ChristianKl comments on Rationality Quotes December 2014 - Less Wrong

8 Post author: Salemicus 03 December 2014 10:33PM

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

Comments (440)

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

Comment author: Robin 11 December 2014 01:45:17AM *  -2 points [-]

Did you read what you linked to?

"No true Scotsman is an informal fallacy, an ad hoc attempt to retain an unreasoned assertion.[1] When faced with a counterexample to a universal claim ("no Scotsman would do such a thing"), rather than denying the counterexample or rejecting the original universal claim, this fallacy modifies the subject of the assertion to exclude the specific case or others like it by rhetoric, without reference to any specific objective rule ("no true Scotsman would do such a thing")"

Where is the counterexample? Success refers to an abstract concept. Luck and success are different things. Luck usually contributes to success, but luck usually implies undeserved success. So successful people get lucky, but on average everybody gets lucky sometimes. The quote encourages people to focus on the things in which luck plays a minor factor. That's what intelligence is for, intelligence is not for optimizing luck.

And yes, that does make it tautological. So what?

Comment author: ChristianKl 11 December 2014 12:22:32PM 1 point [-]

So successful people get lucky, but on average everybody gets lucky sometimes.

But not everybody wins sometimes the lottery.

Comment author: Robin 11 December 2014 05:19:35PM *  1 point [-]

Is that supposed to be funny? The fact that you have a computer means you have won something. I'd be willing to guess that more technologies will emerge and you'll use them. That's like winning a lottery. But you don't get more successful unless you make intelligent decisions. Stupid decisions are punished, there are exceptions to this...

But seriously, lottery is a loaded term. It's often used as a metaphor for 'capitalist trick' (which smart people avoid).

Comment author: ChristianKl 11 December 2014 05:36:07PM 0 points [-]

The idea that thing average out depend on the assumption of success being due to a lot of independent events.

Computer simulations of markets with trades of equal skill have no problem to produce the kind of difference in financial results that the traders we observe in reality produce.

The fact that some authors write books that are more popular than the book of other authors is explainable without difference in skill or book quality.

Comment author: LizzardWizzard 11 December 2014 01:50:39PM -1 points [-]

in a Pickwickian sense everybody does, only their payoffs varies