7 ms·
Brilliant jerks, crazy hotties, and other artifacts of range restriction (2019)
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- jonahx 4y agoThe phenomenon described in the article is well known as "Berkson's paradox": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkson%27s_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkson%27s_paradox
- mannykannot 4y agoThanks - I gave up on the posted article after several paragraphs. From looking at just the first illustration of this Wikipedia article, it all became clear. Maybe I will go back to the posted article to see if it has further insights, but not right now.
- dang 4y agoThanks! Related: Berkson's Paradox - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26566810 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26566810 - March 2021 (39 comments) Berkson's Paradox - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18667423 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18667423 - Dec 2018 (21 comments) Berkson's Paradox - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8264252 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8264252 - Sept 2014 (20 comments)
- k__ 4y agoSeems to be what's affecting women most of the time. "You can't be hot and a security specialist!" Just because the average women takes more care of herself than the average man.
- nibbleshifter 4y ago
- retconn 4y agoEach of your two caricatures exhibit obsessive traits that should be disqualifications for any multivariate layered and strategic responsibility. In my working life I've found, in balanced environments that your exception proves the rule, but I don't personally consider the start-up and tech capitalism economy balanced.
- dspillett 4y ago> people who are neither talented nor attractive do not typically become celebrities. There are a fair few outliers to this rule! Usually as a result of car-crash TV, though not always.
- dqpb 4y ago
- runnerup 4y agoI wouldn’t know. I was a rower.
- DiggyJohnson 4y agoI’ve seen once heard of several concussions from rowing. Catch a crab and the oar comes back heaaavvy
- cactusplant7374 4y agoIn my experience catching a crab is entirely avoidable.
- runnerup 4y agoAvoidable but expected that beginners will. Concussions are rare though, not the likely outcome.
- DiggyJohnson 4y agoI mean I totally agree that an experienced rower will never catch a crab under normal circumstances, but as I type that I remember that the one I witnessed was due to a rower getting heat stroke in the tail end of a 5k - so, I guess there’s the counterexample.
- runnerup 4y agoValid point. I’ve luckily only seen these get caught under rowers rib cages and/or launch them out of the boat, luckily only bruises and sprains. But I’ve been knocked unconscious twice in skiing and suffered a third concussion as well. Another concussion from swimming into the wall and from falling off gymnastics equipment. Perhaps there is some reason for concern after all…
- swyx 4y ago> Get unlimited access to data science stories from industry leaders on Medium. cant read this article without "upgrading". no i dont want to "upgrade". can we downrank Medium until they stop doing bullshit like this? (yes towardsdatascience is a well known data publication, would love to push them gently into moving off medium)
- doodlesdev 4y agoDisable JavaScript. Forever.
- RosanaAnaDana 4y agoI support a view of hackernews where no pay walled content is permitted.
- photoGrant 4y agoHear hear!
- jheriko 4y agoyeah, the rule that "its fine if there is a known workaround" is not exactly user friendly.
- throwaway742 4y agohttps://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/bypass-paywalls-clean/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/bypass-paywal...
- jameshart 4y agoThere's an interesting geometric interpretation that this implies: The specific scenario they're modeling here, where a bunch of samples with correlated properties x and y are clustered by x + y, essentially takes a strip of datapoints that are distributed over a diagonally-oriented rectangle, and then cuts it into a series of shorter strips, by cutting at thresholds (lines where x+y=n) that run along the opposite diagonal. If the resulting short strips are narrow enough (if the upper and lower thresholds are closer together than that degree to which x and y typically differ), they will be rectangles oriented the other way - in other words they will represent groups with strong negative correlation.
- gleb 4y agoWhich is exactly how this (Berkson's paradox) is often visualized.
- thingification 4y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simpson%27s_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simpson%27s_paradox
- streptomycin 4y agoAn example I like is in basketball. A lot of tall players aren't good shooters. People wonder why, like are they launching the ball too high and messing up the angle? Are their hands too big to precisely control the ball? Are they lazy and not practicing? Seems more likely to be this same paradox - if you're short and can't shoot, you never make it to the NBA.
- Galanwe 4y agoI think your example is closer to a survivor bias, while the article describes more of a collider bias. Survivor bias arises when you study what you think is a full population, while in fact you're looking at a selected sample that did survive the very thing you're studying. A classical example in finance happens when you want to study, say, the performance of tech companies over the last 10 years. If you just pick current tech companies and look at their past performance, you will be biased towards companies that did make it. You have to include companies that don't exist anymore but would have been included were you to perform the study say 5 years ago.
- i_am_proteus 4y agoYou are both correct. "Survivorship" is the collider being conditioned on.
- smogcutter 4y agoEh that sounds reasonable but I’m not sure it holds for the NBA. Maybe the college game where the overall skill level and stakes are lower. The flaw in that reasoning is it assumes that players stop developing once they reach the league. Especially in the modern NBA, where players are pushed very hard to get out from the post and shoot. Being unable to shoot puts a limit on a players career, even at 7+ feet. There’s a reason why in the off-season every big in the league posts insta videos of themselves draining 3s in an empty gym. The level of competition in the NBA is fierce, as is the incentive to learn to shoot. If many bigs don’t, the only reasonable explanation is that it’s physically more challenging.
- 4y ago
- photochemsyn 4y agoWhen you start off an article with a pop-science fallacy, it can color the rest of the article in a negative light: > "...and mutational load affects both facial symmetry and mental illness." There's little solid evidence for inherited mental illness, not excluding severe neuro-developmental abnormalities (which may also have environmental causes such as teratogen exposure), in fact there aren't even any solid independent physical-chemical tests for DSM disorders.
- tbrownaw 4y ago> There's little solid evidence for inherited mental illness A quick web search seems to suggest that ADHD, depression, and autism are all known to run in families?
- photochemsyn 4y agohttps://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33624032 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33624032 > (8) Family genetic studies. The phrase “family genetic studies” is commonly used in psychiatry to refer to designs in which investigators examine the familial aggregation of one or more disorders, such as panic disorder or major depression, within intact (i.e., non-adoptive) families (e.g., Weissman, 1993). Given that the familial aggregation of one or more disorders within intact families could be due to shared environment rather than—or in addition to—shared genes (Smoller and Finn, 2003), the phrase “family genetic study” is misleading. This term implies erroneously that familial clustering of a disorder is necessarily more likely to be genetic than environmental. It may also imply incorrectly (Kendler and Neale, 2009) that studies of intact families permit investigators to disentangle the effects of shared genes from shared environment. Twin or adoption studies are necessary to accomplish this goal. > (9) Genetically determined Few if any psychological capacities are genetically “determined”; at most, they are genetically influenced. Even schizophrenia, which is among the most heritable of all mental disorders, appears to have a heritability of between 70 and 90% as estimated by twin designs (Mulle, 2012), leaving room for still undetermined environmental influences. Moreover, data strongly suggest that schizophrenia and most other major mental disorders are highly polygenic. In addition, the heritability of most adult personality traits, such as neuroticism and extraversion, appears to be between 30 and 60% (Kandler, 2012). This finding again points to a potent role for environmental influences.
- amusedcyclist 4y agoIt's a great article and there is probably a lot of truth to it but I suspect people who are constantly told how great they are are actually more likely to be jerks. I don't think beauty / intelligence are entirely uncorrelated with niceness to begin with.
- thaumasiotes 4y ago> It's a great article and there is probably a lot of truth to it but I suspect people who are constantly told how great they are are actually more likely to be jerks. They can both be true. The selection process is enough to explain a negative correlation regardless of whether the true correlation is negative, zero, or strongly positive. Separately, it's very possible for a girl who naturally has 40 attractiveness points and 15 personality points, but who's happy dating men who only demand 30 points from their partners, to lower her expressed personality from +15 to -10. This would be a causative influence of high attractiveness (interacting with low ambition) on personality.
- amusedcyclist 4y agoYup the author describes how it's possible to see such a correlation even if they were uncorrelated. But the same would apply if they were slightly correlated. But I am neither intelligent nor beautiful so take my words with a grain of salt!
- throwuwu 4y agoHere’s a thought, it’s possible to be disagreeable without being ignorant of the fact or malicious. Being blunt or assertive can be misinterpreted as being mean but meanness involves some intent to harm.
- ehnto 4y agoYou might choose to ignore how what you're about to say will make someone feel, because in your mind you know you don't mean ill, but that won't change the outcome. Ignoring how you're about to make someone feel is still consequential. In other words, you can be right and still an asshole.
