I've noticed a quite interesting paper on one of news sites, where it scored no comments and went unnoticed. Maybe it will get more attention here then.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1802.07068.pdf (abstract at https://arxiv.org/abs/1802.07068 of course)
Author of the paper compares typical distribution of talent (attributes in general) in human populations (Gaussian) with distribution of wealth - as proxy for success - being Pareto. Using simple simulation points out that discrepancy might be caused by randomness, that is by luck.
Then the interesting stuff starts: assigning funds to researchers, when total amount of money is constant, using different algorithms:
- all equal
- only some percentage of "best" (that is those who succeeded before)
- some to successful ones and rest split among rest
- percentage of randomly selected
The goal is get "most bang for a buck". Surprising conclusion is that equal distribution of funding is most effective.
The questions:
1. Do You think the author might be onto something, regarding funding distribution? Or agent model is too simplistic and does not account for human motivations?
2. Is it common that luck factor is ignored when its about success, but accounted for in cases of failures?
3. Are there any human endeavours You can think of, where luck can be mostly ignored, and the best of the best succeed?
1. Do You think the author might be onto something, regarding funding distribution? Or agent model is too simplistic and does not account for human motivations?
ReplyDeleteI do not know – I have never thought of it. In the article there is a lot of analysis but I do not understand all of it. The background of the topic is very advanced and based on lot of factors. The author mentioned about the luck – I think that luck is also necessary to achieve the success. It can be observed even in common life.
I agree with sentence that the most successful individuals are not the most talented ones and, the most talented individuals are not the most successful ones but I am not convinced that the analysis is sufficient to include all of factors and motivations.
2. Is it common that luck factor is ignored when its about success, but accounted for in cases of failures?
I think that it depends on situation. I guess that in cases of failure the lack of luck is commented more often than in cases of success. For example, if the bus leaves faster from the bus stop and I do not get on the bus, I sometimes say that “if I had had a luck I would have got on the bus!”. It happens the other way around that I do not suppose that something good will appear and surprisingly it will, I say that “ Oh great! I have a lucky day”. I think that the people more often notice bad things than good ones.
3. Are there any human endeavours You can think of, where luck can be mostly ignored, and the best of the best succeed?
I have never analyzed if somebody who created something good is/was lucky or talented but I think that Albert Einstein was the one of the most talented persons. He developed the theory of relativity, one of the two pillars of modern physics alongside quantum mechanics. His work is also known for its influence on the philosophy of science. Nowadays, The science is based on this formulas.
1. Do You think the author might be onto something, regarding funding distribution? Or agent model is too simplistic and does not account for human motivations?
ReplyDeleteVery interesting. Once upon a time when I was a child at a bazaar in Warsaw, three-card players said:
You will help happiness today you can win here today. I have two hands and I wind them. Black loses red wins. (it sounds better in Polish, I can't write poems in English, so let me - although I know that Professor will not approve of putting the original Pan dziś szczęściu dopomoże Pan tu dzisiej wygrać może. Ja mam dwie ręce i nimi kręce. Czarna przegrywa czerwona wygrywa)
And that's how it is with happiness. Can you measure them? Can you talk about its distribution or not? Why did one jackpot in Sweden or Finland win the jackpot three times?
2. Is it common that luck factor is ignored when its about success, but accounted for in cases of failures?
Many fathers have success. The same can be said of happiness in case of success and unhappiness in case of failure. Today, the whole world revolves around success. See, the Iranians, by "human error," shot down their plane with their scientists, students and random people. The news make the case public and the tone has been noticeable for several decades:
But these people were unlucky - I'm lucky because I didn't fly this plane.
The neighbor lost his job but is unlucky, I'm still working I'm lucky.
This is probably not the point in all this.
3. Are there any human endeavours You can think of, where luck can be mostly ignored, and the best of the best succeed?
Yes, Archimedes was lucky when the apple fell on his head. Achilles was unlucky as the arrow hit him in the heel. Each of us has an Achilles heel, which is why we like to blame good luck and bad luck.
1. Do You think the author might be onto something, regarding funding distribution? Or agent model is too simplistic and does not account for human motivations?
ReplyDeleteThe results are very interesting, but I can't tell if we are taking all possible factors into account. Human motivations can be so different and the world around us so complicated that I don't know if we can translate it into a mathematical model.
2. Is it common that luck factor is ignored when its about success, but accounted for in cases of failures?
In general, I think there is such a tendency among people. If something succeeds, we owe it to ourselves. However, when something goes wrong, we try to find someone guilty of this situation and often we can describe it as lack of luck. People often attribute the luck factor to themselves, and when they often fail to do something, they say: "I don't have luck in life."
3. Are there any human endeavours You can think of, where luck can be mostly ignored, and the best of the best succeed?
It's hard to say, as we don't know what events are really just luck. I think it is important in our professional life how hard we work and how hard we try, not how lucky we are. There's probably also some luck factor in this, but I think more depends on us.
Thanks!
DeleteHow hard and how many times we try. So we could correct random irregularities with just attempting more than others, maybe
1. Do You think the author might be onto something, regarding funding distribution? Or agent model is too simplistic and does not account for human motivations?
ReplyDeleteIf you want to achieve success, the three of you learn to focus on determination, self-discipline - these are the qualities that will determine whether or not you achieve success. People who are successful do not usually succeed by chance (unless they win the lottery). It's not that every day they are lucky, they are lucky, and that's why they have succeeded in life. They often fail, they often fail on their way to success. An example can be: Walt Disney. His first dream factory went bankrupt. That didn't make him give up. Henry Ford went bankrupt five times before becoming the market leader of his time. He was the one who said, "Failure is just a chance to start over." That's how we should treat every failure.
2. Is it common that luck factor is ignored when its about success, but accounted for in cases of failures?
The best-known economist in the united states claims: financial success is the work of chance, and all sorts of business guides that give recipes for its achievement reproduce a false view of the nature of wealth. Frank fights the view that the rich deserve their wealth because they owe it to hard work - after all, their success in business is the result of a happy coincidence, similar to winning a lottery. In total, I also believe so.
3. Are there any human endeavours You can think of, where luck can be mostly ignored, and the best of the best succeed?
If we know all the factors influencing a given state, it is obvious that we will achieve success. The example is construction. We know what influences buildings to be durable. We don't have to rely on luck.
1. Do You think the author might be onto something, regarding funding distribution? Or agent model is too simplistic and does not account for human motivations?
ReplyDeleteI think that this agent model is just too simply! Many people are successful just because they are from rich family and only continue success from their parents. Moreover we have to think that talent distribution is one think but from other hand is someone is really determined to achieve something then it will takes him more time (compare to talented person) but with big probability he achieve that. Human motivation is the biggest impact in success-that's my point of view. You could have talent in something but without motivation you will just waste it.
2. Is it common that luck factor is ignored when its about success, but accounted for in cases of failures?
I think that luck factor is accounted in both on the same level. Many times success is just luck and motivation and failure is also badluck with other factors. Of course many successful people could say that they have always badluck and just their skills let them to achieve something but it wouldn't be true.
3. Are there any human endeavours You can think of, where luck can be mostly ignored, and the best of the best succeed?
I just can't write any example of that situation...in everything you could be the worst in something but with enormous luck you could be the best in some situation without any skills ;)
thanks for Your answers.
DeleteAs per 1. - I've read recently an question along the lines "I'm 16 year old, I've just learnt how to swim, what do I do to become professional swimmer" and the answers "You can't - You compete with people training 6hrs/day every day since they were 8yo, and extremely talented and motivated. Even if You have comparable talent, You won't catch them".
1. Do You think the author might be onto something, regarding funding distribution? Or agent model is too simplistic and does not account for human motivations?
