6 ms·

Success isn’t down to free will – luck determines everything

17 points by mgh2 5y ago

AnimalMuppet 5y ago
If you take a strictly deterministic view then yes, success isn't down to free will, because there is no such thing as free will. That doesn't say anything useful (or even interesting) about the luck-vs-your-own-choices debate, though.
- mgh2 5y ago
  It might explain some mass delusions though https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30906984 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30906984
meany 5y ago
The deterministic view also removes blame. If success is due to luck than so are failings - a killer is also a victim of nurture, nature and luck. Based on the title, my interpretation is that the author would like individuals to discount their own success and be more empathetic to those less successful. However, an individual's capacity for empathy and their views on success factors, etc. are also luck based by this rationale. So it seems that the logical conclusion from this line of reasoning is an individual can't do anything other than what they're already doing, so can't ultimately be held responsible. To be clear, I'm not suggesting the argument is wrong, just that the moral of the article (based on its focus on success) seems at conflict with the logic it is based on.
- mgh2 5y ago
  Free will and responsibility can be mutually exclusive, this is what most people have a hard time understanding.
  - coldtea 5y ago
    Not really. If there's no free will, you cannot also remove responsibility (because you don't have the free will to remove it). You believe, follow, and practice what you're determined (non freely) to believe about responsibility.
    - mgh2 5y ago
      If being mutually exclusive is a fact, the individual cannot determine the laws of nature.
      - coldtea 5y ago
        Doesn't have to change any laws of nature. Responsibility is an idea inside a person (it's an ethical concept), not a law of nature. As such, if the person doesn't have free will (and can't act on his independent volition) then they also can't remove their feeling/belief about responsibility. If it's there (and for most people it is), it's there.
        alan-hn 5y ago
        No, that's only your interpretation of responsibility. Causality still exists no matter what and that's where responsibility lies, in the chain of causality
        coldtea 5y ago
        >Causality still exists no matter what and that's where responsibility lies, in the chain of causality Deterministic causual chains of the type we're talking about don't allow for responsibily. One thing merely causes another, going back to the Bing Bang, without any flexibility of it being otherwise or anybody chosing to do anything else. If you have no choice, you have no responsibility, not in any moral sense. You only have "responsibility" in a deterministic universe if we use "responsible" as a synonym for "caused" (as in, X's action is "responsible" for this happening. But that's no more of a responsibility, character/person/morally -wise, as saying "the rain is responsible for the road being wet"). That's not only true for a deterministic universe with no free will/choice. We also accept it in our legal system, even while believing in free will. For example, if somebody does something because they have no other choice, e.g. because somebody else put a gun to their head to do it, we don't consider them responsible, or at least we consider them much less responsible than when acting on their own
fargle 5y ago
If the universe was as deterministic and predetermined as to exclude free-will, then all debate itself, including one as to whether "luck determines everything", would be pointless. Whether you were right or wrong would be both absolute and predetermined. And so pointless to argue about. I'm not sure there's even room for concepts as "true" or "false", just "is". So I cannot prove whether free-will exists or does not. But I believe it's quite logical to say that to argue otherwise would be pointless and irrational. And I do understand that the downvoters feel that they were clearly forced to do it by a complex and indelible series of events going back at least billions of years. :)
- alecst 5y ago
  I’ve heard this argument before but it’s always felt like a non-sequitur. Why would it be pointless to reason out if free will exists? Case A: no free will really exists. We reason about whether free will exists. We conclude it does not. Case B: free will really exists. We reason about whether free will exist. We conclude it does. Do you think society A and society B march on exactly the same?
  - fargle 5y ago
    > Why would it be pointless to reason out if free will exists? because everything is pointless then - it's already happened, it's known. done. You are a puppet on a string and have no free-will. As I said, to argue that free will does not exist is a pointless waste of time. Disingenuous. If you are right, then it's obviously true - but why argue because you know that you'll change nothing. The truth is the same a million years ago and a million years hence. So to argue the point implies you are just not honestly debating and not considering the merits and arguments or trying to convince. You must acede that you are not in a fair debate. If you are wrong, well, then I can accept that. You may be wrong and there could be change! To argue, even reason, is either (free-will) to effect change, or (no-free-will) a waste of time. The later of which is illogical and irrational - simply a belief and an action with nothing more. It's a tautological falsehood to debate or question free will. The mere action of debate and reason implies will. Again, this doesn't prove that free-will exists, but to me it proves illogical to argue against it.
more_corn 5y ago
Luck determines who gets the best cards in any given hand of poker. And yet somehow there’s still room for players to rise or fall based on how they play.
rurban 5y ago
Previous studies on this topic were very clear. Not luck, nor free will, but race and inheritance determines everything. Not taxing inheritance makes it worse, not better.

