3 ms·

The first 15 of 24 instances of the term "Upside Decay" that are actually in the article title/body are not at all definitional. Somewhere between 1 and 15 I st

The first 15 of 24 instances of the term "Upside Decay" that are actually in the article title/body are not at all definitional. Somewhere between 1 and 15 I stopped caring about whatever the writer is either too cool to tell me or assumes I already know and decided to count instead... The 16th use gets close: "Upside decay is preceded by a lack of virtue." The 17th, 18th, and 19th invocations get closer still (but, pardon my French, sound like astrology): > There’s a good reason why lack of virtue causes upside decay, and why virtue isn’t just a feel-good luxury: weak ties. > Weak ties control upside decay > Unvirtuous actions cause upside decay through the mechanism of weak ties. The 20th use is the first to say anything I'm comfortable with calling a definition: > Without weak ties, organizations resort to strong ties and hard assets. This leads them to adopt a mercantilist approach. Their zero-sum mindset alienates others and makes them even less virtuous, because their positive-sum actions are now viewed suspiciously by others. Left with no choice but to double down on their zero-sum approach, they’ll antagonize all their weak ties and enter upside decay. If you write anything, please don't do this. If you must, put a disclaimer at the beginning that says the article is too cool for people who don't already know what upside decay is. Or a link to the definition. Anything, really, that shows respect for the reader's time. Edit: or, per slowmovintarget in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27376573 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27376573, a disclaimer that this is notes on a talk.

Thorrez 5y ago
>The reduction in area under the curve (the orange part) represents the loss of positive outcomes. The total loss is small, but it’s concentrated in the tail of the curve where the extreme successes happen. This is upside decay and it’s catastrophic. "Loss of positive outcomes" is the definition. That is, rare but really good outcomes become rarer. The diagram at the beginning of the article illustrates it pretty clearly to me. I had never heard of upside decay before this article, and as soon as I saw the diagram I understood the meaning (but not the cause).
- abathur 5y ago
  Yes--I exaggerated. The diagram clearly depicts a shaded fraction of the right-tail of a normal distribution. The text asserts: - this shaded fraction represents the loss of positive outcomes (and implies that there are real-world conditions that can lead to this loss) - this loss of outcomes is upside decay - upside decay catastrophic So, sure. It's a definition in the sense that anyone can highlight a distribution, assert that part of it could go missing, assert a name for such a missing portion, and assert that it would be a catastrophe if whatever the shaded area represents went missing. But this definition has nothing to do with the article's topic. You can s/upside decay/-8 luck/ without having much impact on what the first ~2/3 mean. Tautological highlights on graphs of normal distributions surely aren't the kind of catastrophe the definition means. The map is not the territory. The definition has multiple dangling references, and has little bearing on the topic until the author starts resolving them.
  - aidenn0 5y ago
    > But this definition has nothing to do with the article's topic. You can s/upside decay/-8 luck/ without having much impact on what the first ~2/3 mean. Given that the very first appearance of the term "Upside decay" says "an organization doesn’t get any lucky breaks." I think the author would agree with you on this point. I don't see how this is a criticism; until the author finishes their explanation, the explanation is incomplete?
    - skmurphy 5y ago
      I think his argument is that weak ties (counter-parties you have some connection with but not a deep one) are not inclined to punish you (increasing your bad luck) as much as are disinclined to give you the benefit of the doubt. I think luck includes "good luck" and "bad luck." His argument is that nonvirtuous behavior by an organization (or the ruling group of a nation) leads to fewer lucky breaks and less upside. He is not suggesting your bad luck increases so I don't think the substitution holds.

Thorrez 5y ago

>The reduction in area under the curve (the orange part) represents the loss of positive outcomes. The total loss is small, but it’s concentrated in the tail of the curve where the extreme successes happen. This is upside decay and it’s catastrophic. "Loss of positive outcomes" is the definition. That is, rare but really good outcomes become rarer. The diagram at the beginning of the article illustrates it pretty clearly to me. I had never heard of upside decay before this article, and as soon as I saw the diagram I understood the meaning (but not the cause).

abathur 5y ago
Yes--I exaggerated. The diagram clearly depicts a shaded fraction of the right-tail of a normal distribution. The text asserts: - this shaded fraction represents the loss of positive outcomes (and implies that there are real-world conditions that can lead to this loss) - this loss of outcomes is upside decay - upside decay catastrophic So, sure. It's a definition in the sense that anyone can highlight a distribution, assert that part of it could go missing, assert a name for such a missing portion, and assert that it would be a catastrophe if whatever the shaded area represents went missing. But this definition has nothing to do with the article's topic. You can s/upside decay/-8 luck/ without having much impact on what the first ~2/3 mean. Tautological highlights on graphs of normal distributions surely aren't the kind of catastrophe the definition means. The map is not the territory. The definition has multiple dangling references, and has little bearing on the topic until the author starts resolving them.
- aidenn0 5y ago
  > But this definition has nothing to do with the article's topic. You can s/upside decay/-8 luck/ without having much impact on what the first ~2/3 mean. Given that the very first appearance of the term "Upside decay" says "an organization doesn’t get any lucky breaks." I think the author would agree with you on this point. I don't see how this is a criticism; until the author finishes their explanation, the explanation is incomplete?
  - skmurphy 5y ago
    I think his argument is that weak ties (counter-parties you have some connection with but not a deep one) are not inclined to punish you (increasing your bad luck) as much as are disinclined to give you the benefit of the doubt. I think luck includes "good luck" and "bad luck." His argument is that nonvirtuous behavior by an organization (or the ruling group of a nation) leads to fewer lucky breaks and less upside. He is not suggesting your bad luck increases so I don't think the substitution holds.