Hacker News Reader

Comment by kbenson | Hacker News Reader

> there exists a large contingent of people who believe with all of their heart that God wanted them to find it, that the person who lost it should have been more careful, that they are just having a lucky day.

A large part of how America sees work, poverty and wealth was historically influenced by the Protestant Work Ethic, and I think that lingers quite a bit today. I think it's why a lot of people view the poor as lazy (because obviously if they weren't lazy, they wouldn't be poor, right?).

If you fervently believe hard work will lead to success, how else do you explain the unsuccessful?

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestant_work_ethic

View on HN

Looking at the history of religious thought in the US, it's not the Protestant work ethic per se, but in large part the "prosperity gospel" or prosperity theology [1] -- this belief that God will reward the right kind of Christians with material wealth. There are strong currents in Protestantism that posit that rewards are for the afterlife and that one may have to endure poverty in this earthly life and that's ok.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosperity_theology

It's cultural and more pragmatic.

Those who work hard, a positive outlook, maintain themselves and their families, are resourceful ... will likely be healthy and abundant.

The farmer who idles away doing not much will have a bad crop. The farmer who is responsible and diligent, mends his fences, ploughs well, keeps his equipment clean and proper and minds the livestock ... will likely do well.

Except in case of disaster of course, and then maybe some kind of metaphysical excuses might come into play!

> Except in case of disaster of course, and then maybe some kind of metaphysical excuses might come into play!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1755_Lisbon_earthquake

> Looking at the history of religious thought in the US, it's not the Protestant work ethic per se, but in large part the "prosperity gospel" or prosperity theology [1] -- this belief that God will reward the right kind of Christians with material wealth.

> Except in case of disaster of course, and then maybe some kind of metaphysical excuses might come into play!

there's a particularly distressing variation of this kind of belief that, upon hearing news that a terrible disaster has stricken a distant country, killing tens of thousands, concludes that those victims must necessarily have deserved such a fate -- by not living life according to the well-understood principles, or not worshipping the correct god.

that conclusion is perhaps a reasonable and logical one given belief in enough axioms like "there is an omnipotent god", "if we live a certain way god will reward us", "the universe is generally fair".

> that conclusion is perhaps a reasonable and logical one given belief in enough axioms like "there is an omnipotent god", "if we live a certain way god will reward us", "the universe is generally fair".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis

" upon hearing news that a terrible disaster has stricken a distant country, killing tens of thousands, concludes that those victims must necessarily have deserved such a fate "

This happens, but it's barely a thing.

I've never seen or heard of such a thing in real life, it's something you only hear about on CNN.

Services in mainline Churches don't really ever go into this kind of thing, the congregation would find it as wacky as you or I would.

Yeah, I'm not arguing that it's a common reaction

Which is funny because when I examine the writings of some Christian saints (e.g. St Teresa, Catholic in this case) they say things like (paraphrase) “try not to laugh at Christians who want you to pray for them to get money for being completely insane, they’re buying our food so you have to even if they are ridiculous” and then talk about how desire for immense suffering is a sign of spiritus progress

I think this doesn't quite get it. Will "hard work" lead to success? No, not exactly. I don't think anyone believes that. A prisoner in a work camp works hard.

Hard work combined with personal agency leads to success. Are you responsible for yourself? That is, are you taking responsibility for yourself? If so, you will find a way to make yourself successful. If you are looking for someone else to take responsibility for you, for your healthcare, for your retirement, for your general environment and well-being, then naturally you will be at the mercy of whoever happens to assume that responsibility.

I think the quote "The harder I work the luckier I get." applies here.

Hard work results in being able to take advantage of more opportunities. But you still have to have those opportunities.

I think this is a case where people confuse correlation and causation. Hard work correlates with success, but it doesn't cause success.

I propose an alternative lens:

What if "luck" was actually just an individual's ability to perceive an opportunity... intersected with their own feeling that they have permission to act upon it?

What if you were born in Puntland, Somalia and you were shit out "luck".

> What if "luck" was actually just an individual's ability to perceive an opportunity.

