3 ms·

The comments in this thread do a great job highlighting point the article makes that acknowledging luck is profoundly threatening to the lucky.

mypastself 4y ago
What a great way to shut down disagreeing views. Let’s try using it in the opposite direction. “Acknowledging the importance of hard work and personal responsibility is threatening to the lazy.” “Whoa, look at how many lazy people there are.”
jstanley 4y ago
You could just as easily say that acknowledging witchcraft is profoundly threatening to the witches; anyone who tries to say that there is no such thing as witchcraft is just covering up for the fact that they're a witch.
- yogthos 4y ago
  The difference being is that role of luck has been shown to be a factor in scientific studies [1]. And it is obvious to anybody capable of rational thought that this should be the case. People who are born into wealth have more opportunities in life than those who do not. A person who gets better education, better social connection, and more free time has the opportunity to self actualize. Meanwhile, a person born poor has none of these things. [1]: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/beautiful-minds/the-role-of-luck-in-life-success-is-far-greater-than-we-realized/ https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/beautiful-minds/the-rol...
sokoloff 4y ago
I think it's fine to acknowledge that luck plays a role in life, but unless you think there's a way to trade your time and life force in a direct effort to become more lucky, it's not particularly practical as a way to guide your actions. That is, unless you take something like the view of "I am a great believer in luck, and I find the harder I work, the more I have of it." My spouse and I work hard to ensure that our family has that kind of luck. That our kids get a safe, stable, secure home, nutritious food, adequate exercise, exposure to a variety of novel (to them) experiences. We copiously support and nurture their educational efforts. We display love and tolerance for each other, but also demonstrate and uphold high standards in areas that we think matter. We spend less than our means and save for our family's future and invest for our retirement and their current and future education. Given all that, maybe our kids are just plain lucky after all and luck is responsible for everything that they'll ever do. I can't stop you from believing that, but I don't and we don't live our lives as if it were true.
- yogthos 4y ago
  It seems to me that people are completely missing the point of the article here. The point it's making that if luck is a dominant factor in success, then being poor isn't a personal flaw. People aren't poor because they're lazy or don't have ambition, it's because they got dealt a shitty hand in life. Once this basic fact is recognized, then it necessarily dictates that we should structure a society in a way where everyone has access to the necessities of life. Things like food, healthcare, education, and housing should be universal rights that are guaranteed for everyone.
  - sokoloff 4y ago
    I tend to agree that a basic (non-luxury, sustenance-level) of those should be provided via taxation and government wealth transfers. I have no problem if Bezos or Musk eat better food, live in a better house, can pay for elite education, or have access to better/more comprehensive medical care than I do.
    - yogthos 4y ago
      Thing is that people like Musk and Bezos derive their opulence from exploitation of people who have to sell labour to live. The fortune Bezos amassed is created through labour of people his enterprise employs. People piss in bottles working in Amazon warehouses so that Bezos can eat better food, live in a better house, pay for elite education, and have access to better/more comprehensive medical care. The reason this is the case is because people like Bezos own the means of production and ensure that labour and resources are directed towards their benefit first and foremost. These people simply won the birth lottery and now they get to rule over the rest of the people because of that. If you don't see that as a problem then I really don't know what to tell you.
      - sokoloff 4y ago
        That's why providing people with a baseline of government dormitories, government rice, cheese, and beans, government medical care, and government education is critical to prevent the worst of the possible exploitations. Once that baseline is guaranteed, it's a much cleaner argument that Joe freely decided to work in a job moving heavy things around because he valued having a more pleasurable existence, rather than saying it was because he didn't want to slowly starve to death. No one wants to wake up at 4 AM and farm the land, to clean other people's shit out of a septic tank, or to wipe an incontinent 90 year old's ass. But all of those things need to be done and if we look at the history various economic systems, it seems like there's a lot to be gained in societal wealth, comfort, and advancement from one particular flavor over the others that we've tried. Giving everyone a safety net I believe is good and prevents exploitation. Giving everyone a hammock I believe is bad and prevents societal advancement.

