OT: “The Self-Made Myth”

[davelj]

I haven’t read this book yet but I plan to. Based on the summary in this article, this looks like a book I’ve been waiting for someone to write.

http://www.alternet.org/story/155149/the_self-made_myth%3A_debunking_conservatives%27_favorite_–_and_most_dangerous_–_fiction_?page=entire

Don’t get me wrong, I have an appreciation of markets and many things capitalist (and even certain insights of that kook Ayn Rand!), but… Marx (among many others) had some valid points as well.

I particularly like the fact that the authors address Taleb’s issue of “luck”, thus making this look like a pretty robust analysis of “success” and from where it comes. Anyhow, I’m looking forward to reading the book.

[briansd1]

I agree on the point luck. Being born in the right family and environment are the most important factor.

People love the self-made myth because it gives them relevance. Psychologically, it’s more impressive than simple luck. And since “successful” people have more power that narrative becomes dominant.

I’ve ordered the book. We should have on online Piggington book club.

[Anonymous]

Of course this is an intractable question. It’s impossible to separate circumstance from individual choices. But most everybody loves to talk about it!

Malcom Gladwell has written a few books on this subject. Here’s one I enjoyed:

Outliers: The Story of Success

One of the themes of this book is how seemingly minor circumstances can have a huge impact on success. For example, in some professional sports the birthdays of all the athletes tend to cluster around a certain time of year. In some leagues, the data is such that everyone was born in a three month window or so and nobody was born in the other months. The explanation? The cutoff dates for age groups in youth sports leagues gives an advantage to the older kids (as being 11 months older can make a huge difference when you are only five years old.) The “better”/older kids get more playing time, coaching attention, promotion to club teams, etc. and thus get better still…

The book is full of statistical and specific examples of how successful people had a great deal of “luck.” Some of the examples are light and the analysis can sometimes be shallow, but overall it does provide some thought-provoking material.

The challenge when adopting these ideas to government policy is to eliminate the imbalances that are due to “luck” without removing the incentives that drive success. Often attempts to balance out “luck” end up encouraging people to find ways to be labeled “unlucky.”

[Rich Toscano]

[quote=pri_dk]
The challenge when adopting these ideas to government policy is to eliminate the imbalances that are due to “luck” without removing the incentives that drive success. [/quote]

Exactly what I was thinking as I read the article…

I suppose it would be a nice first step if everyone would acknowledge that luck DOES play a role, and we could figure it out from there…

[Anonymous]

[quote=Rich Toscano]I suppose it would be a nice first step if everyone would acknowledge that luck DOES play a role, and we could figure it out from there…[/quote]

I’ll acknowledge that luck plays a role, especially for those who are more successful than me.

But everyone else just needs to work harder!

[sdduuuude]

Just because luck plays a role doesn’t mean that government manipulation, whether or not it changes the role of luck, is justified.

[Rich Toscano]

[quote=sdduuuude]Just because luck plays a role doesn’t mean that government manipulation, whether or not it changes the role of, is justified.[/quote]

Perhaps. That’s a good debate to have, though, don’t you think? But it’s a different debate than you’d have with someone who thinks luck doesn’t play a huge role in these things.

[sdduuuude]

[quote=Rich Toscano][quote=sdduuuude]Just because luck plays a role doesn’t mean that government manipulation, whether or not it changes the role of, is justified.[/quote]

Perhaps. That’s a good debate to have, though, don’t you think? But it’s a different debate than you’d have with someone who thinks luck doesn’t play a huge role in these things.[/quote]

I’m not sure there are many who would ever say it doesn’t.

I wonder if the lottery is a good example of a government program designed to eliminate luck from the equation.

[sdrealtor]

How about bad luck? Thats most of what I’ve had

[Anonymous]

I think if we are going to use terms like “justified” then we need to try to define the parameters. Who decides what is justified and/or what criteria do we use?

The issue that many today have with government programs are that they take from some and give to others and therefore are inherently “unfair.” We often hear the term “redistribution” of wealth these days.

