patrick.net

Faulty Gladwellian inductive reasoning. An MIT scientist years ago made up a computer model in which a population of identical 'twins' were posited in his model, but with different 'life variables'. The 'twins' did not accomplish the same outcomes in spite of having equivalent starting points, and the 'rich' and the 'poor' outcomes followed Gaussian distributions based on these random variables and probabililty.

Stochastics as much as anything determine success, so looking at a successful person without looking at his larger summed peer group and their variable results i.e. simply working back from what the 'successful' person did as a key to duplicating their success is meaningless. Often it is a result of whimsical variables and probability. Following 'the path' of a braying successful person may actually be counter productive to one's circumstances. Con artists use this all the time to exploit the gullible by clothing themselves in grifter 'success'..

That doesn't mean you won't improve your odds with talent and skill, it just means there are a lot of talented and skilled people who through the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune never make it to being successful at a high level.

And, of course, the plethora of idiots who make it beyond their highest levels of incompetency through hook, crook, cheating, connections or politics just show that there is no justice in the world of 'success'.

Ceffer says

the plethora of idiots who make it beyond their highest levels of incompetency

I work in financial services and for the most part, the "top heavy" management types are basically idiots who have clever ways of deflecting blame and playing politics.

There are no Issac Newtons in that crowd.

Eric Weinstein had an interesting vid a while ago in which he talked about the 'university within the university'. He was accidentally invited to what was a closed meeting with a secret handshake. It turned out to be his faculty group with a very small, select group of anointed grad students. Some were talented, others merely the 'connected elite' you see from any private school. They were very upset that he was there, because he was from the non-anointed pleb grad group.

Basically, he discovered that the famous Ivies and institutions are 'brand names', and even if highly selective, they turn out a group of stamped brand name graduates. However, the empowered faculties only really promote a much, much smaller group. They could have the 'doner fix' or the 'familial fix', or they could be spectacularly gifted few mingled with the others, designated for 'fast track' success.

There is a 'glass ceiling' and elitism that these institutions have always had, which is why they don't mind squandering the brand name on hapless SJW crap or even moronic equal opportunity admissions. It doesn't affect the 'university within the university' skull and bones types at all.

Ceffer says

They could have the 'doner fix' or the 'familial fix', or they could be spectacularly gifted few mingled with the others, designated for 'fast track' success.

What do you think my parent firm (not the trading piece) does? ... we direct funds towards universities, institutes, etc, for rich patrons.

Guess how many of their nephews or children get to later attend brand name schools, as a result? Yep, it's the Jared Kushner fast track!

Rin says

Ceffer says

the plethora of idiots who make it beyond their highest levels of incompetency

I work in financial services and for the most part, the "top heavy" management types are basically idiots who have clever ways of deflecting blame and playing politics.

There are no Issac Newtons in that crowd.

I remember the Bank of America Internal Phone Book: Literally thick as a brick and Full of Presidents and Vice Presidents: Every branch had some. Big Titles so they could talk to Companies and "look large" while peddling high-rate loans.

rocketjoe79 says

Vice Presidents

In finance, everyone's a VP. It's basically the equivalent of Senior (Business) Analyst or perhaps better stated ... Seasoned Bullshit Artist.

rocketjoe79 says

Rin says

Ceffer says

the plethora of idiots who make it beyond their highest levels of incompetency

I work in financial services and for the most part, the "top heavy" management types are basically idiots who have clever ways of deflecting blame and playing politics.

There are no Issac Newtons in that crowd.

I remember the Bank of America Internal Phone Book: Literally thick as a brick and Full of Presidents and Vice Presidents: Every branch had some. Big Titles so they could talk to Companies and "look large" while peddling high-rate loans.

My employer deals with them. From what I can tell, I think they have hundreds of VPs.

lol. It works though. I recall the first email between me and one of them - I thought I was talking to someone important, until my coworker told me "oh, they're all VPs at BofA"

Hircus says

they're all VPs at BofA

Yep, in Finance VP is below Director.

https://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2008/02/06/correlations-of-iq-with-income-and-wealth/

The relationship between IQ and income is somewhat correlated; in general, people with higher IQs make more money:



But the relationship between IQ and wealth is all over the map:



This suggests that there is some meritocracy in the distribution of income, not so much in who owns yachts and has deep investment portfolios.

Patrick says

some meritocracy in the distribution of income

The "some" part is true, esp in areas like engineering/sciences, but fall apart when you get into areas like financial services.

It's also not just how much you earn, but how much you save/invest/merchandize . I firmly believe there is a mindset of investment and positive risk taking that your family and culture helps you develop, and the earlier you start practicing it the better you do long term.

I think this also has to do with when you come from a "poor mindset" upbringing, and for instance, cheap out of professional grade help or professional grade tools or materials that just end up costing you more money or opportunity in the long term. Or worse, when you get the opposite, and people just throw money away because they think looking rich is the same as accumulating wealth. Knowing what to spend money on (and what not to spend money on) is a definite differentiator.

In fact, that's the primary reason I'm on patnet and other financial sites

Zak says

people just throw money away because they think looking rich is the same as accumulating wealth

That's a type of Shakespearean flaw, even among smart people, and that's feeling like one belongs to a grouping.

Zak says

It's also not just how much you earn, but how much you save/invest/merchandize .

I had a moment of enlightenment in my first job: Most people's problem is that they always spend most of what the earn, no matter how much they earn.

If they would just keep their expenses constant, they could retire far earlier than otherwise and enjoy life instead of just buying things.

The only thing I really want from money is not to have to obey any boss. That's about it. Everything else is secondary.

Patrick says

The only thing I really want from money is not to have to obey any boss. That's about it. Everything else is secondary.

Exactly my feelings.

Patrick says

The only thing I really want from money is not to have to obey any boss. That's about it. Everything else is secondary.

Well, I do like to fuck hoes, so I guess that's a no 2 for me.

FYI, my bosses have left me free. Since I'd made all 3 senior partners $100M+, no one bothers me anymore.