A Critical Response: Talent vs Luck¶
Abstract¶
The Talent vs Luck: the role of randomness in success and failure (by A. Pluchino. A. E. Biondo, A. Rapisarda) has been written about in MIT's Technology Review and Scientific American (and possibly more). The authors create a simulation and create a model that they call the Talent vs Luck model (TvL). The authors conclude:
We can conclude that, if there is not an exceptional talent behind the enormous success of some people, another factor is probably at work. Our simulation clearly shows that such a factor is just pure luck. -- A. Pluchino. A. E. Biondo, A. Rapisarda, https://arxiv.org/abs/1802.07068
We contend that this conclusion is baked into the structure of their TvL model from the very beginning. The TvL model that they use in this paper has 80 time steps. Everyone starts with the same capital (10 units), and over these 80 timesteps their capital doubles, halves, or stays the same with some probability and some dependence on their underlying talent.
Within their model, we estimate that a person in the 95th percentile of talent has a ~6.1% chance of doubling their money each timestep, a person in the 5th percentile has a 3.4%. This means that in the TvL model the probability difference per timestep between a person in the 95th quantile vs the 5th quantile is ~2.6%!! Starting from this incredibly small difference in probabilities even between outliers essentially guarantees the conclusion before it even begins. Further, even granting a person God-like talent in the TvL model yields an expected value lower than what she started with! In light of these arguments it is clear that talent does not matter much to their model. Conclusions outside of the TvL model are based on a tilted foundation.
Obviously, we have to back up our claims and explain how we derive these values. We do that in the following Jupyter Notebook. Further, we are releasing our code in the hope that others would check, improve our analysis, and perhaps collaborate. Finally, we will limit our response to the first two sections of the TvL paper in this post, and will turn to the rest of the paper in later posts.
Introduction¶
The Talent vs Luck: the role of randomness in success and failure has found quite a response in the wider public's mind and written about in (at least) the following writeups:
Various quotes:
Their simulations accurately reproduce the wealth distribution in the real world. But the wealthiest individuals are not the most talented (although they must have a certain level of talent). They are the luckiest. And this has significant implications for the way societies can optimize the returns they get for investments in everything from business to science. -- https://www.technologyreview.com/s/610395/if-youre-so-smart-why-arent-you-rich-turns-out-its-just-chance/
and
The team shows this by ranking individuals according to the number of lucky and unlucky events they experience throughout their 40-year careers. “It is evident that the most successful individuals are also the luckiest ones,” they say. “And the less successful individuals are also the unluckiest ones.”
That has significant implications for society. What is the most effective strategy for exploiting the role luck plays in success? -- https://www.technologyreview.com/s/610395/if-youre-so-smart-why-arent-you-rich-turns-out-its-just-chance/ (emphasis added)
Discussions on various commentary websites: