Current Events > Computer model: wealth is down to chance, not talent

Topic List	Page List: 1, 2, 3
FLUFFYGERM 03/02/18 5:28:52 PM #51:	Tmaster148 posted... DarkTransient posted... So what you're saying is instead of working hard I should just buy lottery tickets, since it's luck either way? No. They do not mean luck in suddenly finding yourself with a huge sum of money. They mean luck of being born into a good background that gives you advantages over other people. Good education, parents being stable financially, and even just meeting the right people at the right time are all things you cannot control but influence your ability to earn money. In the 1st world, individuals have unparalleled ability and access to moves that can increase their odds substantially. If you decide to have a stable marriage, your children will benefit from that. If you grew up in a shitty household, you can move and work your way into a better life. There's nothing keeping most people down except for a culture of whining and complacency. It's why immigrants who come to America excel and earn more than people who were born here and take it for granted. College enrollment is at all-time highs across the board. Unemployment is low. Job openings are at record highs. There are proven road maps for generating wealth that have nothing to do with luck. Anyone can work a job and save money to start investing and building wealth. There's an element of chance in whether or not you meet people who can help you accelerate your growth, or whether or not you come up with an innovative business idea, or etc, but you can influence whether or not luck operates in your favor by improving yourself enough. Luck is when preparation meets opportunity. You can increase both your preparation and your exposure to potential opportunities. --- Do good. <cite>FLUFFYGERM posted [p:897066265] in Computer m... [t:76374164]...</cite> <quote><cite>Tmaster148 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>DarkTransient posted...</cite> <quote>So what you're saying is instead of working hard I should just buy lottery tickets, since it's luck either way?</quote> No. They do not mean luck in suddenly finding yourself with a huge sum of money. They mean luck of being born into a good background that gives you advantages over other people. Good education, parents being stable financially, and even just meeting the right people at the right time are all things you cannot control but influence your ability to earn money.</quote> In the 1st world, individuals have unparalleled ability and access to moves that can increase their odds substantially. If you decide to have a stable marriage, your children will benefit from that. If you grew up in a shitty household, you can move and work your way into a better life. There's nothing keeping most people down except for a culture of whining and complacency. It's why immigrants who come to America excel and earn more than people who were born here and take it for granted. College enrollment is at all-time highs across the board. Unemployment is low. Job openings are at record highs. There are proven road maps for generating wealth that have nothing to do with luck. Anyone can work a job and save money to start investing and building wealth. There's an element of chance in whether or not you meet people who can help you accelerate your growth, or whether or not you come up with an innovative business idea, or etc, but you can influence whether or not luck operates in your favor by improving yourself enough. Luck is when preparation meets opportunity. You can increase both your preparation and your exposure to potential opportunities.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
COVxy 03/02/18 5:29:30 PM #52:	FLUFFYGERM posted... How do you know any of this? I read the entire article and there's hardly any mention of how it was implemented. There's a link to arxiv at the bottom of the article. --- =E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])] <cite>COVxy posted [p:897066307] in Computer m... [t:76374164]...</cite> <quote><cite>FLUFFYGERM posted...</cite> <quote>How do you know any of this? I read the entire article and there's hardly any mention of how it was implemented. </quote> There's a link to arxiv at the bottom of the article.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
FLUFFYGERM 03/02/18 5:31:31 PM #53:	COVxy posted... FLUFFYGERM posted... Oh yeah? Tell us about how you modeled things. Surely you can go into detail on the implementation as well. Start off n number of individuals with an equal or randomly distributed amount of wealth (did both, same results), where the probability and proportion of wealth at any time step is dependent on prior wealth, and you get a very similar skewed distribution over time. Adding in a "skill/talent" multiplier didn't end in highly predictive outcome, in other words the random chance alone produces skewed wealth distribution in a system like this, and when talent is involved it isn't entirely predictive. I'm sure you can mess around with the parameters and scaling to produce whatever effect, but the main interesting thing is that prior dependency on wealth alone allows early chance effects to multiply through time. I mean, it's relatively simple to do statistical simulations like this. There are hundreds of thousands of potential parameters and assumptions. No model will encompass all of them to the point where we can take the model and make meaningful assertions about the population at large. Some people are desperately trying to do that with this team's model because it affirms their own political narrative about wealth distribution, not because they understand wtf a simulation even is or because they looked at how the model was built and what the underlying assumptions are. We already talked about this, but most millionaires from the last 30-40 years are self-made. Meaning they didn't inherit money or receive help from their parents or w/e. They are self-made 1st generation rich. So the weight you've assigned to prior wealth is probably off. Without including variables around bad decisions, like having children out of wedlock or financing an expensive car for $500 a month when a beater will do just fine or other similar things, and without being extremely precise and meticulous in which variables get which weights, your little fun experiment was not complete at all. --- Do good. <cite>FLUFFYGERM posted [p:897066411] in Computer m... [t:76374164]...</cite> <quote><cite>COVxy posted...</cite> <quote><cite>FLUFFYGERM posted...</cite> <quote>Oh yeah? Tell us about how you modeled things. Surely you can go into detail on the implementation as well. </quote> Start off n number of individuals with an equal or randomly distributed amount of wealth (did both, same results), where the probability and proportion of wealth at any time step is dependent on prior wealth, and you get a very similar skewed distribution over time. Adding in a "skill/talent" multiplier didn't end in highly predictive outcome, in other words the random chance alone produces skewed wealth distribution in a system like this, and when talent is involved it isn't entirely predictive. I'm sure you can mess around with the parameters and scaling to produce whatever effect, but the main interesting thing is that prior dependency on wealth alone allows early chance effects to multiply through time. I mean, it's relatively simple to do statistical simulations like this.</quote> There are hundreds of thousands of potential parameters and assumptions. No model will encompass all of them to the point where we can take the model and make meaningful assertions about the population at large. Some people are desperately trying to do that with this team's model because it affirms their own political narrative about wealth distribution, not because they understand wtf a simulation even is or because they looked at how the model was built and what the underlying assumptions are. We already talked about this, but most millionaires from the last 30-40 years are self-made. Meaning they didn't inherit money or receive help from their parents or w/e. They are self-made 1st generation rich. So the weight you've assigned to prior wealth is probably off. Without including variables around bad decisions, like having children out of wedlock or financing an expensive car for $500 a month when a beater will do just fine or other similar things, and without being extremely precise and meticulous in which variables get which weights, your little fun experiment was not complete at all.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
FLUFFYGERM 03/02/18 5:31:57 PM #54:	COVxy posted... FLUFFYGERM posted... How do you know any of this? I read the entire article and there's hardly any mention of how it was implemented. There's a link to arxiv at the bottom of the article. Ah, didn't see that. Will read now. --- Do good. <cite>FLUFFYGERM posted [p:897066429] in Computer m... [t:76374164]...</cite> <quote><cite>COVxy posted...</cite> <quote><cite>FLUFFYGERM posted...</cite> <quote>How do you know any of this? I read the entire article and there's hardly any mention of how it was implemented. </quote> There's a link to arxiv at the bottom of the article.</quote> Ah, didn't see that. Will read now.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Squall28 03/02/18 5:32:30 PM #55:	FLUFFYGERM posted... No, I actually make a significant amount of money working on this type of s**. What do you do? I studied simulation in and outside of college and have used it for various work projects. FLUFFYGERM posted... How do you know any of this? I read the entire article and there's hardly any mention of how it was implemented. Not all talent is equally viable - someone who is a talented opera singer probably won't make as much money as a talented surgeon or software engineer. Because they described how the model worked and you can easily fill in the holes. --- If you're going through hell, keep going.* -Winston Churchill <cite>Squall28 posted [p:897066450] in Computer m... [t:76374164]...</cite> <quote><cite>FLUFFYGERM posted...</cite> <quote> No, I actually make a significant amount of money working on this type of s***.</quote> What do you do? I studied simulation in and outside of college and have used it for various work projects. <cite>FLUFFYGERM posted...</cite> <quote>How do you know any of this? I read the entire article and there's hardly any mention of how it was implemented. Not all talent is equally viable - someone who is a talented opera singer probably won't make as much money as a talented surgeon or software engineer. </quote> Because they described how the model worked and you can easily fill in the holes.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Soviet_Poland 03/02/18 5:32:49 PM #56:	FLUFFYGERM posted... In the 1st world, individuals have unparalleled ability and access to moves that can increase their odds substantially. If you decide to have a stable marriage, your children will benefit from that. If you grew up in a shitty household, you can move and work your way into a better life. There's nothing keeping most people down except for a culture of whining and complacency. It's why immigrants who come to America excel and earn more than people who were born here and take it for granted. I know you don't think it, but you basically just supported the findings of the simulation. The conclusions from these types of studies aren't heavy-handed. They aren't saying people in poor backgrounds CAN'T succeed, it's just less likely. That's it. For the exact reason you mentioned. There is a culture surrounding it. You might view it as a failure of character, to be treated with a dose of healthy bootstraps. That is maybe where someone on the left would disagree with you. The way to approach said problem. But smart people on the left won't advocate for reallocation of wealth either. But that's not the only strategy to fix a rigged game here, and reaching for the low hanging fruit isn't doing you any favors. --- "He has two neurons held together by a spirochete." <cite>Soviet_Poland posted [p:897066470] in Computer m... [t:76374164]...</cite> <quote><cite>FLUFFYGERM posted...</cite> <quote>In the 1st world, individuals have unparalleled ability and access to moves that can increase their odds substantially. If you decide to have a stable marriage, your children will benefit from that. If you grew up in a shitty household, you can move and work your way into a better life. There's nothing keeping most people down except for a culture of whining and complacency. It's why immigrants who come to America excel and earn more than people who were born here and take it for granted.</quote> I know you don't think it, but you basically just supported the findings of the simulation. The conclusions from these types of studies aren't heavy-handed. They aren't saying people in poor backgrounds CAN'T succeed, it's just less likely. That's it. For the exact reason you mentioned. There is a culture surrounding it. You might view it as a failure of character, to be treated with a dose of healthy bootstraps. That is maybe where someone on the left would disagree with you. The way to approach said problem. But smart people on the left won't advocate for reallocation of wealth either. But that's not the only strategy to fix a rigged game here, and reaching for the low hanging fruit isn't doing you any favors.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Sphyx 03/02/18 5:34:17 PM #57:	We like to pretend we have more control over our lives than we really do, and are quick to inflate our own part in our successes while ignoring the many other factors that had to come together for our input to have any effect at all. --- You're so vain, You probably think this sig is about you. <cite>Sphyx posted [p:897066550] in Computer m... [t:76374164]...</cite> <quote>We like to pretend we have more control over our lives than we really do, and are quick to inflate our own part in our successes while ignoring the many other factors that had to come together for our input to have any effect at all.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Squall28 03/02/18 5:37:51 PM #58:	FLUFFYGERM posted... There are hundreds of thousands of potential parameters and assumptions. No model will encompass all of them to the point where we can take the model and make meaningful assertions about the population at large. Didn't you say you made simulations for a living? You should know modeling every parameter is a waste of time, and you can get very good results with the right parameters. FLUFFYGERM posted... We already talked about this, but most millionaires from the last 30-40 years are self-made. Meaning they didn't inherit money or receive help from their parents or w/e. Which is still heavily luck based. Luck isn't just what you are born into. --- If you're going through hell, keep going. -Winston Churchill <cite>Squall28 posted [p:897066719] in Computer m... [t:76374164]...</cite> <quote><cite>FLUFFYGERM posted...</cite> <quote> There are hundreds of thousands of potential parameters and assumptions. No model will encompass all of them to the point where we can take the model and make meaningful assertions about the population at large. </quote> Didn't you say you made simulations for a living? You should know modeling every parameter is a waste of time, and you can get very good results with the right parameters. <cite>FLUFFYGERM posted...</cite> <quote>We already talked about this, but most millionaires from the last 30-40 years are self-made. Meaning they didn't inherit money or receive help from their parents or w/e. </quote> Which is still heavily luck based. Luck isn't just what you are born into.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
REMercsChamp 03/02/18 5:39:32 PM #59:	Career students in here advocating for free money, what a surprise. They need some free cars and video games to compliment their sheltered academic lives. --- https://i.imgur.com/lwkIVOb.png <cite>REMercsChamp posted [p:897066793] in Computer m... [t:76374164]...</cite> <quote>Career students in here advocating for free money, what a surprise. They need some free cars and video games to compliment their sheltered academic lives.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
COVxy 03/02/18 5:39:39 PM #60:	FLUFFYGERM posted... little fun experiment was not complete at all. Needless to say, that was the point, it was just something fun I did. Though, i think you are underestimating the value of simplified preparations in discovering fundamental principles. You might want to think about that some more. --- =E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])] <cite>COVxy posted [p:897066797] in Computer m... [t:76374164]...</cite> <quote><cite>FLUFFYGERM posted...</cite> <quote>little fun experiment was not complete at all.</quote> Needless to say, that was the point, it was just something fun I did. Though, i think you are underestimating the value of simplified preparations in discovering fundamental principles. You might want to think about that some more.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Sephiroth1288 03/02/18 5:43:02 PM #61:	Squall28 posted... Those things you listed affect how well an individual capitalizes on opportunities given to them. What, no they aren't Not wrapping up your junk when having sex is not "capitalizing on a lucky event", nor is doing market research on the industry you're in, nor is staying in school and getting good grades. Luck has nothing to do with any of that. Remember that one time in math class when the teacher accidentally gave you an A for your entire semester even though you didn't do shit? What luck! --- The person who writes for fools is always sure of a large audience. Friend Code: 2723-9696-7248 <cite>Sephiroth1288 posted [p:897066970] in Computer m... [t:76374164]...</cite> <quote><cite>Squall28 posted...</cite> <quote>Those things you listed affect how well an individual capitalizes on opportunities given to them. </quote> What, no they aren't Not wrapping up your junk when having sex is not "capitalizing on a lucky event", nor is doing market research on the industry you're in, nor is staying in school and getting good grades. Luck has nothing to do with any of that. Remember that one time in math class when the teacher accidentally gave you an A for your entire semester even though you didn't do shit? What luck!</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
cerealbox760 03/02/18 5:50:49 PM #62:	Talent + luck increases your odds. Life is all about positioning yourself to get lucky. You cant get lucky if you keep making crappy decisions. --- Clevo P775 QHD 120hz / i7 7700k 4.5GHZ / GTX 1070 8GB / DDR4 16GB/ 256gb m.2 SSD /Magni-Modi DAC_AMP combo/ ie800. Laptop on the outside. Desktop on the inside. <cite>cerealbox760 posted [p:897067367] in Computer m... [t:76374164]...</cite> <quote>Talent + luck increases your odds. Life is all about positioning yourself to get lucky. You cant get lucky if you keep making crappy decisions.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Squall28 03/02/18 5:59:17 PM #63:	Sephiroth1288 posted... Squall28 posted... Those things you listed affect how well an individual capitalizes on opportunities given to them. What, no they aren't Not wrapping up your junk when having sex is not "capitalizing on a lucky event", nor is doing market research on the industry you're in, nor is staying in school and getting good grades. Luck has nothing to do with any of that. Remember that one time in math class when the teacher accidentally gave you an A for your entire semester even though you didn't do shit? What luck! Sephiroth1288 posted... Squall28 posted... Those things you listed affect how well an individual capitalizes on opportunities given to them. What, no they aren't Not wrapping up your junk when having sex is not "capitalizing on a lucky event", nor is doing market research on the industry you're in, nor is staying in school and getting good grades. Luck has nothing to do with any of that. Remember that one time in math class when the teacher accidentally gave you an A for your entire semester even though you didn't do shit? What luck! Funnily enough that condom example is in the model. It includes bad situations. If your talent is low, you make the bad decision and get penalize. Again talent in this model is an aggregate factor. It includes all aspects that affect your ability to succeed off an opportunity. And make note, they used a normal distribution for this talent factor, and as you would've guessed, the wealthiest did have a minimum talent level. The result however seems to be whoever got the most opportunities were most wealthy given a minimum level of talent. --- If you're going through hell, keep going. -Winston Churchill <cite>Squall28 posted [p:897067839] in Computer m... [t:76374164]...</cite> <quote><cite>Sephiroth1288 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Squall28 posted...</cite> <quote>Those things you listed affect how well an individual capitalizes on opportunities given to them. </quote> What, no they aren't Not wrapping up your junk when having sex is not "capitalizing on a lucky event", nor is doing market research on the industry you're in, nor is staying in school and getting good grades. Luck has nothing to do with any of that. Remember that one time in math class when the teacher accidentally gave you an A for your entire semester even though you didn't do shit? What luck!</quote> <cite>Sephiroth1288 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Squall28 posted...</cite> <quote>Those things you listed affect how well an individual capitalizes on opportunities given to them. </quote> What, no they aren't Not wrapping up your junk when having sex is not "capitalizing on a lucky event", nor is doing market research on the industry you're in, nor is staying in school and getting good grades. Luck has nothing to do with any of that. Remember that one time in math class when the teacher accidentally gave you an A for your entire semester even though you didn't do shit? What luck!</quote> Funnily enough that condom example is in the model. It includes bad situations. If your talent is low, you make the bad decision and get penalize. Again talent in this model is an aggregate factor. It includes all aspects that affect your ability to succeed off an opportunity. And make note, they used a normal distribution for this talent factor, and as you would've guessed, the wealthiest did have a minimum talent level. The result however seems to be whoever got the most opportunities were most wealthy given a minimum level of talent.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
uwnim 03/02/18 6:15:58 PM #64:	Luck is an important factor. Economic activities are the result of human interactions. What people you meet is luck. Encounter the right people and have enough talent to make use of it and you become successful. --- I want a pet Lavos Spawn. [Order of the Cetaceans: Phocoena dioptrica] <cite>uwnim posted [p:897068786] in Computer m... [t:76374164]...</cite> <quote>Luck is an important factor. Economic activities are the result of human interactions. What people you meet is luck. Encounter the right people and have enough talent to make use of it and you become successful.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
FLUFFYGERM 03/02/18 6:20:12 PM #65:	About halfway through the paper. It's garbage. The only reason anyone would bother to parade it around as meaningful is because they can offer a sound bite or clickbait headline about their own political narrative of choice. Will post specifics after I finish it. --- Do good. <cite>FLUFFYGERM posted [p:897069050] in Computer m... [t:76374164]...</cite> <quote>About halfway through the paper. It's garbage. The only reason anyone would bother to parade it around as meaningful is because they can offer a sound bite or clickbait headline about their own political narrative of choice. Will post specifics after I finish it.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
FLUFFYGERM 03/02/18 6:31:25 PM #66:	Almost done reading it. If @Antifar bothered to have actually read any of the study, he'd have seen that it doesn't even say what his clickbait title says lmfao. That's what happens when you rely on some bullshit publication to cherry pick a study though. --- Do good. <cite>FLUFFYGERM posted [p:897069690] in Computer m... [t:76374164]...</cite> <quote>Almost done reading it. If @Antifar bothered to have actually read any of the study, he'd have seen that it doesn't even say what his clickbait title says lmfao. That's what happens when you rely on some bullshit publication to cherry pick a study though.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
RoboLaserGandhi 03/02/18 6:33:31 PM #67:	There's an element of chance in your ability to be able to create wealth in the first place, but you still have to actively pursue that with extreme diligence. I mean it all just goes back to "wealthy people aren't lucky, poor people are unlucky." <cite>RoboLaserGandhi posted [p:897069798] in Computer m... [t:76374164]...</cite> <quote>There's an element of chance in your ability to be able to create wealth in the first place, but you still have to actively pursue that with extreme diligence. I mean it all just goes back to "wealthy people aren't lucky, poor people are unlucky."</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
COVxy 03/02/18 7:16:39 PM #68:	FLUFFYGERM posted... It's garbage. That's a pretty strong opinion. Must have some strong criticism to justify it. --- =E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])] <cite>COVxy posted [p:897072043] in Computer m... [t:76374164]...</cite> <quote><cite>FLUFFYGERM posted...</cite> <quote>It's garbage.</quote> That's a pretty strong opinion. Must have some strong criticism to justify it.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
The Admiral 03/02/18 7:20:17 PM #69:	FLUFFYGERM posted... Almost done reading it. If @Antifar bothered to have actually read any of the study, he'd have seen that it doesn't even say what his clickbait title says lmfao. That's what happens when you rely on some bullshit publication to cherry pick a study though. Anifar almost never reads his own articles. He gets all his own link spam from Twitter and relies on a combination of the tweet being accurate and users here being too lazy to read the article fully themselves. --- - The Admiral <cite>The Admiral posted [p:897072259] in Computer m... [t:76374164]...</cite> <quote><cite>FLUFFYGERM posted...</cite> <quote>Almost done reading it. If @Antifar bothered to have actually read any of the study, he'd have seen that it doesn't even say what his clickbait title says lmfao. That's what happens when you rely on some bullshit publication to cherry pick a study though.</quote> Anifar almost never reads his own articles. He gets all his own link spam from Twitter and relies on a combination of the tweet being accurate and users here being too lazy to read the article fully themselves.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Anteaterking 03/02/18 7:22:40 PM #70:	COVxy posted... That's a pretty strong opinion. Must have some strong criticism to justify it. They have the wrong direction quotation mark problem going on via copying into .tex. --- http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b136/Anteaterking/scan00021.jpg http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b136/Anteaterking/scan00021.jpg <cite>Anteaterking posted [p:897072403] in Computer m... [t:76374164]...</cite> <quote><cite>COVxy posted...</cite> <quote>That's a pretty strong opinion. Must have some strong criticism to justify it.</quote> They have the wrong direction quotation mark problem going on via copying into .tex.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
FLUFFYGERM 03/02/18 7:33:12 PM #71:	Yeah, this "study" is garbage. So let's start with the obvious. First of all, TC's topic title and assumed stance are not actually supported by the study. In fact, the model demonstrated multiple times that talent DOES play a role in financial success. I mean, the study mentions some analysis done by Nassim Taleb, Michael Mauboussin, and Robert Frank. The conclusion they reached is - "They reach the conclusion that chance events play a much larger role in life than many people once imagined. Actually, they do not suggest that success is independent of talent and eorts, since in highly competitive arenas or winner-takes-all markets, like those where we live and work today, people performing well are almost always extremely talented and hard-working. Simply, they conclude that talent and eorts are not enough: luck also matters, even if its role is almost always underestimated by successful people." They aren't arguing that it's all luck or that it's down to chance the way TC and MIT Technology Review implied. They just argue that it has a role. At no point do they conclude that chance supercedes talent and effort or that it is the only item that is necessary. Findings from the model actually contradict TC's argument completely. Taken from section 2.1 - "People with a medium-high talent result to be, on average, more successful than people with low or medium-low talent, but very often the most successful individual is a moderately gifted agent and only rarely the most talented one." So clearly you can see that for the average person more talent means a higher probability of success. If it was all chance or down to luck, that would not be the case. It's only at the outlier cases or the most extreme cases where you find luck treating some untalented individuals more favorably than some talented individuals. And even that is not always the case, as the writers also state that this is just a correlation. They have no way of narrowing down the cause, and their model is too simple to really have any commentary on the nature of luck. Even after running their simulation over multiple runs, they still find that people of greater talent have ON AVERAGE more success than people of lesser talent - "We found in both cases quite small values (although greater than the initial capital C(0) = 10), but the fact that Cmt > Cat indicates that, during their working life, most talented individuals have, on average, more success than moderately gifted people." So if I say nothing else about this study, note that Antifar's topic title and the assertions being made by the literal communists on CE are NOT supported by this model or its results. These people wish that it was all luck because they want to justify their desire to forcibly redistribute wealth from people who earned it. But there's plenty more to say about this study and why it is garbage. Stay tuned for the next post. Hope yall are ready for more spanking. --- Do good. <cite>FLUFFYGERM posted [p:897073014] in Computer m... [t:76374164]...</cite> <quote>Yeah, this "study" is garbage. So let's start with the obvious. First of all, TC's topic title and assumed stance are not actually supported by the study. In fact, the model demonstrated multiple times that talent DOES play a role in financial success. I mean, the study mentions some analysis done by Nassim Taleb, Michael Mauboussin, and Robert Frank. The conclusion they reached is - "They reach the conclusion that chance events play a much larger role in life than many people once imagined. Actually, they do not suggest that success is independent of talent and eorts, since in highly competitive arenas or winner-takes-all markets, like those where we live and work today, people performing well are almost always extremely talented and hard-working. Simply, they conclude that talent and eorts are not enough: luck also matters, even if its role is almost always underestimated by successful people." They aren't arguing that it's all luck or that it's down to chance the way TC and MIT Technology Review implied. They just argue that it has a role. At no point do they conclude that chance supercedes talent and effort or that it is the only item that is necessary. Findings from the model actually contradict TC's argument completely. Taken from section 2.1 - "People with a medium-high talent result to be, on average, more successful than people with low or medium-low talent, but very often the most successful individual is a moderately gifted agent and only rarely the most talented one." So clearly you can see that for the average person more talent means a higher probability of success. If it was all chance or down to luck, that would not be the case. It's only at the outlier cases or the most extreme cases where you find luck treating some untalented individuals more favorably than some talented individuals. And even that is not always the case, as the writers also state that this is just a correlation. They have no way of narrowing down the cause, and their model is too simple to really have any commentary on the nature of luck. Even after running their simulation over multiple runs, they still find that people of greater talent have ON AVERAGE more success than people of lesser talent - "We found in both cases quite small values (although greater than the initial capital C(0) = 10), but the fact that Cmt > Cat indicates that, during their working life, most talented individuals have, on average, more success than moderately gifted people." So if I say nothing else about this study, note that Antifar's topic title and the assertions being made by the literal communists on CE are NOT supported by this model or its results. These people wish that it was all luck because they want to justify their desire to forcibly redistribute wealth from people who earned it. But there's plenty more to say about this study and why it is garbage. Stay tuned for the next post. Hope yall are ready for more spanking.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Kazi1212 03/02/18 7:36:06 PM #72:	^lmao @Antifar deliberately click baiting as usual. wealth is down to chance lol no thats not what the article says at all --- I don't know my gimmick <cite>Kazi1212 posted [p:897073172] in Computer m... [t:76374164]...</cite> <quote>^lmao @Antifar deliberately click baiting as usual. wealth is down to chance lol no thats not what the article says at all</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Teddytalks 03/02/18 7:39:47 PM #73:	DeanAuryn posted... The Catgirl Fondler posted... Well, yeah, I could have told you that, and I didn't even need a simulation. Success can't be earned, you have to be born into it, all the effort in the world is meaningless without proper status. If you were born in the gutter, you're going to die there. End of discussion. That must really annoy you. And I can tell you that isn't true. <cite>Teddytalks posted [p:897073383] in Computer m... [t:76374164]...</cite> <quote><cite>DeanAuryn posted...</cite> <quote><cite>The Catgirl Fondler posted...</cite> <quote>Well, yeah, I could have told you that, and I didn't even need a simulation. Success can't be earned, you have to be born into it, all the effort in the world is meaningless without proper status. If you were born in the gutter, you're going to die there. End of discussion.</quote> That must really annoy you.</quote> And I can tell you that isn't true.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Anteaterking 03/02/18 7:40:40 PM #74:	FLUFFYGERM posted... Yeah, this "study" is garbage. So far you've had little to complain about the paper and mainly are complaining about how it was presented in the linked article --- http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b136/Anteaterking/scan00021.jpg http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b136/Anteaterking/scan00021.jpg <cite>Anteaterking posted [p:897073435] in Computer m... [t:76374164]...</cite> <quote><cite>FLUFFYGERM posted...</cite> <quote>Yeah, this "study" is garbage.</quote> So far you've had little to complain about the paper and mainly are complaining about how it was presented in the linked article</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
The Admiral 03/02/18 7:40:48 PM #75:	FLUFFYGERM posted... Yeah, this "study" is garbage. So let's start with the obvious. First of all, TC's topic title and assumed stance are not actually supported by the study. In fact, the model demonstrated multiple times that talent DOES play a role in financial success. I mean, the study mentions some analysis done by Nassim Taleb, Michael Mauboussin, and Robert Frank. The conclusion they reached is - "They reach the conclusion that chance events play a much larger role in life than many people once imagined. Actually, they do not suggest that success is independent of talent and eorts, since in highly competitive arenas or winner-takes-all markets, like those where we live and work today, people performing well are almost always extremely talented and hard-working. Simply, they conclude that talent and eorts are not enough: luck also matters, even if its role is almost always underestimated by successful people." They aren't arguing that it's all luck or that it's down to chance the way TC and MIT Technology Review implied. They just argue that it has a role. At no point do they conclude that chance supercedes talent and effort or that it is the only item that is necessary. Findings from the model actually contradict TC's argument completely. Taken from section 2.1 - "People with a medium-high talent result to be, on average, more successful than people with low or medium-low talent, but very often the most successful individual is a moderately gifted agent and only rarely the most talented one." So clearly you can see that for the average person more talent means a higher probability of success. If it was all chance or down to luck, that would not be the case. It's only at the outlier cases or the most extreme cases where you find luck treating some untalented individuals more favorably than some talented individuals. And even that is not always the case, as the writers also state that this is just a correlation. They have no way of narrowing down the cause, and their model is too simple to really have any commentary on the nature of luck. Even after running their simulation over multiple runs, they still find that people of greater talent have ON AVERAGE more success than people of lesser talent - "We found in both cases quite small values (although greater than the initial capital C(0) = 10), but the fact that Cmt > Cat indicates that, during their working life, most talented individuals have, on average, more success than moderately gifted people." So if I say nothing else about this study, note that Antifar's topic title and the assertions being made by the literal communists on CE are NOT supported by this model or its results. These people wish that it was all luck because they want to justify their desire to forcibly redistribute wealth from people who earned it. But there's plenty more to say about this study and why it is garbage. Stay tuned for the next post. Hope yall are ready for more spanking. Thank you. --- - The Admiral <cite>The Admiral posted [p:897073446] in Computer m... [t:76374164]...</cite> <quote><cite>FLUFFYGERM posted...</cite> <quote>Yeah, this "study" is garbage. So let's start with the obvious. First of all, TC's topic title and assumed stance are not actually supported by the study. In fact, the model demonstrated multiple times that talent DOES play a role in financial success. I mean, the study mentions some analysis done by Nassim Taleb, Michael Mauboussin, and Robert Frank. The conclusion they reached is - "They reach the conclusion that chance events play a much larger role in life than many people once imagined. Actually, they do not suggest that success is independent of talent and eorts, since in highly competitive arenas or winner-takes-all markets, like those where we live and work today, people performing well are almost always extremely talented and hard-working. Simply, they conclude that talent and eorts are not enough: luck also matters, even if its role is almost always underestimated by successful people." They aren't arguing that it's all luck or that it's down to chance the way TC and MIT Technology Review implied. They just argue that it has a role. At no point do they conclude that chance supercedes talent and effort or that it is the only item that is necessary. Findings from the model actually contradict TC's argument completely. Taken from section 2.1 - "People with a medium-high talent result to be, on average, more successful than people with low or medium-low talent, but very often the most successful individual is a moderately gifted agent and only rarely the most talented one." So clearly you can see that for the average person more talent means a higher probability of success. If it was all chance or down to luck, that would not be the case. It's only at the outlier cases or the most extreme cases where you find luck treating some untalented individuals more favorably than some talented individuals. And even that is not always the case, as the writers also state that this is just a correlation. They have no way of narrowing down the cause, and their model is too simple to really have any commentary on the nature of luck. Even after running their simulation over multiple runs, they still find that people of greater talent have ON AVERAGE more success than people of lesser talent - "We found in both cases quite small values (although greater than the initial capital C(0) = 10), but the fact that Cmt > Cat indicates that, during their working life, most talented individuals have, on average, more success than moderately gifted people." So if I say nothing else about this study, note that Antifar's topic title and the assertions being made by the literal communists on CE are NOT supported by this model or its results. These people wish that it was all luck because they want to justify their desire to forcibly redistribute wealth from people who earned it. But there's plenty more to say about this study and why it is garbage. Stay tuned for the next post. Hope yall are ready for more spanking.</quote> Thank you.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
FLUFFYGERM 03/02/18 7:43:51 PM #76:	Kazi1212 posted... ^lmao @Antifar deliberately click baiting as usual. wealth is down to chance lol no thats not what the article says at all The article does say that, but the underlying study doesn't actually. Anteaterking posted... FLUFFYGERM posted... Yeah, this "study" is garbage. So far you've had little to complain about the paper and mainly are complaining about how it was presented in the linked article That's coming in my next post, typing it up now. --- Do good. <cite>FLUFFYGERM posted [p:897073624] in Computer m... [t:76374164]...</cite> <quote><cite>Kazi1212 posted...</cite> <quote>^lmao @Antifar deliberately click baiting as usual. wealth is down to chance lol no thats not what the article says at all</quote> The article does say that, but the underlying study doesn't actually. <cite>Anteaterking posted...</cite> <quote><cite>FLUFFYGERM posted...</cite> <quote>Yeah, this "study" is garbage.</quote> So far you've had little to complain about the paper and mainly are complaining about how it was presented in the linked article</quote> That's coming in my next post, typing it up now.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Teddytalks 03/02/18 7:45:27 PM #77:	Sephiroth1288 posted... Squall28 posted... Those things you listed affect how well an individual capitalizes on opportunities given to them. What, no they aren't Not wrapping up your junk when having sex is not "capitalizing on a lucky event", nor is doing market research on the industry you're in, nor is staying in school and getting good grades. Luck has nothing to do with any of that. Remember that one time in math class when the teacher accidentally gave you an A for your entire semester even though you didn't do shit? What luck! In my school, teachers would regularly give students bonus points for turning in assignments that was late. That's luck. I know a girl with depression so crippling that she cuts herself. That's unlucky. You sounds like you are either really bitter about life and fought for every little thing you have, or you are still a kid. <cite>Teddytalks posted [p:897073707] in Computer m... [t:76374164]...</cite> <quote><cite>Sephiroth1288 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Squall28 posted...</cite> <quote>Those things you listed affect how well an individual capitalizes on opportunities given to them. </quote> What, no they aren't Not wrapping up your junk when having sex is not "capitalizing on a lucky event", nor is doing market research on the industry you're in, nor is staying in school and getting good grades. Luck has nothing to do with any of that. Remember that one time in math class when the teacher accidentally gave you an A for your entire semester even though you didn't do shit? What luck!</quote> In my school, teachers would regularly give students bonus points for turning in assignments that was late. That's luck. I know a girl with depression so crippling that she cuts herself. That's unlucky. You sounds like you are either really bitter about life and fought for every little thing you have, or you are still a kid.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
lubmelubyou 03/02/18 7:51:14 PM #78:	I suggest we all just stay at home and wait for the wealth to roll in. --- My Channel for full playthroughs and other things gaming: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCgb5tra_kTAbVU_Mb4XeuxQ <cite>lubmelubyou posted [p:897074002] in Computer m... [t:76374164]...</cite> <quote>I suggest we all just stay at home and wait for the wealth to roll in.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
FLUFFYGERM 03/02/18 8:01:21 PM #79:	The biggest problem is that their model is garbage. It's garbage because their assumptions are too simplistic and incomplete to be worth anything. For example, they assume that everyone starts out with the same amount of capital and that the agents operate over a period of 40 years, enduring or enjoying "chance" events. They don't precisely define what chance events are, and they assume that a chance event has roughly the same impact on someone - either doubling or halving their capital. They give these agents the same amount of capital for the purpose of demonstrating the results of chance as they've simulated it. But if they're already assuming that the agents are operating over a period of 40 years and have equal capital at the start, there is no reason why they can't also run the same simulation with agents who deposit some credits into interest-bearing accounts each and every month or year. Then this is no longer a zero-sum game, because although you end up with a distribution of wealthy and less wealthy...everyone in the distribution would become financially wealthy on account of having made the responsible decision to invest. In fact, this type of concession is not beyond the writers. After all, in a section later on they run an exercise where they assign a value to the amount of education individuals (and the collective) have. In an effort to show that more education can increase the probability of succeeding if you have high talent. In other words, more education can mitigate the adverse effects of bad luck. So if they're able to bake in that type of assumption into one of their runs, they could have easily ran a session where each agent acted responsibly by investing some portion of their proceeds over a 40 year period and ended up very wealthy. But they didn't, because they care about their narrative more than they care about reality. Their assumption around agents operating over 40 years is also troubling. In 40 years, did NONE of these agents pad their emergency fund so that Bad Chance has less impact on their future? You mean to tell me that these agents didn't bother to adjust their risk tolerance, pursue new skills, invest credits? None of these agents increased their talent so that they could benefit more from the chance events they encountered? Their only reaction to the bad luck was to just rely on having had good luck up until the bad luck? That's not realistic. Rational agents don't behave that stupidly, yet this model is being used to try to make assertions about reality even though its agents are stupid. --- Do good. <cite>FLUFFYGERM posted [p:897074536] in Computer m... [t:76374164]...</cite> <quote>The biggest problem is that their model is garbage. It's garbage because their assumptions are too simplistic and incomplete to be worth anything. For example, they assume that everyone starts out with the same amount of capital and that the agents operate over a period of 40 years, enduring or enjoying "chance" events. They don't precisely define what chance events are, and they assume that a chance event has roughly the same impact on someone - either doubling or halving their capital. They give these agents the same amount of capital for the purpose of demonstrating the results of chance as they've simulated it. But if they're already assuming that the agents are operating over a period of 40 years and have equal capital at the start, there is no reason why they can't also run the same simulation with agents who deposit some credits into interest-bearing accounts each and every month or year. Then this is no longer a zero-sum game, because although you end up with a distribution of wealthy and less wealthy...everyone in the distribution would become financially wealthy on account of having made the responsible decision to invest. In fact, this type of concession is not beyond the writers. After all, in a section later on they run an exercise where they assign a value to the amount of education individuals (and the collective) have. In an effort to show that more education can increase the probability of succeeding if you have high talent. In other words, more education can mitigate the adverse effects of bad luck. So if they're able to bake in that type of assumption into one of their runs, they could have easily ran a session where each agent acted responsibly by investing some portion of their proceeds over a 40 year period and ended up very wealthy. But they didn't, because they care about their narrative more than they care about reality. Their assumption around agents operating over 40 years is also troubling. In 40 years, did NONE of these agents pad their emergency fund so that Bad Chance has less impact on their future? You mean to tell me that these agents didn't bother to adjust their risk tolerance, pursue new skills, invest credits? None of these agents increased their talent so that they could benefit more from the chance events they encountered? Their only reaction to the bad luck was to just rely on having had good luck up until the bad luck? That's not realistic. Rational agents don't behave that stupidly, yet this model is being used to try to make assertions about reality even though its agents are stupid.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
FLUFFYGERM 03/02/18 8:01:47 PM #80:	They also assumed that opportunities are based on Chance, and that this Chance appears randomly in different parts of the world. For example, they say = "The further random movement of the points inside the square lattice, the world, does not change this fundamental features of the model, which exposes dierent individuals to dierent amount of lucky or unlucky events during their life, regardless of their own talent." But this is not how the real world works. Increasing your skills and your talents opens up more opportunities and enables you to take advantage of them. Yet the agents in this simulation had a fixed talent level, or a talent level that didn't influence the likelihood of coming across the Lucky events more often or the probability of reducing the affect of an Unlucky event. At no point did I see any mention of the agents increasing their talent level and thus encountering opportunity more often or suffering less due to bad luck. To be fair, encountering the event then triggers a calculation where the probability of being affected by that event is determined by their T value. But I'd have liked if they included scenarios where encountering those events is in the first place determined more by your T value as well, which is realistic. It would've also made sense to CATEGORIZE the different types of Unlucky events because not all Unlucky events hit as hard. Just like not all types of Lucky events bless as much. Instead, their conception of Lucky/Unlucky is just doubling/halving of capital. But what if some unlucky events are less harmful than halving your capital? What if unlucky events don't actually occur with the frequency they chose? (Six months). They don't bother to question what would happen if we mitigate unlucky events like car accidents with things like autonomous driving, and instead they end up trying to justify redistribution of wealth as the obvious solution, rather than the mitigation of unlucky events like car crashes or diseases. It's undeniably a fact that if you take care of your body and invest in your education and skills you'll have more probability of succeeding, so why make the narrative all about wealth appropriation and redistribution rather than about baking in more expectations of responsibility into our modeling? Also, the study spends way too much time talking about the outliers or the edges. IE the most succesful and the least successful. What it doesn't do enough is consider what happens to the people in the middle. If we look at the planet as a whole, we can see that the standard of living has skyrocketed for humanity as a whole. Capitalism has eliminated abject poverty in some parts of the world within a single generation. The average case is what we're concerned with most, and as mentioned earlier the average case IS that more talent/skills succeeds more often than lesser talent/skills. The average case is NOT that it's all about chance. Another issue is that the total amount of capital is assumed to be fixed. This is unbelievably stupid, especially since a lot of the recent inequality in wealth is due to the fact that capital is NOT fixed. New capital has been created to such an effective degree by machines like Google and Amazon that Larry Page and Jeff Bezos made themselves unbelievably wealthy. New wealth is generated all the time, and not always with an expense to someone else. What would happen if we tweaked this model so that it takes capital creation into account? And basic investing and risk mitigation strategies? The narrative about wealth redistribution would fall apart. --- Do good. <cite>FLUFFYGERM posted [p:897074557] in Computer m... [t:76374164]...