>>Hard work results in being able to take advantage of more opportunities. But you still have to have those opportunities.

That's what is meant by "being able to take advantage of more opportunities. You are better able to see that they exist. You are also primed to look for them. You also believe that you can succeed at that opportunity. BUT a key thing is that they actually have to exist. There are situations where you can work really hard and there be no opportunities to be successful (financially. Because we can redefine what successful means but that doesn't consider context). As illustrated above you can work really hard in jail and that can result in no gained success.

But we're talking about sayings. Sayings are never exact but rather hold a generalization in a nice and easy to remember package. Sayings always include a lot of implicit information. We could quibble about finer details but whether you should or shouldn't depends on the context of the conversation and whether the context the saying is provided in contextualizes that implicit information.

What this saying packages is:

Though work highly correlated with success it does not necessitate it. There are opportunities for success frequently around us and frequently unseen. Hard work will not result in seeing or being able to take advantage of said opportunities, but rather it correlates with the ability to. Furthermore, hard work often correlates with improvements in skill, which grant access to new opportunities that previously were not obtainable. While there are a lot of things that lead to success that correlate with hard work and while success itself in turn correlates with hard work, success itself is not granted to all those that work hard.

I bought a lottery ticket, and I have permission to win, yet I didn't.

I suspect luck is, in fact, simply the event of uncertainities crystallising favourably (or unfavourably if the luck is "bad"). Like it says in the dictionary.

Yes, to me luck is exactly that: the impact/outcome of uncertain or unpredictable circumstances. If they work out positively, then we say it was good luck, if negatively, then we say its bad luck. So luck is just a name for something that happens to us that we feel we didn't have any control over.

Which is also why many people believe we make our own luck: because in many situations that people attribute to luck, we can influence the outcome, consciously or otherwise.

"Trust your luck, Taran Wanderer," Llonio called after Taran as he left for the Free Commots. "But don't forget to put out your nets!"

> I think this is a case where people confuse correlation and causation. Hard work correlates with success, but it doesn't cause success.

Not true, hard work is a cause of success, just not the only cause. Luck (opportunity) is a factor, but a much more unreliable one at that. Genetics is also a factor (intelligence, passion, curiosity, playfulness).

I like to see this problem from the point of view of Reinforcement Learning - an agent playing a game in an environment, having to maximise rewards - which is the definition of success. The degree of success depends on many things, including:

- the environment (how complex it is, how many potential rewards it has for the agent)

- the internal structure of the agent (its ability to learn and perceive)

- bodily affordances (what the body can do)

- the exploration/exploitation strategy (will it try something new when it already has a strategy that is sort of ok)

- the amount of time it has to learn (life experience)

- if the agent exists as part of a multi-agent environment, then the strategies of the other agents count (cooperation/betrayal, tit for tat, forgiveness).

So there are many causes of success.

In the effort of simple counter proof: you can dig a hole with a spoon.

That requires a substantial amount of hard work but unlikely results in a measurable amount of success. Certainly one less than would be if the proper tools were used.

And I do agree with you that it is not the only factor. But this is why I differentiate cause and correlation. And the disagreement is likely to how we are using those terms. I am using "cause" in the colloquial sense (because context from above) of how most people do not see multivariate equations, but single factor (which is an unfortunate thing) ie. "cause and effect" (but we both know better). I am using "correlation" in the more rigorous manner meaning "related to; a statistical variable; or to be in association with".

And going back to your RL example, I think you mention one part which proves my point as well.

> the exploration/exploitation strategy

You may notice that many learning algorithms have a substantial amount of failure. After all, it is the failure that leads to success. BUT a key point is that it is not the effort put into the attempt that led to success, it is the adaptation of a new strategy after recognizing the failure. You could just as easily never visited that attempt method and thus your efforts would lead to a higher success/work factor. You could also never change strategies and your efforts would result in a substantially lower success/work factor. More explicitly "hard work" is a variable that is coupled with "strategy", and the value of "hard work" can be astronomically high but the value for success can be zero. And for this reason we say it is not "the cause" but rather "a factor" or "correlates with".

