
Anna Karenina Principle - mgh2
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna_Karenina_principle
======
crdrost
There is a wonderful corollary in basic statistics modeling that success tends
to be a long-tailed distribution.

Reason: the easiest framework that allows modeling "the resulting random
variable _R_ is zero if any of the incoming variables _v_ ₙ is zero" is the
product formulation,

 _R_ = Πₙ _v_ ₙ

which by taking the logarithm of the individual variables becomes a standard
central-limit-theorem prediction; as a result success in such contexts follows
a log-normal distribution[1], which is long-tailed, even if the individual
factors _f_ ₙ = log _v_ ₙ do not look very normal.

This then leads to a growth pattern called Gibrat’s Law[2].

[1]: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Log-
normal_distribution](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Log-normal_distribution)
[2]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibrat%27s_law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibrat%27s_law)

------
noahlt
Incidentally, this is why UNIX uses zero for "success" and nonzero for errors.

~~~
phkahler
Zero is not an indicator of success. It is a lack of failure (NULL). That
distinction is why some people think the "flag" is inverted.

~~~
jacquesm
I always took this to be 'there is only one success, there are many failures',
there is only one zero, but many values other than zero. It seemed kind of
logical.

~~~
TheRealSteel
There is only one of any number.

~~~
jacquesm
That is true, in the pedantic sense but zero has many properties that other
numbers do not.

~~~
j1vms
> zero has many properties that other numbers do not

In particular, zero is the additive identity [0] in almost all the "usual"
number systems in which it appears. That is roughly speaking, it is the _only_
A such that X + A = X, for _all_ X, where X and A are elements of the number
system (e.g. field of real/complex numbers).

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Additive_identity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Additive_identity)

~~~
jakobegger
It's also the only real number that does not have an inverse element for
multiplication (there is no number b such that (a * 0) * b = a)

~~~
james_s_tayler
The integers form a group under multiplication though and a key property of a
group is that every element has an inverse. So how does the definition hold if
there is nothing that could be considered an inverse for the number 0? Curious
about this... I never thought about it before.

~~~
jacobolus
The integers do not form a group under multiplication. As you noticed, the
multiplicative inverse of any integer other than 1 or –1 is not an integer.

You might be thinking of the rational numbers (excluding zero).

~~~
james_s_tayler
Woops. You're right.

Looks like I need to play Group or Not Group.

[https://youtu.be/qvx9TnK85bw](https://youtu.be/qvx9TnK85bw)

But then even for addition what's the inverse of 0? -0?

------
decasteve
Each misspelled submission is misspelled in its own way.

~~~
jessaustin
Use the bookmarklet, people!

    
    
      javascript:window.location="http://news.ycombinator.com/ submitlink?u="+encodeURIComponent((document.location+'').replace(/.utm_.*$/,''))+"&t="+encodeURIComponent(document.title)

------
warpech
My friend has a kind of reverse saying: It is not possible to please everyone.
But to piss everyone off, that's not a problem.

------
jkhdigital
I just started reading Thomas Sowell's newest book _Discrimination and
Disparities_ and on the first page I encounter this passage:

"When there is some endeavor with five prerequisites for success, then by
definition the chances of success in that endeavor depend on the chances of
having all five of those prerequisites simultaneously. Even if none of these
prerequisites is rare—for example, if these prerequisites are all so common
that chances are two out of three that any given person has any one of those
five prerequisites—nevertheless the odds are against having all five of the
prerequisites for success in that endeavor."

Sounds like... the Anna Karenina Principle. He goes on to point out that this
simple and reasonable model produces extremely skewed distributions for
success in any particular endeavor.

~~~
jkhdigital
And this:

"One conclusion is that we should not expect success to be evenly or randomly
distributed among individuals, groups, institutions or nations in endeavors
with multiple prerequisites—which is to say, most meaningful endeavors. And if
these are indeed prerequisites, then having four out of five prerequisites
means nothing, as far as successful outcomes are concerned. In other words,
people with most of the prerequisites for success may nevertheless be utter
failures.

Whether a prerequisite that is missing is complex or simple, its absence can
negate the effect of all the other prerequisites that are present. If you are
illiterate, for example, all the other good qualities that you may have in
abundance count for nothing in many, if not most, careers today. As late as
1950, more than 40 percent of the world’s adult population were still
illiterate. That included more than half the adults in Asia and Africa."

------
ChrisMarshallNY
They mentioned Guns, Germs and Steel, and how Jared Diamond gave concrete
examples of this with domesticated animals.

One of the most awesome books ever written.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns,_Germs_and_Steel](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns,_Germs_and_Steel)

There's an entire generation that hasn't read it. Probably worth a shufti.