</cite> <quote>They also assumed that opportunities are based on Chance, and that this Chance appears randomly in different parts of the world. For example, they say = "The further random movement of the points inside the square lattice, the world, does not change this fundamental features of the model, which exposes dierent individuals to dierent amount of lucky or unlucky events during their life, regardless of their own talent." But this is not how the real world works. Increasing your skills and your talents opens up more opportunities and enables you to take advantage of them. Yet the agents in this simulation had a fixed talent level, or a talent level that didn't influence the likelihood of coming across the Lucky events more often or the probability of reducing the affect of an Unlucky event. At no point did I see any mention of the agents increasing their talent level and thus encountering opportunity more often or suffering less due to bad luck. To be fair, encountering the event then triggers a calculation where the probability of being affected by that event is determined by their T value. But I'd have liked if they included scenarios where encountering those events is in the first place determined more by your T value as well, which is realistic. It would've also made sense to CATEGORIZE the different types of Unlucky events because not all Unlucky events hit as hard. Just like not all types of Lucky events bless as much. Instead, their conception of Lucky/Unlucky is just doubling/halving of capital. But what if some unlucky events are less harmful than halving your capital? What if unlucky events don't actually occur with the frequency they chose? (Six months). They don't bother to question what would happen if we mitigate unlucky events like car accidents with things like autonomous driving, and instead they end up trying to justify redistribution of wealth as the obvious solution, rather than the mitigation of unlucky events like car crashes or diseases. It's undeniably a fact that if you take care of your body and invest in your education and skills you'll have more probability of succeeding, so why make the narrative all about wealth appropriation and redistribution rather than about baking in more expectations of responsibility into our modeling? Also, the study spends way too much time talking about the outliers or the edges. IE the most succesful and the least successful. What it doesn't do enough is consider what happens to the people in the middle. If we look at the planet as a whole, we can see that the standard of living has skyrocketed for humanity as a whole. Capitalism has eliminated abject poverty in some parts of the world within a single generation. The average case is what we're concerned with most, and as mentioned earlier the average case IS that more talent/skills succeeds more often than lesser talent/skills. The average case is NOT that it's all about chance. Another issue is that the total amount of capital is assumed to be fixed. This is unbelievably stupid, especially since a lot of the recent inequality in wealth is due to the fact that capital is NOT fixed. New capital has been created to such an effective degree by machines like Google and Amazon that Larry Page and Jeff Bezos made themselves unbelievably wealthy. New wealth is generated all the time, and not always with an expense to someone else. What would happen if we tweaked this model so that it takes capital creation into account? And basic investing and risk mitigation strategies? The narrative about wealth redistribution would fall apart.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
FLUFFYGERM 03/02/18 8:04:33 PM #81:	I also thought that @COVxy would enjoy their findings on how we should fund research, seeing as he cited his support for this study. Section 3.1 talks about how we might want to consider funding science not by giving the largest grants to the most qualified or most successful candidates, since their success / qualifications could be the result of chance, but to give EVERY team a small grant since that will enable the right candidates to win. Maybe we should take half of COVxy's grant money and give it to some lab that doesn't actually have anything to show for it, JUST IN CASE they're just inches away from reaching a Serendipity moment and curing cancer. Here are quotes that show their real motive: "It sheds new light on the eectiveness of assessing merit on the basis of the reached level of success and underlines the risks of distributing excessive honors or resources to people who, at the end of the day, could have been simply luckier than others." It's basically just a puff piece designed as a pretext to redistribution of wealth, like I expected earlier in this topic. After all, if you can pretend that there's some quantitative basis for this bullshit narrative then you can pretend that there's justification to taking stuff from people since no one really "earned" it. In any case, with very minor tweaks this model could easily be used to show that capitalism works and that the people who deserve to succeed will on average succeed. It's a very bare bones model. In fact, it's so bare bones that it's embarrassing that these writers didn't include a section on how to reproduce their findings. What modeling schema did they actually use? Where is their code so we can run it on our own machines? Did they even run any simulations or did they just do some napkin math and pull the numbers out of their assholes? I looked through the source but didn't see any links to materials for reproducing, but maybe I missed it. I can easily build a model like this and simulate the same scenario except with minor tweaks. Like having the agents invest a tiny portion of their allotted monthly credits into interest-bearing accounts for 40 years, to the point where the entire population would end up with wealth. Imagine what the simulation would look like if it was actually accounting for things like investment, risk mitigation, the creation of new capital, the ability to increase your likeliness of capitalizing on positive events and mitigating negative events, the differences and applicability of different types of talent, etc. --- Do good. <cite>FLUFFYGERM posted [p:897074686] in Computer m... [t:76374164]...</cite> <quote>I also thought that @COVxy would enjoy their findings on how we should fund research, seeing as he cited his support for this study. Section 3.1 talks about how we might want to consider funding science not by giving the largest grants to the most qualified or most successful candidates, since their success / qualifications could be the result of chance, but to give EVERY team a small grant since that will enable the right candidates to win. Maybe we should take half of COVxy's grant money and give it to some lab that doesn't actually have anything to show for it, JUST IN CASE they're just inches away from reaching a Serendipity moment and curing cancer. Here are quotes that show their real motive: "It sheds new light on the eectiveness of assessing merit on the basis of the reached level of success and underlines the risks of distributing excessive honors or resources to people who, at the end of the day, could have been simply luckier than others." It's basically just a puff piece designed as a pretext to redistribution of wealth, like I expected earlier in this topic. After all, if you can pretend that there's some quantitative basis for this bullshit narrative then you can pretend that there's justification to taking stuff from people since no one really "earned" it. In any case, with very minor tweaks this model could easily be used to show that capitalism works and that the people who deserve to succeed will on average succeed. It's a very bare bones model. In fact, it's so bare bones that it's embarrassing that these writers didn't include a section on how to reproduce their findings. What modeling schema did they actually use? Where is their code so we can run it on our own machines? Did they even run any simulations or did they just do some napkin math and pull the numbers out of their assholes? I looked through the source but didn't see any links to materials for reproducing, but maybe I missed it. I can easily build a model like this and simulate the same scenario except with minor tweaks. Like having the agents invest a tiny portion of their allotted monthly credits into interest-bearing accounts for 40 years, to the point where the entire population would end up with wealth. Imagine what the simulation would look like if it was actually accounting for things like investment, risk mitigation, the creation of new capital, the ability to increase your likeliness of capitalizing on positive events and mitigating negative events, the differences and applicability of different types of talent, etc.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Sneezy 03/02/18 8:07:08 PM #82:	we're not hardwired to think life is out of our control or something... idk but i'm not reading this shitty topic filled with its shitty posts that just pile up into one giant mass of just... SHITTINESS <cite>Sneezy posted [p:897074825] in Computer m... [t:76374164]...</cite> <quote>we're not hardwired to think life is out of our control or something... idk but i'm not reading this shitty topic filled with its shitty posts that just pile up into one giant mass of just... SHITTINESS</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Sneezy 03/02/18 8:09:01 PM #83:	@The_Admiral posted... This is the liberal myth weve been hearing for decades to help them explain their underachievement in life. your face is a liberal myth <cite>Sneezy posted [p:897074951] in Computer m... [t:76374164]...</cite> <quote><cite> @The_Admiral posted...</cite> <quote>This is the liberal myth weve been hearing for decades to help them explain their underachievement in life.</quote> your face is a liberal myth</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
