Which Is More Important: Talent or Luck?: 2022 Ig Informal Lecture
Vložit
- čas přidán 7. 01. 2023
- The Ig Nobel Prizes honor achievements that make people LAUGH, then THINK.
In the Ig Informal Lectures, some days after the ceremony, the new Ig Nobel Prize winners attempt to explain what they did, and why they did it.
The 2022 Ig Nobel Prize for Economics was awarded to Alessandro Pluchino, Alessio Emanuele Biondo, and Andrea Rapisarda, for explaining, mathematically, why success most often goes not to the most talented people, but instead to the luckiest.
REFERENCE: “Talent vs. Luck: The Role of Randomness in Success and Failure,” Alessandro Pluchino, Alessio Emanuele Biondo, and Andrea Rapisarda, Advances in Complex Systems, vol. 21, nos. 3 and 4, 2018.
Full details at:
www.improbable.com/
www.improbable.com/ig/winners...
improbable.com/ig/2022-ceremony/ - Věda a technologie
The model seems to adhere to basic principles of probability and statistics. In a Gaussian distribution, the majority of the population falls within the 'average' talent range. When you introduce random "luck events" into this setup, it's logical that most individuals who end up benefitting will be those in the 'average' talent category, simply because that's where the majority of the population resides.
I want to see the same sim with the added variable of ability to take risk
I don't understand how they modelled the "luck events" why random walk? Why not like raindrops for example? If an agent is lucky and was born near a bunch of lucky events then it'll have a higher chance to encountering them over and over again. Raindrops on the other hand wouldn't have such "artifact".
It seems more realistic to me? The are good and bad neighborhoods in the world. Natural disasters and crime aren't equally likely across the world. I personally think talent was given too much of a handy cap. It would have also been interesting to see the results if lucky capital gain and unlucky capital loss mitigation was linearly determined by talent.
And? What does it show that some extremely simplified and potentially biased model of life behaves in a certain way? Why would you even consider "talent" and "luck" to be disjoint parameters? This seems to be the reflection of some biased conception of the world. What is success, the money in your bank account or the inverse of your cortisol levels?
edit: And about the last "philosophical" point about taxation, this is a very poor justification. If someone found that "talent and success are highly correlated" (whatever that means), how would that justify an unequal system? Sorry but this is all the result of rotten assumption even if the conclusion looks "good-hearted".