his first year in the first team, and was quickly picked by WestHam and Ajax. Unlike Ronaldo, Dani had a notoriously poor work ethics. Unlike Ronaldo, Dani's impressive start was squandered and he went nowhere, he achieved nothing and has since been forgotten. Work ethics is the deciding factor. You may have won the genetic lottery and be a bonafide ubermensch but if your work ethics suck then you'll quickly be surpassed by those lesser talented but more hard working than you.
    - adnzzzzZ 7y ago
      I mostly agree with you but "work ethics" is also partially genetic. It's defined partly by a big five trait called conscientiousness which has a fair percentage of its effects not explainable by the environment or random chance.
- Ididntdothis 7y ago
  Most top athletes have excellent work ethic but they also have natural ability. No amount of work ethic can compensate for lack of natural ability. You absolutely need that to get to the top.
  - ANY_TRUERS_LULW 7y ago
    Depends on the sport. Football, basketball and fighting sports require natural ability. Soccer does not require nearly as much natural athleticism. So since there is less of a genetic filter, players must work that much harder.
- chongli 7y ago
  I think pg is trying to argue that passionate disinterest is different from work ethic. For a person like Ronaldo, all of the off-field training might be enjoyable. If it is, then is it really work ethic? Or is it just Ronaldo doing what he wants to do and would be doing anyway, if there were no such thing as money?
agumonkey 7y ago
Maybe the serial lottery winning is what society subconscious worships.. they know that even with insane amounts of dedications, the others failed when a few particular ones got "lucky".
friedman23 7y ago
> For every "Ronaldo" there are a myriad of people trying to get there that will end their life as losers because they made an high-stakes bet and lost. For every "Ronaldo" there are a small amount of moderately successful players playing soccer for a good living. The myriad is the group of people that are coasting their way through life trying to put in as little effort as possible and naturally they don't succeed.
semiotagonal 7y ago
This is why having a social safety net is so important. If society can put a floor under how badly people can lose, they'll feel more free to try low-probability high-payoff endeavors.
- pm90 7y ago
  This is possibly the greatest argument for social safety nets ever made, really. The economy of today is so efficient and supply chains are so effective at moving things to people who need them, that it seems incredibly stupid to not use it to provide some kind of basic necessities to every human being, no questions asked. If the US were to do this today, there would be more innovation, less misery, a supercharged economy as you've increased the purchasing power of millions of people overnight...It a fucking no brainer. And cutting taxes rather than providing more benefits seems like the most stupid way to run a country I've ever seen in my life.
  - prirun 7y ago
    So if you spend 14 hours a day for 5 years on a computer project that becomes useful, and a lot of people want it and pay you for it, you are willing to fork over most of that to the government since they provided you with the basic allowance that let you pursue this project, and your success is how they fund a basic allowance for everyone - you included. While your friend, who did nothing for 5 years, maintains the same standard of living that you do. I guess this could work, but to me, the level of "disinterest" required to be okay with this result is even more rare than genius.
    - BigJono 7y ago
      Nobody on the planet has ever gone "oh fuck me I only made 300 million with my extremely successful business instead of 600 million. Well what a waste of time, I shouldn't have ever started it." No rational person that isn't already well off would take a 1% shot at 1 billion over a 10% shot at 100 million. Progressive taxation and social safety don't stifle economies, they make them thrive. They act as a negative tax on risk, and create a framework where actors are free to pursue higher EV bets without worrying as much about utility value. Literally the entire point is to create more pie for everyone. Bludgers getting "free money" is just a side effect. You're not paying for them with your taxes, you're paying into an insurance fund with all the other innovators. Except this fund is +EV, subsidized by all the other countries in the global economy that aren't taking the same gains. You're the one getting the free money, and the leaners are taxing some percentage of that. The only reason every successful country in the world isn't already doing it is because of this unintuitive "common sense" optic that you (and about a billion others, literally) are propagating: that somehow it breaks the rules of "fairness". The reality is it's got absolutely nothing to do with fairness, it's about maximizing the bottom line, just like in business. Governments don't give a shit about individual people, nor should they (at least not at the expense of society). Also, I'd guess most first world countries could easily (and do) provide a world class social safety net without going over 50% taxation in any bracket, not even billionaires. Your example only applies if you're talking about taxation in the 70-100% range.
icelancer 7y ago
>> Society deify successful people when in reality they are nothing more than serial lottery winners This is absolutely false and a terrible thing to perpetuate. Work ethic has the highest controllable coefficient to success as an output. Luck exists and the universe is probabilistic, yes, but it is not non-deterministic. This self-lashing of our community and amongst the populist movement that is growing in popularity in the EU and US is ridiculous, reducing the sum total of human achievement into lucky chance rather than actually understanding the probabilistic universe and knowing that while our actions do not wholly determine our fate, they play the single largest role we have control over, and as such, it would be better to believe the myth that we have full control over our destiny rather than this ridiculous concept that luck controls ~100% of circumstance. Probability theory needs to be taught in primary school, apparently, because for members of even this community, the fallacy of determinism and binary outcomes run rampant.
- petra 7y ago
  >> it would be better to believe the myth that we have full control over our destiny rather than this ridiculous concept that luck controls ~100% of circumstance. Why think in black and white ? We have a lot impact on our lives, but there's also some luck involved, especially if we want to achieve extreme things.
- confidantlake 7y ago
  I believe genetics is more important than work ethic for being a pro soccer player.
  - TwoHeadedBeast 7y ago
    You need both. To be the top one percent of what you do, you need natural ability and dedication.
    - confidantlake 7y ago
      You absolutely do, but I think there are a lot more people who have dedication than have talent.
inerte 7y ago
That reminds me of https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCsPz0GYGJM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCsPz0GYGJM "What streaming on Twitch has done to my life" - I remember crying while watching, it's heartbreaking.

