Do you know why the error bars in the replication are smaller than the original one?  (just more people?) And with which confidence is the null hypothesis (difference = 0) is rejected in both cases?

I noticed the most successful people, in the sense of advancing their career and publishing papers, I meet at work have a certain belief in themselves. What is striking, no matter their age/career stage, it is like they are already taking certain their success and where to go in the future.

I also noticed this is something that people from non-working class backgrounds manage to do.

Second point. They are good at finishing projects and delivering results in time.

I noticed that this was somehow independent from how smart is someone.

While I am very good at single tasks, I have always struggled with long term academic performance. I know it is true for some other people too.

What kind of knowledge/mentality am I missing? Because I feel stuck. 

This statement would not apply here, because:

• the post is about caring too much/only about something/someone we care about, and it does not imply about not caring/not favouring yourself
• caring about your child has a priority on caring about you, hence the topic of the post

Indeed, I would argue that it is important to care about oneself, if you want to help others for example, or have a nice life (or for example if you want to get a promotion, etc...).

But when you care too much, and do not look into the big picture of your actions, bad things can happen. Simple naive example: European lords/current dictators sucking up the money to build for themselves better castles/palaces instead of pouring some into society.

That's funny :)

Hi @Viliam .

On

  2) Some people destroy value.

Isn't this true even in a work place where people are paid? While in such a case, the person might be fired, sometimes the damage is too big (and among the possibilities I am thinking about, it seems someone working has a higher chance of creating a black swan than someone not working (maybe this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_CrowdStrike_incident)).

Anyway, if principle like the Pareto principle are true, we only need 20% of the working force to produce most of the goods. If you are talented, a UBI is a road to join that 20% :)

My model for the UN is

Basically, your model is: "UN wants the best people. To achieve that goal, it should pay them."

and my model for the (typical) UN interns

UN internships are an important way to facilitate people entering UN affiliated careers, higher the chance of getting a UN or international organisation job after. They train you. They boost your CV. They are an amazing opportunity to network, and perhaps enjoy your time.

I guess when you say 

My model is: "Some ambitious people use the association with UN to achieve their own political goal. They are quite happy to do it for free."

and your following text, this invalidates my first point. Though somehow, if I assume on the long run p(working at UN or other organisation|internship at UN) > p(working at UN or other organisation|no internship at UN), then perhaps I should have noticed that my premise of UN was probably false :)

I am sure these people are ambitious. My main point was that the sample selection of UN interns is not a good idea if you want to solve the problems UN says wants to solve, as you have already written. But I guess all of this is already acknowledged in EA-like spaces.

Your comment was quite detailed and clear, a part of this point...

deliver some extraordinary results.

Understanding this might perhaps help towards finding solutions (that are not of the kind lets break up the UN).

ChristianKI, I will try to explain better the points you raised:

• In this case, fantasy land ~ simple toy model. Obviously the world is way more complex, but this is how I approach many problems, starting from naive experiments. Then, you could argue that it would have been better to use a better toy model, something it would be interesting to explore.
• Never assumed personal connections should not matter (I wrote: "that does not only..."). On the contrary, I think personal connections are important. E.g. academia, were you get jobs with reference letters. This is a very good way to find competent people (e.g. in hard sciences). And so they are good towards what people are supposed to do. They can be useful for example for people with small CVs, but huge potential. But they are not the norm. My point was more about what to do when you do not have a clear defined scenario of merit, and personal connections mainly based on your social status are what matter. 

As someone coming from a "poor" European immigrant family, I have always found it interesting that in the U.S. people with big cars can be considered poor.

These U.S. people, the "poor" Anoxan and I know that the abundance of something does not mean having the opportunity to live life. Ask King Midas.

An N-fold increase in selected productivity, like in the number of winter socks or the amount of gold you have, does not mean your life opportunities are going to drastically increase allowing you to gain momentum towards an escape velocity from your miserable situation.

Obviously, many other things, e.g. housing, has still not properly scaled.^[1] And so rent can be high in many parts of the world (in particular cities, where there are plenty of juicy opportunities). This makes life miserable to many people (cause your pay does not cover enough rent, so or you go far from work, but then you need to commute, or you keep peeling your check). But flipping the argument about a UBI increasing the average costs, or profits made by the police, a decrease in rent might also bring unintended consequences.

So. Is this about goods? Are goods the answer to overcome poverty? Maybe. I do not know. They certainly play a role. Especially in societies where sharing your riches is uncommon. 

Why sharing? I mean, for many of us with riches the reason we are well off is probably because we were born in families. And why we were born in these families? 

Even if you believe in fate, genetics, or pure randomness, imagine repeating the event of your birth (without knowing the prior on your birth geography, social status, etc..). In which kind of world would you like to live? In a world where resources are shared across humans, or one where each one is for themselves?

I would argue that in a resource sharing environment I can higher the probabilities to choose different kinds of sufferings in my life, ending poverty. While in a more individualistic society you can have concepts like the poverty-barrier.

I am quite agnostic about the correct method to end poverty. But in my opinion, this is something a UBI could potentially address.^{[2] [3] [4]}Now, if some people end up living the same life even with a UBI, so be it. If others find the way to embrace a new path, so be it. It is not that a Poverty-Restoring force will just come from a UBI.

I am a bit proud, so maybe I would not have taken a UBI. I had food, and a place to sleep. But in an individualistic society, a UBI would have allowed me to buy the books that made me the scientist I am today (instead of going to work to buy them (though temporarily working can teach you good lessons)). Or think less about which kind of path I can take because I want to help my family (so being more selfish and follow a passion). Or to go to vacation. Or allow many of my friends and family to go to art school or university.^[5] 

A UBI would allow certain people to change the probabilities of their future.

Then, if I really need to think in economic terms, a nurtured human creativity can easily bring you a (M*N)xfold increase in productivity.

1. ^{^}

   For whatever reasons.

2. ^{^}

   Which is the correct way of implementing a UBI? I do not know. But I think we would not need a UBI if from childhood we were taught the value of sharing.

3. ^{^}

   I am personally more for nurturing sharing values in people and rely more on communities rather than big governments/organizations. A lot of people I know unfortunately are not used to these values, but hopefully this will change in the future.

4. ^{^}

   I also would like a UBI or similar to be implemented by a mix of experts with poor/non-poor backgrounds. This is because I discovered that a lot of the agencies that want to mitigate suffering (e.g. FAO ) are filled with rich background people, from many countries, that are well paid to solve problems they do not understand IMHO.

5. ^{^}

   I mean, there are countries that offer something like UBIs to their entire (small) population, and it seems to more or less work, though in this cases other people have to suffer (probably because we still did not scale jobs like construction).

6. ^{^}

   Now, if some people end up living the same life even with a UBI, so be it. If others find the way to embrace a new path, so be it.