- dehrmann 4y ago> In fact, the only people who should feel imposter syndrome are the ones whose strongest skill is selling themselves. But since selling yourself entails some self-deception, they are, naturally, the ones who think they’re surrounded by lazy idiots. Reminds me of someone I've seen in the news a lot lately.
- ALittleLight 4y agoThat doesn't make any sense. Selling yourself doesn't require self-deception. Even if you were deceiving others in order to sell yourself that doesn't require you to be deceiving yourself.
- thwayunion 4y ago> Even if you were deceiving others in order to sell yourself that doesn't require you to be deceiving yourself. The self-deception assumption is charitable. Of course it's also possible to just be a pathological liar; the author is being polite.
- throwuwu 4y agoIt’s also possible to be good at what you do and be an effective communicator of that ability. I wouldn’t read more into it than what’s there.
- ALittleLight 4y agoOr you could be great at selling yourself honestly. It also doesn't really seem polite to tell people they are the true imposters because they are good at something.
- lordgrenville 4y agoAt the risk of breaking the rule against complaining about "tangential annoyances", I really dislike how Medium decrements the metered paywall as soon as the page loads, rather than letting the user decide if s/he is interested in actually reading the content. Sometimes you open a page without even knowing that it comes from this site (people sometimes host a blog on Medium under a custom domain).
- sedeki 4y agoUnrelated question: Is there a good book for us laypeople on the Big 5 personality traits/dimensions (like agreeableness, etc)?
- pavlov 4y ago> “In fact, the only people who should feel imposter syndrome are the ones whose strongest skill is selling themselves. But since selling yourself entails some self-deception, they are, naturally, the ones who think they’re surrounded by lazy idiots.” Sounds like a certain entrepreneur who bought a social media site he didn’t actually want anymore, and now is asking everyone to work extra hardcore.
- k__ 4y agoI know a dude who did the drugs part of Steve Jobs. Almost lost his mind, and didn't come out any smarter from that phase.
- paulsutter 4y agoRegarding hot/crazy: if you try dating in a heavily fished (heavily sorted) environment like online dating, a person of modest looks (me) is likely to meet highly attractive persons only if they have some flaw that keeps them ‘in circulation’ On the other hand, meeting more attractive persons in real life proved much less biased. YMMV All that said, very attractive persons can go a little crazy from the stares and clumsy approaches that follow them everywhere they go. To the point that they avoid public places like coffee shops or feel uneasy about going to the grocery store or even to work. So don’t do those things its not nice
- gitfan86 4y ago> So don’t do those things its not nice Advice like this makes the situation worse, because nice people will take your advice and not approach extremely attractive women, because they understand it is the nice thing to do, but assholes will approach extremely attractive women, because they don't care about being nice. So these women end up only being approached by bad actors.
- paulsutter 4y agoStep 1 is to really understand the persons you’re trying to meet. For starters, to avoid being the worst annoyance. Advanced mode is to be who they want to meet. Starts with knowledge like anything else we learn. Everyone wants to be understood and appreciated, nobody likes to be a target
- qazxcvbnmlp 4y agoI think there is a nuance to tell that nice people. If you approach someone, be honest with your intentions while also caring for them. What does that mean? Both attractive and un-attractive women like to date people and get attention. So it’s okay to approach an attractive women. However, when you do it, be honest with yourself that the reason you want to be around her is whatever (a good relationship) and then if she says no, just leave it at that. Approaching? Ok. Approaching to be a friend? Ok. Approaching to be a friend because you want to have sexy time later? Not ok, this isn’t honest. Not honest = not ok = being a jerk. Approaching because you share an interest in Venus fly trap plants and you want to talk about it? Perfect. She says she doesn’t want to talk? That’s ok. Leave it at that.
- SnowHill9902 4y agoI wonder if very beautiful people are more prone to diseases, or to some other evolutionarily negative trait that compensates for its beauty. Otherwise, why isn’t everyone beautiful?
- snthpy 4y agoI don't know about beauty but I think in males there is a trade off like that between testosterone and the immune system.
- tbrownaw 4y agoI'd expect preferences to also adjust accordingly, so that there are always people on both sides of the distinction.
- speakfreely 4y agoIf people did not reproduce if they couldn't get a beautiful mate, then beauty would be widespread. But even if you can't get the most beautiful girl, most men still settle for what they can get, thus continuing the non-beautiful lines.