ReplyDeleteI think that there is a general tendency that describe correlation between talent and luck, and can be paraphrase as: the most successful individuals are not the most talented ones, and the most talented ones are not the most successful. I looked over presented results of a model and beside the fact that they are following the general tendency mentioned previously, in my opinion the model is too simple to took any dipper conclusions from it than the fact that randomness take a big role in our lives successfulness.
2. Is it common that luck factor is ignored when its about success, but accounted for in cases of failures?
There is a saying that: Success have many fathers but the failure is an orphan, I think it describe well the situation you asking about. People are more willing to take a credit for success only over their one skills, hard work or dedication without objectively acknowledged that they had some luck. On the other hand when it comes to failure it’s hard to simply admit that it was our fault, it’s easier to put the blame on some external force that thwarted our plans.
3. Are there any human endeavours You can think of, where luck can be mostly ignored, and the best of the best succeed?
Due to the randomness of luck occurrence I don’t think that there is one special thing that is out of the law of this phenomena. I would rather say that it will depend of number of try, because this is the way how we can get more lucky then previously, and while we are doing it we are getting better, and better in it, so our chances to success are rising.
Thanks!
DeleteNow that I think of it again, it might be that to succeed, it's necessary to align many factors, while to fail it might suffice to draw single negative one. So, there might be deeper, unintended truth in the saying about fathers and orphan, don't You think?
1. Do You think the author might be onto something, regarding funding distribution? Or agent model is too simplistic and does not account for human motivations?
ReplyDeleteI agree with kbolek - Human motivation is the biggest impact in success-that's my point of view.
I think that a person’s success depends on many facts - luck, the ability of his parents, the possibilities that the country in which he lives can give him, his talents and motivation. But without the motivation to be successful - the chances of success will be very small.
2. Is it common that luck factor is ignored when its about success, but accounted for in cases of failures?
There is an expression in the language I speak - winners are always lucky. This is more about achieving something other than talent, you still have to be in the “right place” and at the “right time”. Therefore, I think that success is luck, and the motivation to be able to capture this luck.
3. Are there any human endeavours You can think of, where luck can be mostly ignored, and the best of the best succeed?
No, unfortunately I do not know such facts. I think if you are overtaken by failure in some business, you need to try again, and try until it works.
1. Do You think the author might be onto something, regarding funding distribution? Or agent model is too simplistic and does not account for human motivations?
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately for me, the article is not entirely clear and shows a lot of data that I do not fully understand. In addition, I do not understand how you can measure happiness that someone succeeded or failed. In my opinion, each of us is an individualist and measure all one (in this case) is rather objective.
2. Is it common that luck factor is ignored when its about success, but accounted for in cases of failures?
I think that nowadays people give too much weight to luck or bad luck. Each of us works on something, learns new things. In my opinion, that sometimes something goes wrong it is not a matter of bad luck but for example the lack of knowledge, too few attempts made etc.
3. Are there any human endeavours You can think of, where luck can be mostly ignored, and the best of the best succeed?
I think happiness is not just a saying. After all, it is easier for us to say that someone did something because he is lucky than that, for example, he was preparing for it, training, and gaining experience. The reverse is the case with bad luck. I believe that there is no such thing as happiness and you do not need happiness to help yourself. Behind happiness lies knowledge, experience, skills and talent. Even the best claim that success is made up of 10% talent, the rest is hard work.
Thanks for Your reply!
DeleteI think we're all using terms "good luck" and "bad luck" to talk about the positive or negative outcomes of random events, rather than some transcendent thing, right?
1. Do You think the author might be onto something, regarding funding distribution? Or agent model is too simplistic and does not account for human motivations?
ReplyDeleteI am not sure if the model presented by the author of the article is not too simple, as I am not a specialist in the domain, but it seems to me that something is missing. In my opinion motivation and hard work are important factors of success. Few years ago I read an article about success, where an interesting statement was said, that successfull people failed more times than 'ordinary' people even tried.