Also, as mentioned in a grandchild to my post, this is a saying which I gladly will admit does not cover the entire scope of what factors lead to success. Even the unpacking of implicit information cannot do that, as a full description of the path to success is rather cumbersome.

"Hard work" makes no sense as a cause of success. "Hard work" doesn't cause anything, rather, it is a means to an end.

We could contrive an example whereby "working hard" allowed you to "create more widgets in less time than anyone else" and so you receive a promotion (success). But even then we know that your success isn't from just "working hard", but is instead from the result of doing so. Given the context of this thread, I think we can agree that "creating the most widgets in the least time" can be done without "working hard".

I would argue pointing to "hard work" as a cause of success is confusing how a causal factor was reached with the factor itself.

It depends on what you work hard on, as you say in your other comment. You can work very hard on things that never advance you in life (many people do!) or you can work less hard on things that lead to opportunities and advancement.

> Hard work correlates with success, but it doesn't cause success.

Absolutely, that's a key part, I think.

There is hard work and smart work, if you simply work hard you may or may not advance the way you want, based on luck. If you work smart you will advance the way you want, but not as fast as someone who works smart and a tad harder ;)

> Hard work combined with personal agency leads to success.

Unless you get hit by a truck. Or unless you have a stroke. Or unless you are otherwise unlucky.

Because we do not live in a just world.

Success is the poison of this society

Intelligent choices will lead to success. Including creating roles that make sense.

As an employer .. if something can be automated, and you're paying someone to do it manually—do you deserve to get burnt?

Yes. I think that was the main point of all this.

Hmmmmm.

Okay, I’ll bite. I don’t think this large contingency of people exists. I’m sure a lot of people would keep lost money rather than turn it in, but I’m very skeptical that there is a widespread view that this is an acceptable or justifiable action.

I'm not sure I disagree with you in this specific case, but I think it's fairly easy to tweak some of the details (is there identification in the wallet? Is it obvious it's been missing for an extended period? What if it's not money, but some possession?) and vastly change the percentage of people that would respond one way or another, even when there might not really be much ethical difference.

That said, I was mostly pointing towards what I see as an explanation for the difference in attitudes regarding wealth and poverty and how it intersects with peoples opinions of personal responsibility, which I think does have a place in that scenario, even if it's not always the primary driver.

I'm not sure about that. I've seen multiple threads on reddit about cases where someone was overtipped or accidentally transferred money and there's usually a lot of comments arguing why they shouldn't have to return the money.

>who believe with all of their heart that God wanted them to find it

Yeah OP is way off on his God scapegoat. People in the West are far more likely to not return a lost wallet due to the wide variance in cultural identity. Japanese people have such a shared identity which promotes a level of empathy that only Americans in small towns could hope to replicate. Call it hospitality. Religion has nothing to do with it.

It cuts both ways at least, those with inherited wealth are just as unworthy as those who never accumulated any.

> The so-called Protestant Ethic then prevalent held that man was a sturdy and responsible individual, responsible to himself, his society, and his God. Anybody who could not measure up to that standard could not qualify for public office or even popular respect. One who was born "with a silver spoon in his mouth" might be envied, but he could not aspire to public acclaim; he had to live out his life in the seclusion of his own class.

Originally, sure, but I think it's been perverted over time (in the USA at least) to the point that it's really only applied to the destitute. Also, I think it's become enough of a cultural norm that the non-religious (or those subscribing to a different religion) still feel some pull towards the concept since they were raised where it was prevalent.

It also comes down to it being easier to spot someone in poverty than to spot someone that's rich but hasn't worked for it themselves. That might explain most of it.

> It cuts both ways at least, those with inherited wealth are just as unworthy as those who never accumulated any.

In theory, but in practice that just means that those with inherited wealth expend some of it on building a personal myth of being self-made independent of their family legacy. It's often paper thin, but as long as they make the gesture to ritually acknowledge the norm, it seems to suffice in practice.

Obviously, no parallel equivalent exists in the other end of the economic scale.

