3 ms·
That's not what the model says. It says that being smart and good looking do not have a large effect in the long term; having repeated streaks of luck do. (Bei
by TuringTest 5y ago
That's not what the model says. It says that being smart and good looking do not have a large effect in the long term; having repeated streaks of luck do.
(Being rich counts as having already had several lucky breaks, you or your family.)
- kkjjkgjjgg 5y agoIf being rich counts a already having had several lucky breaks, aren't they just presenting a circular conclusion? In the real world, opportunities can also be manufactured, increasing the odds to be lucky. I don't think the model from the article has that many interesting things to tell us.
- TuringTest 5y ago"Being rich" doesn't appear as an input factor on the model, that's my interpretation. The paper describes how, assuming a meritocratic setup where everyone starts out the same, wealth accumulates as a function of repeated lucky events, largely unaffected by the particular talents of the individual. We all know that money makes money and the wealthy have a lot more ways of seizing opportunities than those without resources, using wealth as a leverage way more powerful than personal talent. Nevertheless, the model works as a thought experiment showing what would happen if everyone began from the same starting point; even in that case, talent would have little weight in how wealth accumulation would evolve.
- kkjjkgjjgg 5y agoThere was another experiment a while ago about songs becoming hits. Iirc they started with presenting random songs to users, but their "likes" could affect further suggestions. Then it also was random which songs ended up becoming hits. That seems like a much more interesting experiment, and in the real world, too. Also the "Matthew Effect" is well known. I find it very dangerous to latch onto such an experiment because it "feels right", though.