3 ms·

There are 8 billion people in the world. With such a large population, we expect some people to just be stupidly lucky many times in a row, right? Especially s

There are 8 billion people in the world. With such a large population, we expect some people to just be stupidly lucky many times in a row, right? Especially since they aren't really independent events - if you get a lucky break, it keeps you in the game longer, making your second break more likely. And it would make sense that the lucky outliers would be some of the wealthiest, right?

coldtea 3y ago
>With such a large population, we expect some people to just be stupidly lucky many times in a row, right? No, that's not how business work. This is not coin-tossing, the "being lucky" includes attracting VCs and investments, building a good image, picking a good niche, delivering, getting buyers, and several other things besides. You can get lucky with one of those, but not all of those, and several independent times. Else skill doesn't mean anything, and you could make the same argument for any human venture.
- maxbond 3y ago
  Try thinking about it like a scientist or a statistician rather than a business person. Which is to say, don't think in terms of inviolable rules - that's useful for engineering the system, but can sabotage your ability to understand the system - and think instead in terms of what is possible and at what rate you expect it to happen. Then try multiplying that by 8 billion. > Else skill doesn't mean anything Skill matters, it just isn't the only factor. > You could make the same argument for any human venture. Luck profoundly effects every aspect of our lives, yeah. Think about, say, professional gamers. Are they skilled? Doubtless. May the winner of a match be decided by the RNG? Definitely. If we're talking about a tournament of the best players, they're going to be pretty evenly matched, and it becomes pretty likely that luck will determine the winner.
  - coldtea 3y ago
    >Which is to say, don't think in terms of inviolable rules - that's useful for engineering the system, but can sabotage your ability to understand the system - and think instead in terms of what is possible and at what rate you expect it to happen. Then try multiplying that by 8 billion Notice that the above have nothing to with statistics. It's just handwaving based on the "with 8 billion people trying, anything is possible". >Think about, say, professional gamers. Are they skilled? Doubtless. May the winner of a match be decided by the RNG? Definitely. If we're talking about a tournament of the best players, they're going to be pretty evenly matched, and it becomes pretty likely that luck will determine the winner. That has already shifted the goalposts, to "luck among the best players" as opposed to "he just got lucky".
    - maxbond 3y ago
      > Notice that the above have nothing to with statistics. I was suggesting a thought experiment. I thought the way you were approaching this was rigid, I was encouraging you to see this as more of a scientific phenomenon than something rote. It was just a suggestion, it's your business if you don't wanna take it. > That has already shifted the goalposts... Just trying to give you an example where both luck and skill matter. No goalposts were moved. I was responding to your objection, wherein the goalpost was, "does the existence of luck imply the nonimportance of skill?"
- chimeracoder 3y ago
  > You can get lucky with one of those, but not all of those, and several independent times. The point that you are missing is that these are not only not independent times, but in fact extremely highly correlated. Especially for someone who already comes from an extremely wealthy background and has social connections to other wealthy elites.

coldtea 3y ago

>With such a large population, we expect some people to just be stupidly lucky many times in a row, right? No, that's not how business work. This is not coin-tossing, the "being lucky" includes attracting VCs and investments, building a good image, picking a good niche, delivering, getting buyers, and several other things besides. You can get lucky with one of those, but not all of those, and several independent times. Else skill doesn't mean anything, and you could make the same argument for any human venture.

maxbond 3y ago
Try thinking about it like a scientist or a statistician rather than a business person. Which is to say, don't think in terms of inviolable rules - that's useful for engineering the system, but can sabotage your ability to understand the system - and think instead in terms of what is possible and at what rate you expect it to happen. Then try multiplying that by 8 billion. > Else skill doesn't mean anything Skill matters, it just isn't the only factor. > You could make the same argument for any human venture. Luck profoundly effects every aspect of our lives, yeah. Think about, say, professional gamers. Are they skilled? Doubtless. May the winner of a match be decided by the RNG? Definitely. If we're talking about a tournament of the best players, they're going to be pretty evenly matched, and it becomes pretty likely that luck will determine the winner.
- coldtea 3y ago
  >Which is to say, don't think in terms of inviolable rules - that's useful for engineering the system, but can sabotage your ability to understand the system - and think instead in terms of what is possible and at what rate you expect it to happen. Then try multiplying that by 8 billion Notice that the above have nothing to with statistics. It's just handwaving based on the "with 8 billion people trying, anything is possible". >Think about, say, professional gamers. Are they skilled? Doubtless. May the winner of a match be decided by the RNG? Definitely. If we're talking about a tournament of the best players, they're going to be pretty evenly matched, and it becomes pretty likely that luck will determine the winner. That has already shifted the goalposts, to "luck among the best players" as opposed to "he just got lucky".
  - maxbond 3y ago
    > Notice that the above have nothing to with statistics. I was suggesting a thought experiment. I thought the way you were approaching this was rigid, I was encouraging you to see this as more of a scientific phenomenon than something rote. It was just a suggestion, it's your business if you don't wanna take it. > That has already shifted the goalposts... Just trying to give you an example where both luck and skill matter. No goalposts were moved. I was responding to your objection, wherein the goalpost was, "does the existence of luck imply the nonimportance of skill?"
chimeracoder 3y ago
> You can get lucky with one of those, but not all of those, and several independent times. The point that you are missing is that these are not only not independent times, but in fact extremely highly correlated. Especially for someone who already comes from an extremely wealthy background and has social connections to other wealthy elites.