[riggernetard]

> study after study shows that broadly this is just luck

quite confused at this one, what studies? as an example, surely the fact that page and brin created PageRank for web searches led to google being so successful https://www.theverge.com/2019/12/4/20994361/google-alphabet-...

> best there's no behavior to encourage, person A just got lucky

the behavior of ... understanding and creating a useful service like pagerank? or amazon?

> relying on this dynamic entrenches privilege

this is quite ridiculous, this is only believable if you consider having 3-4/5 quintile parents as 'privileged' as having ten billion net worth. equally so when you look at where their parents came from (quite often, poor farmers who immigrated) or their history (jews who had to leave poland or germany due to the nazis js)

> because it's much harder for women and people of color to become the next Steve Jobs

so? heard of 'lisa su'?

[camgunz]

> quite confused at [broadly this is just luck], what studies?

I would recommend reading Success and Luck [1]; it's well-researched.

>> relying on this dynamic entrenches privilege

> this is quite ridiculous, this is only believable if you consider...

There are pretty good [2] papers [3] about it, which convinced me and might convince you.

> so? heard of 'lisa su'?

Your post uses a lot of anecdotal evidence, which is a fallacy [4]. I encourage you to build up a habit of diving deeper. Oftentimes our intuitions are wrong because they're influenced by our local experiences, which are very rarely representative. It's why we do things like run studies and experiments, because we've learned we can't trust our experiences and intuitions. This pattern is, unfortunately, widespread and leads to a lot of problems.

This is actually a great little microcosm of one such problem: income inequality is a huge problem in the US; societies with dramatic income inequality are historically corrupt and unstable. However, it's counter to a lot of people's intuitions and experiences. So whenever someone tries to rally people to address it, people like you toss out lots of unrepresentative anecdotes (and employ other common fallacies) to try and convince people either it's not a problem, or that it's a feature and not a bug. And it works, because these fallacies are common bugs in the way people think about things.

It's up to us to recognize these patterns in ourselves and others and work against them.

[1]: https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691167404/su...

[2]: https://www.nber.org/papers/w23733

[3]: http://www.equality-of-opportunity.org/assets/documents/race...

[4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence

[riggernetard]

Anecdotal evidence doesn't really count when it's something you have personal and thorough experience with. Sun sets and rises, don't need study for that. Similarly, people who start and direct large enterprises have a strong command of people and understanding of their field. "Studies" don't disprove that.

> income inequality is a huge problem in the US; societies with dramatic income inequality are historically corrupt and unstable.

This seems ... less than proof of anything. Past societies were highly unequal due to 'half the population gotta farm' at the very least, so comparing them to modern societies seems like a mistake, and at any rate the 'successful' integrating empires were, well, integrating empires. Modern society hasn't existed for that long, and the US (land of inequality!) is quite a bit more stable than many poorer and more income equal (or ... poorer and less income equal!) countries. Historically, societies in europe were much more successful than ones outside europe, yet you wouldn't take that correlation as a causation, so i won't take yours either.

Anyway, you cant just throw a book at me and expect me to read it for a HN comment without laying out its argument at all lol

Your second paper says that 'racial discrimination exists'. The idea that asians somehow derive most of their success from systemic racism and entrenchment - "Overall, these results paint a picture of a rigid income structure by race and ethnicity over time" - seems absurd. Your second paper doesn't say anything about meritocracy though.

Your third study is also just 'black people are poorer'. That doesn't mean understanding of an opportunity (not 'general skill', but local, specific skill) doesn't lead to success. So i'm left with a book (i don't have time to read it, it's midnight) and two papers that don't relate to your point. Maybe asians are just really smart? Maybe they work really hard as kids while the whites play tennis or soccer, which explains why despite being 13% of the population they're 52% of the coders?

[camgunz]

You are just gonna have to get a different account for me to respond to you. That username is super offensive.