TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

If you're so smart, why aren't you rich? (2018)

61 点作者 jmsflknr8 个月前

16 条评论

naming_the_user8 个月前
Surely almost everyone realises by adulthood that the real answer is that most people just aren&#x27;t trying to be rich? It&#x27;s not the actual goal of the vast majority of people.<p>If everyone were trying to maximise their own wealth, we would have no nurses, no-one would be a firefighter, no-one would be police, no-one would work in the military, etc etc. Vast swathes of jobs would have unfillable vacancies because everyone would work them for at most a couple of years whilst living out of their car or similar in order to save, then they&#x27;d be hustling and trying to start their own business or get a job in finance or whatever.<p>I have a fairly solid academic background, and of my cohort, less than half, maybe even under 25%, went into traditionally well paying fields.<p>Most are more interested in driving academia&#x2F;science forward or generally on other social goals as long as they have enough to pay for the house and car.<p>You could equally ask why doesn&#x27;t everyone lift at the gym 10+ hours a week, or run 50 miles, or aim to learn a new recipe every week, or whatever else. Different people have different goals and that&#x27;s wonderful. Money is just one of many balls that people try to juggle.
评论 #41668540 未加载
评论 #41669383 未加载
评论 #41668518 未加载
评论 #41671256 未加载
评论 #41669637 未加载
评论 #41669812 未加载
评论 #41669300 未加载
blueflow8 个月前
&gt; The most successful people<p>For some value of &quot;success&quot; that doesn&#x27;t include whatever Findus and Pettson are doing here: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;littlefinland.de&#x2F;8487-large_default&#x2F;pettson-and-findus-postcard-eating-pancakes-outside.jpg" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;littlefinland.de&#x2F;8487-large_default&#x2F;pettson-and-find...</a>
评论 #41668551 未加载
anonzzzies8 个月前
I am rich enough (I could retire at 25 or so which is 25 years ago after I sold my first company), but I never had any drive to make much more as that type of work needs all kinds of boring stuff I don&#x27;t want. I like to build stuff and sell it and move on, not suck up to VCs, have 1000s of employees, make business plans or any of that. So I build stuff and exit once done and making money.<p>Even with smarter investment choices, I could&#x27;ve had a lot more, but I don&#x27;t find that interesting either. Building stuff; only thing I care about.
评论 #41668396 未加载
评论 #41668602 未加载
评论 #41668247 未加载
Dibby0538 个月前
The paper: [1]<p>(While it&#x27;s nice to have a model, &quot;fortune&quot; has been synonymous with &quot;luck&quot; and &quot;wealth&quot; since Roman times [2], so it&#x27;s not exactly a new concept)<p>[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;arxiv.org&#x2F;abs&#x2F;1907.04237" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;arxiv.org&#x2F;abs&#x2F;1907.04237</a><p>[2] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wiktionary.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;fortuna#Latin" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wiktionary.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;fortuna#Latin</a>
KronisLV8 个月前
Realistically?<p>Because I&#x27;m too risk averse to try high risk and high reward pursuits like starting my own company, or doing moonshot projects. Imagine the aversion people have to starting projects from scratch in a stack that they don&#x27;t know and apply that to bookkeeping, laws and regulations, billing, marketing and other aspects that aren&#x27;t focused purely on code.<p>I&#x27;m also the kind of person that doesn&#x27;t want to sell snake oil by being a charming salesman, in contrast to the droves of borderline-scammers out there making projects to extract money from people who don&#x27;t know any better (also applies even to many early access games, many of the crypto projects, the various lifestyle gurus etc.), in addition to knowing that <i>many</i> of the things I could built have already been built by others and built well.<p>At the same time, I&#x27;m not brilliant enough (e.g. an outlier) to have breakthrough successes and not focused enough to achieve greater success through sheer effort, which would make me sacrifice my health, time and relationships. Having a stable 9-5 where I still do good work might be better in that way rather than working 80 hour weeks for a company that might still go under in the end, survivorship bias in regards to success stories should probably be kept in memory.<p>In other words, I wasn&#x27;t lucky enough to born with great inheritance or to be at the right place in the right time and other forms of success do somewhat elude me for now. Not that having employment, health, quality of life and good relationships isn&#x27;t success in of itself, just not the kind that people glorify and chase.<p>That said, in regards to most things, people who are good at a craft have failed more times than others have even tried. Unless they&#x27;re in a regulated sector, then they might just be in jail.<p>I will say that it&#x27;s still immensely cool to see when the stars align and people who are smart and hard working enough end up in the right place at the right time and we get awesome stuff like entire industries starting up (e.g. how VR is getting more mainstream, to <i>some</i> degree the whole LLM thing, the rise of ARM processors etc., advances in graphics with the likes of Unreal Engine, programming languages like Go filling in all sorts of niches, people getting up and making engines like Godot; not that all of it is focused on money, but it&#x27;s still cool). Neither someone&#x27;s innate abilities, nor hard work, nor luck should be discounted.
评论 #41668189 未加载
cudgy8 个月前
“Funding agencies the world over are interested in maximizing their return on investment in the scientific world. Indeed, the European Research Council recently invested $1.7 million in a program to study serendipity—the role of luck in scientific discovery—and how it can be exploited to improve funding outcomes.”<p>What came out of this study? The article left me hanging.
fire_lake8 个月前
&gt; The same is true of effort, as measured by hours worked. Some people work more hours than average and some work less, but nobody works a billion times more hours than anybody else.<p>If we instead look at the effectiveness of the output then there <i>can</i> be massive disparities.<p>Einstein thinking about relativity vs me digging a hole to China.<p>Einstein is working the same hours but the output is 9999999x more valuable.
评论 #41667915 未加载
评论 #41667694 未加载
评论 #41667823 未加载
foobarkey8 个月前
