army1987 comments on Luck II: Expecting White Swans - Less Wrong

6 Post author: fowlertm 15 December 2013 05:40PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (86)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: ialdabaoth 15 December 2013 06:49:04PM *  10 points [-]

sub-principle one: lucky people maintain a network of contacts with other people.

I.e.: be Extroverted, not Introverted.

sub-principle two: lucky people are more relaxed and less neurotic than unlucky people

I.e.: Be Stable, not Neurotic.

sub-principle three: lucky people have a strong drive towards novelty, and strive to introduce variety into their routines.

I.e.: Be Open to Experience, not Closed.

sub-principle two: lucky people attempt to achieve their goals and persist through difficulty.

I.e.: Be Conscientious, not Haphazard.

sub-principle one: lucky people see the silver lining in bad situations.

I.e.: Be Positive, not Depressive.

... reading through most of this, it seems like the trick is to not be Neurotic, not be Depressive, not be Introverted, and to have high Openness and Conscientiousness. By my understanding, these aren't really traits you can just "decide" to improve, and people who do not naturally possess these traits tend to experience a pretty hefty willpower toll forcing their behavior.

Comment author: [deleted] 16 December 2013 06:24:42PM 0 points [-]

(A thing that peeves me about the five-factor model is that (I read that) the labels try to sound neutral but (IMO) fail at that, Openness, Conscientiousness, Extroversion and Agreeableness all sounding positive and Neuroticism sounding negative -- and when Stability replaces Neuroticism it's even worse. OK, with Openness this might be self-serving bias on my part, myself being around 80th percentile Openness -- but I'm around or slightly below median on the other ones, so this can't be the only reason.)

Comment author: ialdabaoth 16 December 2013 06:36:09PM *  2 points [-]

Well, that's kind of a natural consequence of selection pressures. Trying to make labels sound neutral when one end of a spectrum is preferred to the other inevitably leads to the Euphemism Treadmill - it's the same thing with "intelligence" vs. "idiocy" / "retardation" / "being special".

The fact is, in our culture, high Openness has clear social advantages over Traditionalism; high Extroversion has clear social advantages over Introversion; Conscientiousness has clear social advantages over Impulsiveness; and Stability has clear social advantages over Neuroticism. Change the culture, and the local optima might change, which will change the connotation of the terms - for example, Competitiveness might scan better in some places than Agreeableness.

Just like smart people are just "better" than dumb people, extroverts are just "better" than introverts, and stable people are just "better" than neurotics - at least in this environment.

Comment author: NancyLebovitz 16 December 2013 07:21:34PM 0 points [-]

What would be a better term than "neuroticism"? I suggest an optimism/caution spectrum.

The world would be a better place if there'd been some Neuroticism at Enron.

Comment author: ialdabaoth 16 December 2013 07:27:00PM 1 point [-]

The world would be a better place if there'd been some Neuroticism at Enron.

But would the Enron execs have been better? Because selection doesn't care about what's best for the world.