COVxy 03/02/18 8:10:14 PM #84:	COVxy posted... Though, i think you are underestimating the value of simplified preparations in discovering fundamental principles. You might want to think about that some more. Sums it up pretty succinctly. --- =E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])] <cite>COVxy posted [p:897075016] in Computer m... [t:76374164]...</cite> <quote><cite>COVxy posted...</cite> <quote>Though, i think you are underestimating the value of simplified preparations in discovering fundamental principles. You might want to think about that some more.</quote> Sums it up pretty succinctly.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
FLUFFYGERM 03/02/18 8:15:28 PM #85:	COVxy posted... COVxy posted... Though, i think you are underestimating the value of simplified preparations in discovering fundamental principles. You might want to think about that some more. Sums it up pretty succinctly. Haha you're a poser, dude. I bet you don't even know where to begin with building a model and simulating stuff, and there's no way you read all of that in the few minutes it's been since I posted my response. Just admit you got slammed. --- Do good. <cite>FLUFFYGERM posted [p:897075302] in Computer m... [t:76374164]...</cite> <quote><cite>COVxy posted...</cite> <quote><cite>COVxy posted...</cite> <quote>Though, i think you are underestimating the value of simplified preparations in discovering fundamental principles. You might want to think about that some more.</quote> Sums it up pretty succinctly.</quote> Haha you're a poser, dude. I bet you don't even know where to begin with building a model and simulating stuff, and there's no way you read all of that in the few minutes it's been since I posted my response. Just admit you got slammed.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
COVxy 03/02/18 8:16:22 PM #86:	I mean, i did, but dat's okay. --- =E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])] <cite>COVxy posted [p:897075350] in Computer m... [t:76374164]...</cite> <quote>I mean, i did, but dat's okay.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
FLUFFYGERM 03/02/18 8:16:24 PM #87:	FLUFFYGERM posted... Yeah, this "study" is garbage. So let's start with the obvious. First of all, TC's topic title and assumed stance are not actually supported by the study. In fact, the model demonstrated multiple times that talent DOES play a role in financial success. I mean, the study mentions some analysis done by Nassim Taleb, Michael Mauboussin, and Robert Frank. The conclusion they reached is - "They reach the conclusion that chance events play a much larger role in life than many people once imagined. Actually, they do not suggest that success is independent of talent and eorts, since in highly competitive arenas or winner-takes-all markets, like those where we live and work today, people performing well are almost always extremely talented and hard-working. Simply, they conclude that talent and eorts are not enough: luck also matters, even if its role is almost always underestimated by successful people." They aren't arguing that it's all luck or that it's down to chance the way TC and MIT Technology Review implied. They just argue that it has a role. At no point do they conclude that chance supercedes talent and effort or that it is the only item that is necessary. Findings from the model actually contradict TC's argument completely. Taken from section 2.1 - "People with a medium-high talent result to be, on average, more successful than people with low or medium-low talent, but very often the most successful individual is a moderately gifted agent and only rarely the most talented one." So clearly you can see that for the average person more talent means a higher probability of success. If it was all chance or down to luck, that would not be the case. It's only at the outlier cases or the most extreme cases where you find luck treating some untalented individuals more favorably than some talented individuals. And even that is not always the case, as the writers also state that this is just a correlation. They have no way of narrowing down the cause, and their model is too simple to really have any commentary on the nature of luck. Even after running their simulation over multiple runs, they still find that people of greater talent have ON AVERAGE more success than people of lesser talent - "We found in both cases quite small values (although greater than the initial capital C(0) = 10), but the fact that Cmt > Cat indicates that, during their working life, most talented individuals have, on average, more success than moderately gifted people." So if I say nothing else about this study, note that Antifar's topic title and the assertions being made by the literal communists on CE are NOT supported by this model or its results. These people wish that it was all luck because they want to justify their desire to forcibly redistribute wealth from people who earned it. But there's plenty more to say about this study and why it is garbage. Stay tuned for the next post. Hope yall are ready for more spanking. @averagejoel Just making sure you see this since you agreed with the topic title lmfao --- Do good. <cite>FLUFFYGERM posted [p:897075353] in Computer m... [t:76374164]...</cite> <quote><cite>FLUFFYGERM posted...</cite> <quote>Yeah, this "study" is garbage. So let's start with the obvious. First of all, TC's topic title and assumed stance are not actually supported by the study. In fact, the model demonstrated multiple times that talent DOES play a role in financial success. I mean, the study mentions some analysis done by Nassim Taleb, Michael Mauboussin, and Robert Frank. The conclusion they reached is - "They reach the conclusion that chance events play a much larger role in life than many people once imagined. Actually, they do not suggest that success is independent of talent and eorts, since in highly competitive arenas or winner-takes-all markets, like those where we live and work today, people performing well are almost always extremely talented and hard-working. Simply, they conclude that talent and eorts are not enough: luck also matters, even if its role is almost always underestimated by successful people." They aren't arguing that it's all luck or that it's down to chance the way TC and MIT Technology Review implied. They just argue that it has a role. At no point do they conclude that chance supercedes talent and effort or that it is the only item that is necessary. Findings from the model actually contradict TC's argument completely. Taken from section 2.1 - "People with a medium-high talent result to be, on average, more successful than people with low or medium-low talent, but very often the most successful individual is a moderately gifted agent and only rarely the most talented one." So clearly you can see that for the average person more talent means a higher probability of success. If it was all chance or down to luck, that would not be the case. It's only at the outlier cases or the most extreme cases where you find luck treating some untalented individuals more favorably than some talented individuals. And even that is not always the case, as the writers also state that this is just a correlation. They have no way of narrowing down the cause, and their model is too simple to really have any commentary on the nature of luck. Even after running their simulation over multiple runs, they still find that people of greater talent have ON AVERAGE more success than people of lesser talent - "We found in both cases quite small values (although greater than the initial capital C(0) = 10), but the fact that Cmt > Cat indicates that, during their working life, most talented individuals have, on average, more success than moderately gifted people." So if I say nothing else about this study, note that Antifar's topic title and the assertions being made by the literal communists on CE are NOT supported by this model or its results. These people wish that it was all luck because they want to justify their desire to forcibly redistribute wealth from people who earned it. But there's plenty more to say about this study and why it is garbage. Stay tuned for the next post. Hope yall are ready for more spanking.</quote> @averagejoel Just making sure you see this since you agreed with the topic title lmfao</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
FLUFFYGERM 03/02/18 8:17:09 PM #88:	COVxy posted... I mean, i did, but dat's okay. I guess we're reaching the limit of your gimmick. You can only pretend to be knowledgeable about literally everything for so long before you get slapped. --- Do good. <cite>FLUFFYGERM posted [p:897075397] in Computer m... [t:76374164]...</cite> <quote><cite>COVxy posted...</cite> <quote>I mean, i did, but dat's okay.</quote> I guess we're reaching the limit of your gimmick. You can only pretend to be knowledgeable about literally everything for so long before you get slapped.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
foreveraIone 03/02/18 8:17:43 PM #89:	holy shit. proudclad is triggered --- http://i.imgtc.com/qieELu9.jpg Always. Edgy. <cite>foreveraIone posted [p:897075426] in Computer m... [t:76374164]...</cite> <quote>holy shit. proudclad is triggered</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
COVxy 03/02/18 8:18:01 PM #90:	FLUFFYGERM posted... COVxy posted... I mean, i did, but dat's okay. I guess we're reaching the limit of your gimmick. You can only pretend to be knowledgeable about literally everything for so long before you get slapped. 'They're model is simpler than the actual phenomenon' is not a criticism of the model, but a misunderstanding of the point of modelling. --- =E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])] <cite>COVxy posted [p:897075443] in Computer m... [t:76374164]...</cite> <quote><cite>FLUFFYGERM posted...</cite> <quote><cite>COVxy posted...</cite> <quote>I mean, i did, but dat's okay.</quote> I guess we're reaching the limit of your gimmick. You can only pretend to be knowledgeable about literally everything for so long before you get slapped.</quote> 'They're model is simpler than the actual phenomenon' is not a criticism of the model, but a misunderstanding of the point of modelling.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