> In practice that just means that those with inherited wealth expend some of it on building a personal myth of being self-made independent of their family legacy.

This happens a fair bit in the UK. Due to the media's obsession with entrepreneurs, we see the wealthy gambling a bit of family wealth on a series of startup ideas that are clearly not made for the reality we inhabit but sound snappy and fin-techy (blockchain for banks, with no understanding of banks).

> Obviously, no parallel equivalent exists in the other end of the economic scale.

If you take away the spending of money bit, there is an equivalent at the other end of the economic scale.

There exists some person with inherited wealth that builds a personal myth of their inherited wealth not being responsible for their current wealth.

There exists some person in inherited poverty that builds a personal myth of their inherited poverty not being responsible for their current poverty.

The latter does happen.

By no parallel equivalent I mean that there is in practice no equivalent method for someone in overt poverty to fake virtue under the particular model of virtue being discussed as there is a wealthy person whose wealth is inherited rather than earned. (It is sometimes possible for a person who is not wealthy to fake wealth to fake virtue under the system, though it's more common for a person who is wealthy to fake greater wealth for that purpose—Donald Trump is, interestingly enough, an example of both this and the pretending inherited wealth is earned methods of faking the virtue of earned wealth.)

> It cuts both ways at least, those with inherited wealth are just as unworthy as those who never accumulated any.

Not really. Because the idea is "To become successful you must be hard working". And if we take that as "iff hardworking -> successful" then the reverse is true "if successful -> hardworking". That's why so many people think the rich are hardworking, even if they inherited their wealth (or a sizable portion).

> I think it's why a lot of people view the poor as lazy (because obviously if they weren't lazy, they wouldn't be poor, right?).

There's a sleeps-on-the-street homeless guy living in my neighborhood. I talk to him on occasion. A couple days ago he said he was bored off his ass, and that he was thinking of getting a part time job. I did not verbally respond to his potential quest for employment, but I did find myself wondering how he'd pull that off. He's perpetually drunk & unshowered. I doubt he could get a job if he wanted one. Are there any attainable jobs for an alcoholic who doesn't have a shower to use?

Not many that I can think of. Look out for local drug dealers?

Possible he could find a job that includes access to a shower. I know of once case where that has occurred. It was a job in a warehouse and there were showers and change rooms he could use. I believe he was actually provided with an unused room tucked away somewhere where could stay overnight before someone higher up in the company found out about it and put an end to that arrangement.

"Perpetually drunk" is more difficult and likely a deal breaker.

Lots of outside work, depending on locale. Lawn mowing (depending on the type of alcoholic. Best not to contribute to lost fingers or toes), ditch digging, etc.

Dumpster diving (if it's still worth while, which it might not be).[1] If you're serious about it, it's not really any less of a job than those American Pickers guys.[2]

There's lots of jobs out there, especially if you widen your criteria for "job".

1: I had an interesting run-in with a homeless man at a taco truck almost two decades ago. He was in clean clothes, had a bike with a trailer, and was trying to sell a 49ers jacket. My friends and I started talking to him and he explained that he found a few of the jackets in a dumpster behind one of the big sports stores around, and had a few other things to sell too. He explained that he and a few friends actually had a fairly nice camp (carpeted areas, make-shift shower with water in the day through solar of some sort, DVD player with TV hooked up to solar trickle cell). He camped a little outside the stalled development of a local apartment complex, where they had an agreement with the developers that they could stay there and they would keep people from squatting in the partially completed complex so it didn't sustain damage. He said he was on disability from the military, and liked living outdoors, but would probably rent an apartment for the winter with his girlfriend and friend. Honestly, I left the interaction feeling a little envious of his freedom.

2: https://www.history.com/shows/american-pickers

Getting sober and finding a shower aint as hard as it would seem.

Finding a shower no, but depending on how long he's been an alcoholic getting sober could be a different story, and alcohol withdrawal is one of the few withdrawals that can be fatal and frequently requires medical supervision

It depends on if he's a casual drunk or not.

The shower should be an easy problem to fix. I'm sure he can find access to running water _somewhere_ (if you're not in the desert).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com