The OP article asserts that everyone obtains their wealth as a result, at least in some part, of government policy and institutions. So it is reasonable for the the government to take some wealth back so that others have the same opportunities. In other words it is “fair” that people be obligated to participate in the cycle.

(my interpretation, I’m sure there are others…)

I think the challenge for policy finding the balance between “fairness” (i.e. equalizing “luck”) and making wise (and sustainable) investment choices.

Some policies are outrageously unfair but may be good investments for society. Give a poor, but bright, young student a science scholarship and they may someday make a tenfold contribution to society in return. At face value, the scholarship is unfair – you are giving the money to one person. But it still may be a wise role for government to encourage these things.

For many policies, however, it is difficult to identify the potential return on investment. Do food stamps really generate an economic return?

And then there are the ethical questions; even if the cold calculations of investment return don’t pencil out, does government have any moral obligation to prevent hunger and suffering…and do we try to distinguish between hardship caused by bad “luck” vs. personal decisions?

[Anonymous]

[quote=sdrealtor]How about bad luck? Thats most of what I’ve had[/quote]

But you ain’t no Albert King!

[sdduuuude]

[quote=pri_dk]The OP article asserts that everyone obtains their wealth as a result, at least in some part, of government policy and institutions.[/quote]

But not by their own choice, ironically.

When you force someone into a position such that they have no choice it increases the effect of luck, not personal choice, on their life.

The logic seems to be as such:
Because the government intervenes and reduces the effect of personal choice in people’s success, the government must further intervene to ensure luck does not play a part.

It’s insanity.

[quote=pri_dk]Who decides what is justified and/or what criteria do we use[/quote]

Exactly.

[Anonymous]

[quote=sdduuuude]The logic seems to be as such:
Because the government intervenes and reduces the effect of personal choice in people’s success, the government must further intervene to ensure luck does not play a part.

It’s insanity.[/quote]

I’m not sure about your interpretation.

First, the goal is not to “reduce the effect of personal choice.” It’s to reduce the negative effect of circumstances that are not a result of choice.

And the idea that the government must “further” intervene isn’t part of the argument at all. You seem to be implying that it’s being “piled on.”

I mentioned in my post that the logic implies that there is a cycle – the government provides the framework, we all participate, some come out ahead, and those that end up with more should provide the funding for continuing the process…

It can work and is logical, provided the process is setup with sustainable parameters.

Today we have some policies that are sustainable, others that are not. For example there is nothing inherently unsustainable about progressive taxes. Even debt spending can be sustainable, depending upon the terms of the debt and economic growth. But a continuing progression of commitments to open-ended obligations will never be sustainable.

[sdduuuude]

[quote=pri_dk]First, the goal is not to “reduce the effect of personal choice.” It’s to reduce the negative effect of circumstances that are not a result of choice.[/quote]

Great. The government is regulating luck now.

[quote=pri_dk]And the idea that the government must “further” intervene isn’t part of the argument at all. You seem to be implying that it’s being “piled on.”[/quote]

It is, without a doubt, being piled on. Since about 1920, I’d say.

The logical fact remains – when the government starts making decisions for people, it removes choices from every-day people, increasing their reliance on luck.

There’s no two ways about it from my perspective.

And I’m quite certain that the government shouldn’t be in control of luck.

Is it even possible to control luck?
Isn’t that the definition of luck?

Somebody writes a book saying luck plays a part in people’s success and all of the sudden, we need the government to get involved to fix the whole problem.

True insanity.

[outtamojo]

[quote=briansd1]I agree on the point luck. Being born in the right family and environment are the most important factor.

People love the self-made myth because it gives them relevance. Psychologically, it’s more impressive than simple luck. And since “successful” people have more power that narrative becomes dominant.

I’ve ordered the book. We should have on online Piggington book club.[/quote]

Let’s not forget luck is also involved in being born with half a brain as opposed to being born a moron.

[Author]

Posts