What freaking garbage is this, it’s all about equity.<p>If a company hires 10 people and pays them 100&#x2F;hour then all the value created by these people will belong to the company - 10x100 hour that the company paid.<p>If the value happens to be 3 million then the shareholders just made 3 million - (10x100).<p>Also this scales for the shareholders pretty much forever, capital is a limitless resource when compared to hours in a day.<p>There is no need to make a freaking model out of something so obvious.<p>If you want to get rich you need to get in on the equity game somehow (invest, start a company, FAANG RSU-s, does not matter)<p>Working more hours or getting paid more per hour does not scale to rich levels
评论 #41668430 未加载
评论 #41668272 未加载
评论 #41668457 未加载
alentred8 个月前
This study seems to hide everything behind the magical &quot;luck&quot; while not actually explaining anything. The way I understand it, some randomness is added to the model, which I assume was calibrated until the model yielded the result that is similar to the modern-day wealth distribution. So all it proves is that other factors alone (IQ, etc.) are not defining of the outcome, but it still doesn&#x27;t explain what factors are.<p>&quot;Luck&quot; exists, I believe, but saying that person&#x27;s wealth depends mostly on luck alone, is dismissive of all other human individual and collective qualities that are actually at play.<p>--<p>P.S. I also agree with other comments here, correctly observing that <i>being rich</i> is by far not an objective for everyone. On the other hand, <i>hopefully</i>, wealth is a mean to achieve some other life objectives. Otherwise it&#x27;s just sad indeed.
rmonvfer8 个月前
As many have noted, not everyone aspires to wealth; a lot of people are happy with having just enough to live comfortably and go on vacation a couple times a year.<p>The way I see it, (though I could be mistaken), wealth empowers individuals to engage in pursuits they value without external concerns.<p>Exceptionally talented professionals (e.g., nurses, doctors, scientists, lawyers) are quite frequently rendered incapable of addressing issues they are passionate about due to financial constraints or bureaucratic indifference. Essentially, financial resources enable one to transition from being merely aspirational to being influential (contingent, of course, on the specific situation). Consider activism: many people strive to support their communities, but often, funding for such initiatives is lacking.
bborud8 个月前
That website had three popups before I could read the article and another one that appeared across the bottom. Two cookie-related popups, and two others. I almost lost patience and just closed the tab. And MIT Technology review is kind of something you&#x27;d expect to be just a little bit more ... serious?<p>How can this be good design? No, forget that: how is this even acceptable design? Now I will remember the experience for at least a few weeks and avoid clicking on anything that points to that site since I already know it is probably going to be a hassle.<p>Can someone explain the design decisions to me?<p>Oh, and if this comment seems irrelevant to the subject: see what I mean how annoying it is to have to wade through a bunch of nonsense before you get to the bits you actually care about?
评论 #41667791 未加载
评论 #41667761 未加载
评论 #41667765 未加载
swiftcoder8 个月前
&gt; The most successful people are not the most talented, just the luckiest, a new computer model of wealth creation confirms. Taking that into account can maximize return on many kinds of investment.<p>What&#x27;s the opposite of a tautology? Because this headline is it.<p>If wealth creation is purely luck based, as the headline implies, then maximising wealth creation is purely about getting luckier... and taking this information into account will likely do you no good whatsoever
评论 #41668336 未加载
评论 #41673876 未加载
binary1328 个月前
This analysis (it’s not talent, it’s pure random chance) seems like it’s failing to account for an enormous host of variables that have a significant impact on outcome. Probably the most obvious one is whether you are a child of wealthy and well-connected parents. These can be interpreted as “pure random chance haha!” but they really aren’t if they can’t “randomly” happen post-hoc to some “random” person actually picked at random.
roenxi8 个月前
1. It isn&#x27;t at all the direction the article is going, but there is an argument that the smartest among us do things like swear vows of poverty. Optimising for wealth isn&#x27;t all that obvious, especially given that the difference between 10 million and 10 billion is mostly about how you influence society than what outcomes are personally experienced.<p>2. More on the subject of the article, the simulation is probably good but the conclusions being drawn are not as robust as they might appear. For the sake of argument, lets say that this simulation outcomes align perfectly with reality. That <i>doesn&#x27;t</i> conclusively demonstrate that wealth is random with respect to people&#x27;s decisions and abilities. The random events in the simulation might be driven by people&#x27;s preferences, abilities and habits (hereafter, &quot;skills&quot;) which are themselves randomly distributed.<p>For example, lets say that everyone encounters an opportunity to become a billionaire at a perfectly constant rate of 1 opportunity&#x2F;year [0] and the probability we can capitalise on it with our skills is normally distributed (ditto for ruinous events). That would be indistinguishable in outcomes from random lucky events that are normally distributed, even though in reality our skills are actually playing a huge role. That is to say: reality can be perfectly aligned with the simulation even if the assumptions of the simulation are different from the realities of reality.<p>In the real world it is probably a mix of both. There is certainly luck involved in becoming absurdly wealthy, but there is a also an element of skill that shines through in some people who seem to have a miraculous ability to make their own luck. I&#x27;ve met a few of the inverse who it would take much more than luck for them to get wealthy, there are people who fumble their chances.<p>[0] Picking an absurdly high rate for the sake of argument.
评论 #41667895 未加载
shannifin8 个月前
Not sure this actually tells us anything useful as it&#x27;s all based on an inherently simplified simulation. You get what you simulate for. You could just as easily replace &quot;luck&quot; with nepotism and fraud and conclude those factors must be very important.
评论 #41668368 未加载
Terr_8 个月前
&gt; This talent is distributed normally around some average level,<p>There are also a bunch of game-theory models which show things converging on massive wealth disparities, even when every actor has equal stats.