8 ms·

That’s an aggressive problematic gambler mentality.

by hugodan 10mo ago

ashu1461 10mo ago
Is it ? In gambling your odds are fixed, but in real life, wouldn't you get better at solving problems with each iteration ?
- mewpmewp2 10mo ago
  Depends - are you meaningfully trying to improve or do you keep doing the same thing over and over not getting it?
xandrius 10mo ago
When the outcome is positive, I see nothing wrong. Especially if you lose basically nothing in trying.
- mewpmewp2 10mo ago
  Your time, energy, etc are not nothing. If you think like that, you have already lost and are not making optimal decisions.
  - xandrius 10mo ago
    That counter-argument is only valid if you actually had other things to do. If the alternative to send to yet another university application is to start a new match of CoD then it wasn't a loss.
    - mewpmewp2 10mo ago
      Interestingly I found my first job through a video game and I never went to uni. I got good at the game (to brag, top 0.1%) and met people in the game who referred me because of the "respect" from being good at that particular game got me. Might seem odd, but a lot of people in the industry played this game and ability to be good at the game did signal something. I have never spam applied anywhere, and have hyperfocused on very specific positions, putting a lot of prep effort into what I have considered strong matches.
  - moleperson 10mo ago
    The way I read this is that there are many "games" in life (applying for schools, jobs, dating, etc) where the odds of "winning" each instance are not in your favor, but you only need to win once to win overall. If you treat every absence of a positive outcome as a failure, then you're inevitably going to lose hope and give up. This is in contrast to gambling where you actually do need to win more often than not to win overall.
    - programjames 10mo ago
      Seems like a momumental waste of energy being pushed as "hustling". Applying to college should be cooperative between you and the admissions office: asking, are we a good fit? Applying in the hope they mess up and admit you when they're really better off rejecting you is so antisocial. Admissions are sort-of Pareto distributed, so most people admitted were on the edge of being rejected. Since there is a bit of noise in the process, this is why any one individual applying to 10x as many places of a similar tier will be more likely to get into one. But then when everyone does it, no one is more or less likely to get in except those that are actually cooperating with the admissions office. You're burning down the commons for a fleeting bit of warmth. Might I suggest installing a furnace in your house instead?
      - xandrius 10mo ago
        All I can say is that the method works specifically because people like you exist. It kind of defeats the purpose if we try to change your mind about this. So, yes, you are absolutely right.
        programjames 10mo ago
        Lol, yes. If you're a selfish egoist, you probably don't want to convert others to your philosophy. I think it's possible to punish people who are taking these selfish actions, and I think universities should. Maybe they should make a secret database where they list the people who applied to their university, and subtract off points for every other university they applied to. Or, recruiting agencies can mark down candidates for every other job they are applying to. I don't think they do, and this isn't the startup I want to make or area I want to devote my life to, it just sucks that people are being rewarded for playing negative-sum games.
losvedir 10mo ago
No it's not. Gambler's fallacy is "I just flipped tails so heads is more likely now". I read this article as "heads has a 50% chance of coming up so I'll get one eventually" (which is true - law of large numbers).
- mewpmewp2 10mo ago
  I think none of those blanket statements here work. Really it's just odds of finding success vs effort / time spent. And whether that's worth it. Any of the blanket statements could be true depending on what the exact odds are. There could be near 0% chance of finding success and it would be better idea to rethink and spend time elsewhere, or yes, there's 10% chance of finding success and it's significant enough that trying 20 times is enough. If we are talking about e.g. finding a house, if you are not finding any it could very well be that your expectations vs budget is unlikely to find anything and you have to reconsider strategy. Someone could be repeatedly trying to find work, and thinking it's just a matter of time, but really time would be better spent on improving their strategy, resume, or other means. These statements to me seem like motivational non-sense which misrepresent how real world works or what the patterns really are like. At best they just give someone a false understanding of how the world works, at worst they make someone spend all their time in the wrong direction.
Animats 10mo ago
Indeed. "Just one more roll of the dice and I'll be ahead." Worse, this guy isn't trying to get a job. He's just trying to get into grad school. Which is no longer a guarantee of a good career, but may be a guarantee of a big debt. Remember that "I did everything right" post on HN a few weeks ago? CS degree from a good school, but nobody wants junior CS people any more.
raw_anon_1111 10mo ago
The difference is that if I apply for 10 jobs at once or put a bid in for 10 houses hoping one will succeed, I’ve lost nothing for trying 10 times. If I gamble and try 10 times and win once - I have probably lost money. Even if I interview 10 times and fail 9, I’ve learned something from each interview and I’ve gotten better. That’s also not true from rolling dice.
- programjames 10mo ago
  You lost something when every other person started doing the same thing. Now you have to write or review ten applications instead of one. Now you're going to get paid less because it cost $20k to hire you instead of $2k. Now your company is going to be filled with like-minded people, "hustlers", who do not know how to improve things themselves, just spray and pray until someone mistakenly rewards them.

That’s an aggressive problematic gambler mentality.

by hugodan 10mo ago

That’s an aggressive problematic gambler mentality.

Is it ? In gambling your odds are fixed, but in real life, wouldn't you get better at solving problems with each iteration ?

mewpmewp2 10mo ago
Depends - are you meaningfully trying to improve or do you keep doing the same thing over and over not getting it?

xandrius 10mo ago

When the outcome is positive, I see nothing wrong. Especially if you lose basically nothing in trying.

mewpmewp2 10mo ago
Your time, energy, etc are not nothing. If you think like that, you have already lost and are not making optimal decisions.
- xandrius 10mo ago
  That counter-argument is only valid if you actually had other things to do. If the alternative to send to yet another university application is to start a new match of CoD then it wasn't a loss.
  - mewpmewp2 10mo ago
    Interestingly I found my first job through a video game and I never went to uni. I got good at the game (to brag, top 0.1%) and met people in the game who referred me because of the "respect" from being good at that particular game got me. Might seem odd, but a lot of people in the industry played this game and ability to be good at the game did signal something. I have never spam applied anywhere, and have hyperfocused on very specific positions, putting a lot of prep effort into what I have considered strong matches.
- moleperson 10mo ago
  The way I read this is that there are many "games" in life (applying for schools, jobs, dating, etc) where the odds of "winning" each instance are not in your favor, but you only need to win once to win overall. If you treat every absence of a positive outcome as a failure, then you're inevitably going to lose hope and give up. This is in contrast to gambling where you actually do need to win more often than not to win overall.
  - programjames 10mo ago
    Seems like a momumental waste of energy being pushed as "hustling". Applying to college should be cooperative between you and the admissions office: asking, are we a good fit? Applying in the hope they mess up and admit you when they're really better off rejecting you is so antisocial. Admissions are sort-of Pareto distributed, so most people admitted were on the edge of being rejected. Since there is a bit of noise in the process, this is why any one individual applying to 10x as many places of a similar tier will be more likely to get into one. But then when everyone does it, no one is more or less likely to get in except those that are actually cooperating with the admissions office. You're burning down the commons for a fleeting bit of warmth. Might I suggest installing a furnace in your house instead?
    - xandrius 10mo ago
      All I can say is that the method works specifically because people like you exist. It kind of defeats the purpose if we try to change your mind about this. So, yes, you are absolutely right.
      - programjames 10mo ago
        Lol, yes. If you're a selfish egoist, you probably don't want to convert others to your philosophy. I think it's possible to punish people who are taking these selfish actions, and I think universities should. Maybe they should make a secret database where they list the people who applied to their university, and subtract off points for every other university they applied to. Or, recruiting agencies can mark down candidates for every other job they are applying to. I don't think they do, and this isn't the startup I want to make or area I want to devote my life to, it just sucks that people are being rewarded for playing negative-sum games.

losvedir 10mo ago

No it's not. Gambler's fallacy is "I just flipped tails so heads is more likely now". I read this article as "heads has a 50% chance of coming up so I'll get one eventually" (which is true - law of large numbers).

mewpmewp2 10mo ago
I think none of those blanket statements here work. Really it's just odds of finding success vs effort / time spent. And whether that's worth it. Any of the blanket statements could be true depending on what the exact odds are. There could be near 0% chance of finding success and it would be better idea to rethink and spend time elsewhere, or yes, there's 10% chance of finding success and it's significant enough that trying 20 times is enough. If we are talking about e.g. finding a house, if you are not finding any it could very well be that your expectations vs budget is unlikely to find anything and you have to reconsider strategy. Someone could be repeatedly trying to find work, and thinking it's just a matter of time, but really time would be better spent on improving their strategy, resume, or other means. These statements to me seem like motivational non-sense which misrepresent how real world works or what the patterns really are like. At best they just give someone a false understanding of how the world works, at worst they make someone spend all their time in the wrong direction.

Animats 10mo ago

Indeed. "Just one more roll of the dice and I'll be ahead." Worse, this guy isn't trying to get a job. He's just trying to get into grad school. Which is no longer a guarantee of a good career, but may be a guarantee of a big debt. Remember that "I did everything right" post on HN a few weeks ago? CS degree from a good school, but nobody wants junior CS people any more.

raw_anon_1111 10mo ago

The difference is that if I apply for 10 jobs at once or put a bid in for 10 houses hoping one will succeed, I’ve lost nothing for trying 10 times. If I gamble and try 10 times and win once - I have probably lost money. Even if I interview 10 times and fail 9, I’ve learned something from each interview and I’ve gotten better. That’s also not true from rolling dice.

programjames 10mo ago
You lost something when every other person started doing the same thing. Now you have to write or review ten applications instead of one. Now you're going to get paid less because it cost $20k to hire you instead of $2k. Now your company is going to be filled with like-minded people, "hustlers", who do not know how to improve things themselves, just spray and pray until someone mistakenly rewards them.