by manusachi on 7/10/18, 6:49 PM with 27 comments
by sctb on 7/10/18, 9:41 PM
by abetusk on 7/10/18, 9:30 PM
The simulation is run with the "events" wandering around randomly. If an event "hits" an agent, the agent doubles their capital (C_k) with probability T_k, trying to encapsulate the idea of "when preparation meets opportunity". In other words an agent's capital doubles proportional to their "skill" if a "lucky" event hits them.
An agent's capital is halved if an unlucky event hits them.
After running the simulation for a certain amount of time, a Pareto distribution is observed for the distribution of capital (C_k). That is, with an initial distribution of "skill" as Gaussian/Normal, the wealth distribution that results is power law.
by chucksmash on 7/10/18, 9:13 PM
I avoided it when I first came across it because I was worried (based off of the subtitle) that it'd just be fodder for learned helplessness. It turned out quite good though, and anything but (unless you're a movie studio executive).
by eruci on 7/10/18, 9:38 PM
Richard Wiseman argued quite convincingly that luck is mostly self-made.
http://richardwiseman.com/resources/The_Luck_Factor.pdf
In the famous picture-counting experiment, people were grouped into two categories (those who were considered successful/lucky and those unsuccessful/unlucky) and given the the task of counting the number of pictures in a newspaper. People in the "lucky/successful" group found the correct number in less than half the time it took people in the "unlucky/unsuccessful" group.
There was a small footnote in the front page of the newspaper: "This paper has 47 pictures." Guess which group was more likely to notice that.
by 32qwef on 7/10/18, 9:03 PM
Which misses the point. Of course you have to be good AND lucky to succeed. But not everyone can be lucky. So think of that the next time you're looking a few rungs down the ladder.
by ta1234567890 on 7/10/18, 9:20 PM
It's also interesting that regardless of anything, in the end your genes and where/when you were born determine pretty much your whole life, and that's just luck. In the end success attribution to anything but luck is just ego.
by grosjona on 7/10/18, 9:45 PM
Now, the idea that we are not a meritocracy is basically common knowledge, it seems that more or less everyone (even among the rich) accepts that this is the reality. I don't think that society has ever been in such a state of economic self-awareness before. Unfortunately, all this doesn't seem to change people's attitude towards wealth; if anything, the rich are getting even richer and the poor are literally being wiped out in the opiate epidemic.
It seems that luck plays a bigger role than ever and yet the consequences of winning or losing are becoming more extreme at the same time.
by projectramo on 7/10/18, 9:39 PM
I wonder if they're measuring the right kind of input though. IQ is distributed in a bell curve but that is one input. There is hard work, common sense, ambition, and energy. I wonder if you have a multi dimensional bell curve as inputs, you may end up with a power distributed output (all the elements have to line up for success).
Although, as someone pointed out, talent too is often a matter of luck.
by amelius on 7/10/18, 8:58 PM