Hacker News Reader

Comment by KaoruAoiShiho | Hacker News Reader

In relation to this article you need to have a bias in order to create friendships, even if it's an accurate and good judgement. That's just what the article says and what I was pointing out.

More generally about reasonable biases, in real life you need to give some credence to the impossibility of knowing the accuracy of your biases. Everyone thinks their judgements are better than the rest, and that leads to historical tragedies. That's why modern thinking has evolved into being about personal freedoms and leaving other people the heck alone instead of trying to impose one's personal judgements.

View on HN

Here on HN we spend a lot of time talking about business and engineering. In both cases, a successful person's career could be described as a series of judgments that were better (more astute) than the rest's. There are many areas where nobody's opinion can be distinguished from anybody else's except by counting the number of people that believe each one. One uncontroversial example would be art criticism. However, there are other areas where there are right answers to chase down.

Inside of the areas where external, natural forces are available to distinguish between sides of debates, no bias is necessary to form friendships or alliances. If you find yourself on the wrong side you can switch, and it won't be "disloyal" or "traitorous" because you'd be doing it to align yourself with something that isn't artificial. (For example, knowing the correct laws of physics instead of the wrong ones.)

> In [business and engineering], a successful person's career could be described as a series of judgments that were better (more astute) than the rest's.

I disagree with the premise you're basing the rest of your argument on. I would sooner say that a successful career in general (and engineering is no different) probably only hinges marginally on some intangible measure of aptitude (rephrased: aptitude is necessary but insufficient), and mostly results from some combination of coming from a privileged background (that is, encouraged from a young age that you're capable, exposed to good education, validation, having access to a professional network, etc.) and having had opportunity to thrive (for example, a lack of financial stress allowing one to pursue a risky business venture as opposed to having had to support one's family from a young age and therefore accepting a menial job straight out of high school).

Of course, one can find examples of people from underprivileged backgrounds succeeding in the sense you're referring to, but i don't for one second believe that simply "working hard" and "making the right choices" is enough to magically rise to the top of the economic dogpile. In essence, i think your statement is an instance of the just world fallacy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis).

I've tried to be measured and objective in my reply, but i see this as a common myth that deserves to die, so my apologies if i'm sounding abrasive.

> mostly results from some combination of coming from a privileged background

> and having had opportunity to thrive (for example, a lack of financial stress allowing one to pursue a risky business venture as opposed to having had to support one's family from a young age and therefore accepting a menial job straight out of school

> and engineering is no different

That sounds like wishful thinking.

How do you counter the following data points that suggest the opposite:

1. Software development contains a disproportionate number of successful Indians who come from much less privilege than the average American.

2. Despite having strong social safety nets European countries do not dominate tech.

Even in these countries underprivileged migrants without access to the safety nets are disproportionately successful.

In fact, strong social safety net encourages people to pursue their true call rather than go into tech for $$$. Very few people naturally want to do tech. E.g. famous study why many Indian women go to STEM, while Norwegians stay in women-dominated non-tech fields.

I really do think that aptitude matters most, but that's (subtly) beside the point. Tech is not perfect, there is wage fixing and lobbyig for regulatory capture and so on, but because there is an actual task to perform there is room for things other than failure. If someone rises up for reasons unrelated to their merit, that's a mistake of the system and a fault in the mentality of the people who allowed it. I'm not saying that the good is real, I'm arguing that merit is available for decision-making and is also the right path.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com