astrodev 7y ago

To be fair, Ronaldo is known for exceptional work ethic.

georgespencer 7y ago
That's kinda the point. Work ethic and obsession are not enough: you have to also win a series of lotteries -- genetic and environmental -- to succeed in his field.
- rhlsthrm 7y ago
  Yes, but work ethic and obsession are the absolute baseline you need.
  - malnourish 7y ago
    I think even that point is debatable depending on how you define success. If the definition of success is wealth or notoriety, there are certainly people who achieve it without those traits.
    - icelancer 7y ago
      The fact that people become successful and/or notorious due to luck does not invalidate the fact that work ethic and your efforts play the largest controllable role you have. To focus on pure chance outcomes is unproductive and nonsensical.
  - pmoriarty 7y ago
    I find it sad and disturbing that so many people worship being a workaholic.
    - friedman23 7y ago
      People worship success. Turns out to be better than other hard working people you need to work extremely hard.
      - fzeroracer 7y ago
        Being better than other hard working people can also involve simply kicking the ladder from underneath you, playing the social status game or making bets at the edge of the law and shoving that risk onto other people. And sometimes no matter how hard you work, you're one of those people under the rungs.
      - pmoriarty 7y ago
        Success (by which most people mean financial success, fame, or winning in some competition) is certainly worshipped. However, just being "a hard worker" in itself is considered a virtue by many people. I hesitate to call it the Protestant Work Ethic or the Puritan Work Ethic, as it's far from limited to Protestants or Puritans, but that's really what it is. The harder you work, the more virtuous you are considered to be, and working less is considered sinful or lazy (in other words, unvirtuous and blame-worthy).
  - jiux 7y ago
    Those do help. Have you given thought to whether these are the absolute baseline...or actually the consequences of practices more fundamental?
  - philwelch 7y ago
    Most professional athletes aren’t obsessive just because they have a weirdly specific passion for their sport. They’re obsessive because they’re pathologically competitive. There’s stories about eg Michael Jordan buying a ping pong table and obsessively practicing at ping pong because he had a teammate who beat him at ping pong once and he wasn’t able to let it go until he beat the guy in a rematch. Obsession can come from many sources.
- rumanator 7y ago
  > That's kinda the point. Work ethic and obsession are not enough: you have to also win a series of lotteries -- genetic and environmental -- to succeed in his field. Ok, you've heard of Cristiano Ronaldo. Yet, have you heard of Dani? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dani_(footballer,_born_1976) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dani_(footballer,_born_1976) Like Ronaldo he was launched int Sporting Clube de Portugal's first team when he played for the club's U17 team. Unlike Ronaldo, Dani didn't had a heart condition. Unlike Ronaldo, Dani had more appearances in his first year in the first team, and was quickly picked by WestHam and Ajax. Unlike Ronaldo, Dani had a notoriously poor work ethics. Unlike Ronaldo, Dani's impressive start was squandered and he went nowhere, he achieved nothing and has since been forgotten. Work ethics is the deciding factor. You may have won the genetic lottery and be a bonafide ubermensch but if your work ethics suck then you'll quickly be surpassed by those lesser talented but more hard working than you.
  - adnzzzzZ 7y ago
    I mostly agree with you but "work ethics" is also partially genetic. It's defined partly by a big five trait called conscientiousness which has a fair percentage of its effects not explainable by the environment or random chance.
Ididntdothis 7y ago
Most top athletes have excellent work ethic but they also have natural ability. No amount of work ethic can compensate for lack of natural ability. You absolutely need that to get to the top.
- ANY_TRUERS_LULW 7y ago
  Depends on the sport. Football, basketball and fighting sports require natural ability. Soccer does not require nearly as much natural athleticism. So since there is less of a genetic filter, players must work that much harder.
chongli 7y ago
I think pg is trying to argue that passionate disinterest is different from work ethic. For a person like Ronaldo, all of the off-field training might be enjoyable. If it is, then is it really work ethic? Or is it just Ronaldo doing what he wants to do and would be doing anyway, if there were no such thing as money?