17 points by mgh2 5y ago

If you take a strictly deterministic view then yes, success isn't down to free will, because there is no such thing as free will. That doesn't say anything useful (or even interesting) about the luck-vs-your-own-choices debate, though.

mgh2 5y ago
It might explain some mass delusions though https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30906984 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30906984

meany 5y ago

The deterministic view also removes blame. If success is due to luck than so are failings - a killer is also a victim of nurture, nature and luck. Based on the title, my interpretation is that the author would like individuals to discount their own success and be more empathetic to those less successful. However, an individual's capacity for empathy and their views on success factors, etc. are also luck based by this rationale. So it seems that the logical conclusion from this line of reasoning is an individual can't do anything other than what they're already doing, so can't ultimately be held responsible. To be clear, I'm not suggesting the argument is wrong, just that the moral of the article (based on its focus on success) seems at conflict with the logic it is based on.

mgh2 5y ago
Free will and responsibility can be mutually exclusive, this is what most people have a hard time understanding.
- coldtea 5y ago
  Not really. If there's no free will, you cannot also remove responsibility (because you don't have the free will to remove it). You believe, follow, and practice what you're determined (non freely) to believe about responsibility.
  - mgh2 5y ago
    If being mutually exclusive is a fact, the individual cannot determine the laws of nature.
    - coldtea 5y ago
      Doesn't have to change any laws of nature. Responsibility is an idea inside a person (it's an ethical concept), not a law of nature. As such, if the person doesn't have free will (and can't act on his independent volition) then they also can't remove their feeling/belief about responsibility. If it's there (and for most people it is), it's there.
      - alan-hn 5y ago
        No, that's only your interpretation of responsibility. Causality still exists no matter what and that's where responsibility lies, in the chain of causality
        coldtea 5y ago
        >Causality still exists no matter what and that's where responsibility lies, in the chain of causality Deterministic causual chains of the type we're talking about don't allow for responsibily. One thing merely causes another, going back to the Bing Bang, without any flexibility of it being otherwise or anybody chosing to do anything else. If you have no choice, you have no responsibility, not in any moral sense. You only have "responsibility" in a deterministic universe if we use "responsible" as a synonym for "caused" (as in, X's action is "responsible" for this happening. But that's no more of a responsibility, character/person/morally -wise, as saying "the rain is responsible for the road being wet"). That's not only true for a deterministic universe with no free will/choice. We also accept it in our legal system, even while believing in free will. For example, if somebody does something because they have no other choice, e.g. because somebody else put a gun to their head to do it, we don't consider them responsible, or at least we consider them much less responsible than when acting on their own

fargle 5y ago

If the universe was as deterministic and predetermined as to exclude free-will, then all debate itself, including one as to whether "luck determines everything", would be pointless. Whether you were right or wrong would be both absolute and predetermined. And so pointless to argue about. I'm not sure there's even room for concepts as "true" or "false", just "is". So I cannot prove whether free-will exists or does not. But I believe it's quite logical to say that to argue otherwise would be pointless and irrational. And I do understand that the downvoters feel that they were clearly forced to do it by a complex and indelible series of events going back at least billions of years. :)

alecst 5y ago
I’ve heard this argument before but it’s always felt like a non-sequitur. Why would it be pointless to reason out if free will exists? Case A: no free will really exists. We reason about whether free will exists. We conclude it does not. Case B: free will really exists. We reason about whether free will exist. We conclude it does. Do you think society A and society B march on exactly the same?
- fargle 5y ago
  > Why would it be pointless to reason out if free will exists? because everything is pointless then - it's already happened, it's known. done. You are a puppet on a string and have no free-will. As I said, to argue that free will does not exist is a pointless waste of time. Disingenuous. If you are right, then it's obviously true - but why argue because you know that you'll change nothing. The truth is the same a million years ago and a million years hence. So to argue the point implies you are just not honestly debating and not considering the merits and arguments or trying to convince. You must acede that you are not in a fair debate. If you are wrong, well, then I can accept that. You may be wrong and there could be change! To argue, even reason, is either (free-will) to effect change, or (no-free-will) a waste of time. The later of which is illogical and irrational - simply a belief and an action with nothing more. It's a tautological falsehood to debate or question free will. The mere action of debate and reason implies will. Again, this doesn't prove that free-will exists, but to me it proves illogical to argue against it.

more_corn 5y ago

Luck determines who gets the best cards in any given hand of poker. And yet somehow there’s still room for players to rise or fall based on how they play.

rurban 5y ago

Previous studies on this topic were very clear. Not luck, nor free will, but race and inheritance determines everything. Not taxing inheritance makes it worse, not better.