4 ms·

It'd be interesting to see a real study of how much randomness plays a role in success. What if it is the majority? Humans want causality, and want to believe t

It'd be interesting to see a real study of how much randomness plays a role in success. What if it is the majority? Humans want causality, and want to believe they can influence everything, but it might be far from the truth.

TuringTest 7y ago
The "Talent vs Luck" model is such a study, and it shows that indeed randomness is the deciding factor. Sure, it's a toy model -akin to a thought experiment- but the result is an emergent property of very simple principles, like most models in mainstream economics. https://www.businessinsider.com.au/this-study-shows-talent-is-overrated-as-luck-plays-a-huge-role-in-success-2018-11 https://www.businessinsider.com.au/this-study-shows-talent-i...
- lordnacho 7y ago
  That photo of a poker table is quite apt. Even if you play sensibly, if you're sitting with a bunch of people who aren't, there's a fair chance one of them will hit the card he needs and beat you. In the economy this can also happen. Consider that you might make a bet on some business because you have done good research (your estimate of the future is what it actually averages to) and it shows the business will do well. A load of random people will have varying degrees of correctness of analysis that will give them too optimistic or pessimistic estimates. The future itself is also affected by noise, and business conditions may change. You're going to end up seeing a bunch of winners who were too optimistic about some business, but the winds changed and they won bigtime.
- aledalgrande 7y ago
  The starting point on distributions of talent vs success really nails it.
ttul 7y ago
The best solution for randomness is to try multiple times. Unfortunately humans only have one life to live and limited capital. This is why rich kids more often end up founding successful companies - they were able to try again after their first failure(s).

TuringTest 7y ago

The "Talent vs Luck" model is such a study, and it shows that indeed randomness is the deciding factor. Sure, it's a toy model -akin to a thought experiment- but the result is an emergent property of very simple principles, like most models in mainstream economics. https://www.businessinsider.com.au/this-study-shows-talent-is-overrated-as-luck-plays-a-huge-role-in-success-2018-11 https://www.businessinsider.com.au/this-study-shows-talent-i...

lordnacho 7y ago
That photo of a poker table is quite apt. Even if you play sensibly, if you're sitting with a bunch of people who aren't, there's a fair chance one of them will hit the card he needs and beat you. In the economy this can also happen. Consider that you might make a bet on some business because you have done good research (your estimate of the future is what it actually averages to) and it shows the business will do well. A load of random people will have varying degrees of correctness of analysis that will give them too optimistic or pessimistic estimates. The future itself is also affected by noise, and business conditions may change. You're going to end up seeing a bunch of winners who were too optimistic about some business, but the winds changed and they won bigtime.
aledalgrande 7y ago
The starting point on distributions of talent vs success really nails it.

ttul 7y ago

The best solution for randomness is to try multiple times. Unfortunately humans only have one life to live and limited capital. This is why rich kids more often end up founding successful companies - they were able to try again after their first failure(s).