- autoexec 4y ago> as exercise is a nootropic and smart people are healthier. Not great examples. Source #1 (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/21/well/move/how-exercise-may-help-the-memory-grow-stronger.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/21/well/move/how-exercise-ma...) says "And of course, mice are not people, and it is impossible to know if the same changes occur in our synapses when we exercise." and source #2 (https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/why-do-smart-people-live-longer?barrier=accesspaylog https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/why-do-smart-pe...) says that smart people tend to live longer and they list several reasons for that including a lower accident and homicide rates. One contributing factor was that smart people are less likely to have certain health problems like high blood pressure and cholesterol that can kill people later in life. It's a big leap from that to smart people are healthier.
- Retric 4y agoThe correlation goes the other way as there is a very long list of health problems that lower cognitive performance. The population of everyone without Down syndrome is both smarter and healthier than the total population. That extends to things we don’t think of as lowering intelligence like high blood pressure: https://www.nia.nih.gov/news/high-blood-pressure-linked-cognitive-decline https://www.nia.nih.gov/news/high-blood-pressure-linked-cogn...
- CM30 4y agoPart of me wonders if these ideas are pushed by people because it's more convenient for them to push them. Like, if you're a 'brilliant' jerk, it's probably easier to stay employed if people think technical skills and people skills are something of a trade off. And if you're not some sort of genius, it can be comforting to think "well, at least I'm not a jerk/crazy/an awful person". Same with the dating situation. Must be more comforting to think "I'm not the most attractive person ever, but at least I'm sane and many of the more attractive people aren't" rather than "There are probably people out there who are both more attractive and with a nicer personality". I also suspect people tend to think everything in life must have tradeoffs, D&D character points style. Like, you have X points to go around in total and if a percentage of that goes to intelligence/skill, there must be very little left over to put into charisma. You can see that a lot in films and TV shows, where being popular or attractive is often treated as if it's incompatible with being intelligent or a nice person. But that's not reality, and some intelligent/attractive people are also perfectly nice, sane people.
- ilyt 4y agoWouldn't be surprised. The thought somebody else can be better at everything you do or are gotta sting some people.
- carlmr 4y ago>I also suspect people tend to think everything in life must have tradeoffs, D&D character points style. Like, you have X points to go around in total and if a percentage of that goes to intelligence/skill, there must be very little left over to put into charisma. The truth is probably somewhere in between though. The time/energy constraint is what's most apparent to me since working full time. As an adult you have to cram cooking, cleaning, hobbies, relationship building, etc all into your small limited evening windows and weekends. If you want to be good at something you need to put time and energy into it. This means that you can't be good at everything. So if you like to spend your time reading, maybe selecting nicer clothes (that often need ironing or handwashing, i.e. time) will maybe fall by the wayside, because you prefer reading books. Meaning that you look worse than you could, because you prefer your hobby. Similarly somebody who spends a lot of time on their outward appearance might not have the time left to be as interesting as they could be. In the end of course you may have talent or natural good looks. But as soon as you start needing to think about where to allocate time you will face tradeoffs.
- throwa836373 4y agoThis feels like a well written article from someone who is very good at understanding numbers and finding objective facts but also is not quite able to fully grasp how the world works.
- throwa836373 4y agoThe mutational load thing rings true, because i both have a weird uneven resting expression and I am crazier than a shithouse rabbit. I do think there is a big correlation between crazyness and “professional hot people” (sex workers, intimacy workers, many service people, models, actors, etc), being that the mental game of attraction is inherently irrational and it helps to operate on vibes vs. numbers.
- BoppreH 4y agoIsn't that Regression to the Mean[1]? You have two tests, A and B. You take the best N samples by score A, then look at the corresponding score B. Regression to the mean tells you to expect scores B to be lower than A. The classical example is taking the same random test twice and seeing a lower result the second time around. In the post there's a correlation between the tests, so the second test will not have a low value in absolute terms, but will be low relative to the first one (negative correlation). Taking test B before or after the filtering shouldn't matter. My intuition is that this sort of selection picks some samples that got "lucky" on test A, and will score closer to the mean on test B, bringing the distribution down and obscuring or reverting any potential correlations. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regression_toward_the_mean https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regression_toward_the_mean
- haspoken 4y agohttps://archive.ph/YHH9H https://archive.ph/YHH9H