mypastself 4y ago

What a great way to shut down disagreeing views. Let’s try using it in the opposite direction. “Acknowledging the importance of hard work and personal responsibility is threatening to the lazy.” “Whoa, look at how many lazy people there are.”

jstanley 4y ago

You could just as easily say that acknowledging witchcraft is profoundly threatening to the witches; anyone who tries to say that there is no such thing as witchcraft is just covering up for the fact that they're a witch.

yogthos 4y ago
The difference being is that role of luck has been shown to be a factor in scientific studies [1]. And it is obvious to anybody capable of rational thought that this should be the case. People who are born into wealth have more opportunities in life than those who do not. A person who gets better education, better social connection, and more free time has the opportunity to self actualize. Meanwhile, a person born poor has none of these things. [1]: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/beautiful-minds/the-role-of-luck-in-life-success-is-far-greater-than-we-realized/ https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/beautiful-minds/the-rol...

sokoloff 4y ago

I think it's fine to acknowledge that luck plays a role in life, but unless you think there's a way to trade your time and life force in a direct effort to become more lucky, it's not particularly practical as a way to guide your actions. That is, unless you take something like the view of "I am a great believer in luck, and I find the harder I work, the more I have of it." My spouse and I work hard to ensure that our family has that kind of luck. That our kids get a safe, stable, secure home, nutritious food, adequate exercise, exposure to a variety of novel (to them) experiences. We copiously support and nurture their educational efforts. We display love and tolerance for each other, but also demonstrate and uphold high standards in areas that we think matter. We spend less than our means and save for our family's future and invest for our retirement and their current and future education. Given all that, maybe our kids are just plain lucky after all and luck is responsible for everything that they'll ever do. I can't stop you from believing that, but I don't and we don't live our lives as if it were true.

yogthos 4y ago
It seems to me that people are completely missing the point of the article here. The point it's making that if luck is a dominant factor in success, then being poor isn't a personal flaw. People aren't poor because they're lazy or don't have ambition, it's because they got dealt a shitty hand in life. Once this basic fact is recognized, then it necessarily dictates that we should structure a society in a way where everyone has access to the necessities of life. Things like food, healthcare, education, and housing should be universal rights that are guaranteed for everyone.
- sokoloff 4y ago
  I tend to agree that a basic (non-luxury, sustenance-level) of those should be provided via taxation and government wealth transfers. I have no problem if Bezos or Musk eat better food, live in a better house, can pay for elite education, or have access to better/more comprehensive medical care than I do.
  - yogthos 4y ago
    Thing is that people like Musk and Bezos derive their opulence from exploitation of people who have to sell labour to live. The fortune Bezos amassed is created through labour of people his enterprise employs. People piss in bottles working in Amazon warehouses so that Bezos can eat better food, live in a better house, pay for elite education, and have access to better/more comprehensive medical care. The reason this is the case is because people like Bezos own the means of production and ensure that labour and resources are directed towards their benefit first and foremost. These people simply won the birth lottery and now they get to rule over the rest of the people because of that. If you don't see that as a problem then I really don't know what to tell you.
    - sokoloff 4y ago
      That's why providing people with a baseline of government dormitories, government rice, cheese, and beans, government medical care, and government education is critical to prevent the worst of the possible exploitations. Once that baseline is guaranteed, it's a much cleaner argument that Joe freely decided to work in a job moving heavy things around because he valued having a more pleasurable existence, rather than saying it was because he didn't want to slowly starve to death. No one wants to wake up at 4 AM and farm the land, to clean other people's shit out of a septic tank, or to wipe an incontinent 90 year old's ass. But all of those things need to be done and if we look at the history various economic systems, it seems like there's a lot to be gained in societal wealth, comfort, and advancement from one particular flavor over the others that we've tried. Giving everyone a safety net I believe is good and prevents exploitation. Giving everyone a hammock I believe is bad and prevents societal advancement.