FLUFFYGERM 03/02/18 8:19:28 PM #91:	COVxy posted... FLUFFYGERM posted... COVxy posted... I mean, i did, but dat's okay. I guess we're reaching the limit of your gimmick. You can only pretend to be knowledgeable about literally everything for so long before you get slapped. 'They're model is simpler than the actual phenomenon' is not a criticism of the model, but a misunderstanding of the point of modelling. Their* And my criticism was a lot more than that, dude. If that was your takeaway from what I wrote then you're illiterate or just so dishonest that you're not worth anyone's time. --- Do good. <cite>FLUFFYGERM posted [p:897075520] in Computer m... [t:76374164]...</cite> <quote><cite>COVxy posted...</cite> <quote><cite>FLUFFYGERM posted...</cite> <quote><cite>COVxy posted...</cite> <quote>I mean, i did, but dat's okay.</quote> I guess we're reaching the limit of your gimmick. You can only pretend to be knowledgeable about literally everything for so long before you get slapped.</quote> 'They're model is simpler than the actual phenomenon' is not a criticism of the model, but a misunderstanding of the point of modelling.</quote> Their* And my criticism was a lot more than that, dude. If that was your takeaway from what I wrote then you're illiterate or just so dishonest that you're not worth anyone's time.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
COVxy 03/02/18 8:21:59 PM #92:	FLUFFYGERM posted... And my criticism was a lot more than that, dude. If that was your takeaway from what I wrote then you're illiterate or just so dishonest that you're not worth anyone's time. I mean, if you'd like i can break apart your post and show you how every meaningful, i.e. correct, criticism is a form of "their model didn't consider x". If we modelled reality perfectly with every single possible parameter, you'd be left with reality. Not very informative. The point of modelling is most often to simplify the system to understand fundamental principles. --- =E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])] <cite>COVxy posted [p:897075652] in Computer m... [t:76374164]...</cite> <quote><cite>FLUFFYGERM posted...</cite> <quote>And my criticism was a lot more than that, dude. If that was your takeaway from what I wrote then you're illiterate or just so dishonest that you're not worth anyone's time.</quote> I mean, if you'd like i can break apart your post and show you how every meaningful, i.e. correct, criticism is a form of "their model didn't consider x". If we modelled reality perfectly with every single possible parameter, you'd be left with reality. Not very informative. The point of modelling is most often to simplify the system to understand fundamental principles.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
FLUFFYGERM 03/02/18 8:23:42 PM #93:	That's a straw man. I didn't say that their model needs to perfectly align with every single possible parameter in order to be useful. I explained very clearly what I said and included examples of how their assumptions are either fundamentally incorrect (like in the case of assuming that there is a fixed amount of capital) or fatally incomplete. It's possible to have a model that is too simple to adequately explain or demonstrate anything useful. --- Do good. <cite>FLUFFYGERM posted [p:897075728] in Computer m... [t:76374164]...</cite> <quote>That's a straw man. I didn't say that their model needs to perfectly align with every single possible parameter in order to be useful. I explained very clearly what I said and included examples of how their assumptions are either fundamentally incorrect (like in the case of assuming that there is a fixed amount of capital) or fatally incomplete. It's possible to have a model that is too simple to adequately explain or demonstrate anything useful.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
COVxy 03/02/18 8:30:44 PM #94:	FLUFFYGERM posted... I explained very clearly what I said and included examples of how their assumptions are either fundamentally incorrect (like in the case of assuming that there is a fixed amount of capital) Which would change their result how, exactly? Perhaps you want to outline how this would affect anything in their model, or how you would even model it in their system, for a start. Criticism without consequence isn't really actually criticism. Anyone can jump into a study and point out things that weren't included. How exactly have your criticisms changed the conclusions one should draw from their results? And again, you need to consider the utility of highly simplified systems. Pretty much the field of computational neuroscience is a key example of this. --- =E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])] <cite>COVxy posted [p:897076080] in Computer m... [t:76374164]...</cite> <quote><cite>FLUFFYGERM posted...</cite> <quote> I explained very clearly what I said and included examples of how their assumptions are either fundamentally incorrect (like in the case of assuming that there is a fixed amount of capital) </quote> Which would change their result how, exactly? Perhaps you want to outline how this would affect anything in their model, or how you would even model it in their system, for a start. Criticism without consequence isn't really actually criticism. Anyone can jump into a study and point out things that weren't included. How exactly have your criticisms changed the conclusions one should draw from their results? And again, you need to consider the utility of highly simplified systems. Pretty much the field of computational neuroscience is a key example of this.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
FLUFFYGERM 03/02/18 8:33:16 PM #95:	I already explained how those assumptions affect their result. I'd be glad to demonstrate publicly how I'd model things differently if they bothered to include their actual work for replication on my own machine. Otherwise I'd have to rebuild the entire thing for scratch, and why bother when it's extremely obvious that their model is incomplete horse shit in the first place? I mean literally all of those questions you just asked are answered in my posts. You obviously didn't read them. Anyway, @Squall28 to answer your questions. I build software and run an analytics company on the side. The modeling and simulations I build actually generate money for me. If I built shit the sloppy way these clowns did, I'd be losing money instead of making it. --- Do good. <cite>FLUFFYGERM posted [p:897076208] in Computer m... [t:76374164]...</cite> <quote>I already explained how those assumptions affect their result. I'd be glad to demonstrate publicly how I'd model things differently if they bothered to include their actual work for replication on my own machine. Otherwise I'd have to rebuild the entire thing for scratch, and why bother when it's extremely obvious that their model is incomplete horse shit in the first place? I mean literally all of those questions you just asked are answered in my posts. You obviously didn't read them. Anyway, @Squall28 to answer your questions. I build software and run an analytics company on the side. The modeling and simulations I build actually generate money for me. If I built shit the sloppy way these clowns did, I'd be losing money instead of making it.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Sphyx 03/02/18 8:34:11 PM #96:	foreveraIone posted... holy shit. proudclad is triggered --- You're so vain, You probably think this sig is about you. <cite>Sphyx posted [p:897076265] in Computer m... [t:76374164]...</cite> <quote><cite>foreveraIone posted...</cite> <quote>holy shit. proudclad is triggered</quote></quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
FLUFFYGERM 03/02/18 8:34:13 PM #97:	COVxy posted... And again, you need to consider the utility of highly simplified systems. Pretty much the field of computational neuroscience is a key example of this. They gave themselves a concession when they ran their simulation with a tweaked model that accounted varying levels of education. They could've done the exact same thing with any of the relevant factors I mentioned and meaningfully altered their output. They didn't, because they care about the narrative around redistribution of wealth more than they care about whether or not they're actually modeling anything. --- Do good. <cite>FLUFFYGERM posted [p:897076270] in Computer m... [t:76374164]...</cite> <quote><cite>COVxy posted...</cite> <quote>And again, you need to consider the utility of highly simplified systems. Pretty much the field of computational neuroscience is a key example of this.</quote> They gave themselves a concession when they ran their simulation with a tweaked model that accounted varying levels of education. They could've done the exact same thing with any of the relevant factors I mentioned and meaningfully altered their output. They didn't, because they care about the narrative around redistribution of wealth more than they care about whether or not they're actually modeling anything.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
FLUFFYGERM 03/02/18 8:34:39 PM #98:	Sphyx posted... foreveraIone posted... holy shit. proudclad is triggered So...digging into a study to show that 1) TC lied about what it says and 2) it's a poorly done study....is somehow being triggered? lol --- Do good. <cite>FLUFFYGERM posted [p:897076292] in Computer m... [t:76374164]...</cite> <quote><cite>Sphyx posted...</cite> <quote><cite>foreveraIone posted...</cite> <quote>holy shit. proudclad is triggered</quote></quote> So...digging into a study to show that 1) TC lied about what it says and 2) it's a poorly done study....is somehow being triggered? lol</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
COVxy 03/02/18 8:36:12 PM #99:	FLUFFYGERM posted... I mean literally all of those questions you just asked are answered in my posts. You obviously didn't read them No, no you didn't. "Maybe it would be different if they included x" is not sufficient lol. --- =E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])] <cite>COVxy posted [p:897076359] in Computer m... [t:76374164]...</cite> <quote><cite>FLUFFYGERM posted...</cite> <quote>I mean literally all of those questions you just asked are answered in my posts. You obviously didn't read them</quote> No, no you didn't. "Maybe it would be different if they included x" is not sufficient lol.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
foreveraIone 03/02/18 8:37:21 PM #100:	5'2 vs easily triggered itt --- http://i.imgtc.com/qieELu9.jpg Always. Edgy. <cite>foreveraIone posted [p:897076435] in Computer m... [t:76374164]...</cite> <quote>5'2 vs easily triggered itt</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1, 2, 3

Current Events > Computer model: wealth is down to chance, not talent (+) Yeah! (+)

Current Events > Computer model: wealth is down to chance, not talent