2. Is it common that luck factor is ignored when its about success, but accounted for in cases of failures?
The luck factor or the place where the person started in their way to success is often ignored in the discussions, but to be honest these aspects could be crutial to make the grade. The path looks different for millionaire's child and primary school teacher's child.
3. Are there any human endeavours You can think of, where luck can be mostly ignored, and the best of the best succeed?
Nothing is coming to my mind at this moment.
1-2
ReplyDeleteThe most important sentence from this paper is that
the most successful agents are almost never the most talented ones, but those around the average of the Gaussian talent distribution – another stylised fact often reported in the literature.
I think that coincidence rules the world. From my point of view, the most important thing is perseverance in pursuing a goal, because we have no influence on the randomness of events.
3. There are over 7 billion people in the world. I suspect that many are not even able to convince themselves that they have some so-called talent. Own hard work and effort to achieve success is really a drop in the ocean of what surrounds us and influences our achievements. People who actually gain their goals, specially the ones who achieved success in commercial field, for sure are certain of that.
Thanks!
Delete1-2 - so the Averages - just by their numbers - make most of attempts to the Goal and thus succeed, even though each of Them has lower success rate than the Top? This makes some sense...
I think the model might be too simplistic. One thing is that people are driven by many motivations and the other thing is that "luck" is too complex to concept to be modeled in such a way.
ReplyDeleteI would say that it might be true together with the survivorship bias. For example an investor who happened to make a risky but successful operations is quickly called a financial specialist, novice who bet on a right horse may become an expert overnight. As for attributing failures to a bad luck it probably depends. People who failed would likely do that as it's easier than admitting mistakes. Observers would probably do the opposite.
I don't know if there any 100% objective competitions in this world. Everywhere is a place for a little bit of a randomness.
Thanks!
DeleteLuckily, it's oftentimes also that opposite is true: someone seems to become a huge star out of nothing, but if You dig deeper, turns out this person worked his hands to the bone to gain current position (like the Beatles playing daily in clubs of Hamburg)
1. This is a very difficult question. The study conducted by the authors is interesting, but also very complicated. I think it is difficult to model a parameter such as happiness or human motivation. Sometimes you have to be lucky to succeed. Just like on some exams, where you wrote the same thing as your colleague and he passed, but you didn't. Many examples from history show that you may not be the smartest person or have a huge financial base, but with enough motivation and desire, you can achieve something great.
ReplyDelete2. I think that very often it happens that we consider something in the context of "but I was lucky", "but I'm unlucky" in many situations. The simplest are e.g. games. I'm doing great - great. I'm doing terribly - it's probably the fault of badly shuffled cards, someone cheats, someone deliberately plays so that I would do badly. People are also superstitious and believe in random signs as some signs of luck or bad luck. And in fact whether it comes to us or not is our fault. Either we are good at something or we have to work on something and try. Sometimes, however, there is a situation that indeed fate lucked out and we did something without much effort.
3. It's difficult to determine. Personally, I think winning a lottery is a luck in itself. On the other hand, when it comes to ordinary life, especially professional life, the majority gain the hard work and trying. Sometimes they publish our article on the first try, sometimes we need a few negative reviews and corrections to finally pass something. The world is unfortunately not black and white.
1. Do You think the author might be onto something, regarding funding distribution? Or agent model is too simplistic and does not account for human motivations?
ReplyDeleteI think that it might be something to support authors' theory, yet is an oversimplification of human nature and motivations.
2. Is it common that luck factor is ignored when its about success, but accounted for in cases of failures?
I think that luck could be split into subfactors. For example, being in a specific environment among particular people could be considered as a "luck." However, as Louis Pasteur said:
"Fortune favors the prepared mind.". You have to be aware of the circumstances that you deal with, to use them for your advance.
3. Are there any human endeavours You can think of, where luck can be mostly ignored, and the best of the best succeed?
I think that life, in general, is not righteous and and to be the best of the best you need to have some luck ;)