SoylentNews

Study Concludes that Luck, not Talent or Smarts, Results in Wealth

posted by janrinok on Saturday March 03 2018, @11:56PM   
from the just-my-luck dept.

Robotron writes:

MIT Tech Review reports on a new study which used computer model to analyze wealth distribution in society. It concludes that the majority of riches do not result from talent, intelligence or hard work - but luck. Those who succeed most in modern society are born well and experience several 'lucky events' which they exploit, but are of mediocre talent. The study's abstract states that the model has potential for encouraging investment in the genuinely gifted, and summarizes:

"...if it is true that some degree of talent is necessary to be successful in life, almost never the most talented people reach the highest peaks of success, being overtaken by mediocre but sensibly luckier individuals. As to our knowledge, this counterintuitive result - although implicitly suggested between the lines in a vast literature - is quantified here for the first time."

---

Original Submission

• how can this be empirical? how can this be empirical? (Score: 2, Interesting) by west on Sunday March 04 2018, @12:41AM (3 children)

  by west (6884) on Sunday March 04 2018, @12:41AM (#647370)

  It concludes that the majority of riches do not result from talent, intelligence or hard work

  please define in empirical terms which have ample enough data:
  -talent
  -hard work

  then find the data set of people (random/disperse in persons and geography and time) which inclused those aforementioned metrics.

  it doesn't exist. ergo this is bullshit.

  Starting Score:	1		point
  Moderation		+1
  Interesting=1, Total=1
  Extra 'Interesting' Modifier		0
  Total Score:		2

• Re:how can this be empirical? (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 04 2018, @01:08AM

  by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 04 2018, @01:08AM (#647391)

  At the same time and for the same reasons, the idea that rich people are necessarily intelligent and hard working is bullshit.

  Parent

• Re:how can this be empirical? Re:how can this be empirical? (Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Sunday March 04 2018, @12:13PM (1 child)

  by AthanasiusKircher (5291) on Sunday March 04 2018, @12:13PM (#647593) Journal

  Given that the study in question was NOT empirical at all, but rather based on an idealized model/simulation run many times, your question about "how can this be empirical?" is simple: it isn't.

  But that would require actually clicking on TFA link to find that out...

  It might still be BS, but it's not BS for the reason you give.

  Parent

  • Re:how can this be empirical? (Score: 1) by west on Sunday March 04 2018, @02:05PM

    by west (6884) on Sunday March 04 2018, @02:05PM (#647617)

    no it is BS for the reason i gave, lol.

    Parent