2 ms·

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 usef

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?"

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?"