5 ms·

Unless there's more to the model than described in the article, it doesn't make any sense. It sounds like none of the individuals in this model have any agency,

Unless there's more to the model than described in the article, it doesn't make any sense. It sounds like none of the individuals in this model have any agency, and just have random events happen to them? If you make RNG the biggest factor affecting outcome in your model, I'm not sure why the results are surprising.

Jack000 5y ago
So just read the paper and it's pretty much as described in the article. In the model random events happen to individuals, a doubling of capital for a good event and a halving for a bad event. The probability of a good or bad event is a constant defined by the "talent" score. This seems pretty nonsensical since you can tune the model parameters to reach any conclusion you like.
throwaway202104 5y ago
Yes the model / simulation is incredibly simplified. The individuals instead should be proactive and competing each other for limited(or maybe constantly growing but still limited) resources, with varying success depending on their talent and luck. Still the idea that they are trying to represent has it's own merits. People are not that different from each other - because we are the same species. That's how living things are - they are similar to each other because they are just copying from their parents. In that sense somebody having 10^5 times more wealth than somebody else cannot be because of some inherent difference in qualities. We all behave mostly the same, mostly reach the same conclusions and mostly the same speed and accuracy, and we all have the same amount of time. Contrary to popular belief everyone are mostly trying their best to live their lives to the fullest as well. I want to see someone make a more sophisticated model that simulates the real world more. There are some complex factors like being "talented"/knowledgable in multiple fields that are better than being extremely gifted in one field if the goal is to maximize your wealth. A complex factor like that might happen to provide a huge boost to your chances of getting rich - but the factor has to be insane, orders of magnitudes large.

Jack000 5y ago

So just read the paper and it's pretty much as described in the article. In the model random events happen to individuals, a doubling of capital for a good event and a halving for a bad event. The probability of a good or bad event is a constant defined by the "talent" score. This seems pretty nonsensical since you can tune the model parameters to reach any conclusion you like.

throwaway202104 5y ago

Yes the model / simulation is incredibly simplified. The individuals instead should be proactive and competing each other for limited(or maybe constantly growing but still limited) resources, with varying success depending on their talent and luck. Still the idea that they are trying to represent has it's own merits. People are not that different from each other - because we are the same species. That's how living things are - they are similar to each other because they are just copying from their parents. In that sense somebody having 10^5 times more wealth than somebody else cannot be because of some inherent difference in qualities. We all behave mostly the same, mostly reach the same conclusions and mostly the same speed and accuracy, and we all have the same amount of time. Contrary to popular belief everyone are mostly trying their best to live their lives to the fullest as well. I want to see someone make a more sophisticated model that simulates the real world more. There are some complex factors like being "talented"/knowledgable in multiple fields that are better than being extremely gifted in one field if the goal is to maximize your wealth. A complex factor like that might happen to provide a huge boost to your chances of getting rich - but the factor has to be insane, orders of magnitudes large.