agumonkey 7y ago

Maybe the serial lottery winning is what society subconscious worships.. they know that even with insane amounts of dedications, the others failed when a few particular ones got "lucky".

friedman23 7y ago

> For every "Ronaldo" there are a myriad of people trying to get there that will end their life as losers because they made an high-stakes bet and lost. For every "Ronaldo" there are a small amount of moderately successful players playing soccer for a good living. The myriad is the group of people that are coasting their way through life trying to put in as little effort as possible and naturally they don't succeed.

semiotagonal 7y ago

This is why having a social safety net is so important. If society can put a floor under how badly people can lose, they'll feel more free to try low-probability high-payoff endeavors.

pm90 7y ago
This is possibly the greatest argument for social safety nets ever made, really. The economy of today is so efficient and supply chains are so effective at moving things to people who need them, that it seems incredibly stupid to not use it to provide some kind of basic necessities to every human being, no questions asked. If the US were to do this today, there would be more innovation, less misery, a supercharged economy as you've increased the purchasing power of millions of people overnight...It a fucking no brainer. And cutting taxes rather than providing more benefits seems like the most stupid way to run a country I've ever seen in my life.
- prirun 7y ago
  So if you spend 14 hours a day for 5 years on a computer project that becomes useful, and a lot of people want it and pay you for it, you are willing to fork over most of that to the government since they provided you with the basic allowance that let you pursue this project, and your success is how they fund a basic allowance for everyone - you included. While your friend, who did nothing for 5 years, maintains the same standard of living that you do. I guess this could work, but to me, the level of "disinterest" required to be okay with this result is even more rare than genius.
  - BigJono 7y ago
    Nobody on the planet has ever gone "oh fuck me I only made 300 million with my extremely successful business instead of 600 million. Well what a waste of time, I shouldn't have ever started it." No rational person that isn't already well off would take a 1% shot at 1 billion over a 10% shot at 100 million. Progressive taxation and social safety don't stifle economies, they make them thrive. They act as a negative tax on risk, and create a framework where actors are free to pursue higher EV bets without worrying as much about utility value. Literally the entire point is to create more pie for everyone. Bludgers getting "free money" is just a side effect. You're not paying for them with your taxes, you're paying into an insurance fund with all the other innovators. Except this fund is +EV, subsidized by all the other countries in the global economy that aren't taking the same gains. You're the one getting the free money, and the leaners are taxing some percentage of that. The only reason every successful country in the world isn't already doing it is because of this unintuitive "common sense" optic that you (and about a billion others, literally) are propagating: that somehow it breaks the rules of "fairness". The reality is it's got absolutely nothing to do with fairness, it's about maximizing the bottom line, just like in business. Governments don't give a shit about individual people, nor should they (at least not at the expense of society). Also, I'd guess most first world countries could easily (and do) provide a world class social safety net without going over 50% taxation in any bracket, not even billionaires. Your example only applies if you're talking about taxation in the 70-100% range.

icelancer 7y ago

>> Society deify successful people when in reality they are nothing more than serial lottery winners This is absolutely false and a terrible thing to perpetuate. Work ethic has the highest controllable coefficient to success as an output. Luck exists and the universe is probabilistic, yes, but it is not non-deterministic. This self-lashing of our community and amongst the populist movement that is growing in popularity in the EU and US is ridiculous, reducing the sum total of human achievement into lucky chance rather than actually understanding the probabilistic universe and knowing that while our actions do not wholly determine our fate, they play the single largest role we have control over, and as such, it would be better to believe the myth that we have full control over our destiny rather than this ridiculous concept that luck controls ~100% of circumstance. Probability theory needs to be taught in primary school, apparently, because for members of even this community, the fallacy of determinism and binary outcomes run rampant.

petra 7y ago
>> it would be better to believe the myth that we have full control over our destiny rather than this ridiculous concept that luck controls ~100% of circumstance. Why think in black and white ? We have a lot impact on our lives, but there's also some luck involved, especially if we want to achieve extreme things.
confidantlake 7y ago
I believe genetics is more important than work ethic for being a pro soccer player.
- TwoHeadedBeast 7y ago
  You need both. To be the top one percent of what you do, you need natural ability and dedication.
  - confidantlake 7y ago
    You absolutely do, but I think there are a lot more people who have dedication than have talent.

inerte 7y ago

That reminds me of https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCsPz0GYGJM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCsPz0GYGJM "What streaming on Twitch has done to my life" - I remember crying while watching, it's heartbreaking.