~~~
bryanlarsen
It's an interesting book but it's got a ton of glaring holes.

[https://www.reddit.com/r/AskAnthropology/comments/1rzm07/wha...](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskAnthropology/comments/1rzm07/what_are_some_of_the_main_anthropological/)

~~~
manfredo
Bear in mind that anthropologists are not historians. Anthropologists are
dedicated to the study of human culture, which is related to but no the same
as the study of human history. Guns, Germs, and Steel chiefly argued that
geography was a much stronger determining factor in the development of human
societies than culture. Unsurprising that those dedicated to studying human
culture weren't a fan of this framing. Contrary to the claims made in that
subreddit, Diamond's high level points have been widely influential and
positively received by historians. The claims made in that subreddit are not
at all representative of the attitude my university history professors had
towards Diamond's work.

Furthermore the claims that the book promotes a racist outlook is absurd.
Guns, Germs, and Steel is one of the most anti-racist explanations to the
disparities in levels of development that there is. One of the chief points of
the book is that these disparities are due to being in the right place at the
right time rather than racial superiority.

~~~
wahern
> these disparities are due to being in the right place at the right time
> rather than racial superiority

The problem is that many of the supposed adaptive phenotypes were conjecture
or based on poor science. Such sloppy characterizations, when combined with
the seeming authoritative weight of genetics, is fodder for racism.

It's like the stereotype in the U.S. that blacks are genetically better at
singing and sports. It's a "compliment" that actually serves to justify racism
--the implied corollary is that to be good at those things is to be
maladaptive at intellectual endeavors. There's no real scientific evidence to
back it up. What "evidence" exists is far better explained by environmental
factors (i.e. racism), but superficially it all seems intuitive because the
entire society is constructed upon that narrative. (Actually, traits like
athleticism _positively_ correlate with intelligence, but that's irrelevant
because the stereotype was flawed from inception.)

The only way to suppress such racist tendencies in humanity (to characterize
and group people en masse and to rationalize post hoc our behaviors) is to be
_highly_ skeptical about proposed substantive genetic differences,
particularly those which seemingly justify existing cultural or social
differences. When they do exist they almost never (if at all) operate in the
way we originally believed. Even recent scientific history (as in past couple
of decades) is littered with hypotheses and evidence of this sort that turned
out to be faulty.

~~~
xondono
> The problem is that many of the supposed adaptive phenotypes were conjecture
> or based on poor science.

What phenotypes? It’s been a while since I read GGS but as far as I remember
the argument of the book lies directly on the environment, not on human
adaptation on that environment.

Since reading the book I’ve seen a lot of comments claiming racism on Diamonds
part that to this day I can’t understand. I’ve seriously considered the
possibility that there’s two different editions of the book, because I find it
hard to justify any racist view using the book.

~~~
wahern
> That is, natural selection promoting genes for intelligence has probably
> been far more ruthless in New Guinea than in more densely populated,
> politically complex societies, where natural selection for body chemistry
> was instead more potent.

> ....

> That is, in mental ability New Guineans are probably genetically superior to
> Westerners....

It's hard to pinpoint anything as boldly suspect as what he wrote early in the
book, but in searching what stood out to me was his casual use of words like
"evolved" and "evolution". In various parts it's ambiguous whether he
perceives a genetic component to the evolution of various political societies.

I thought I remembered a part where he says some seafaring peoples score
higher on spatial reasoning tests, from which he infers an evolutionary
genetic adaption. But I couldn't find it.

FWIW, here's the full text: [https://archive.org/stream/fp_Jared_Diamond-
Guns_Germs_and_S...](https://archive.org/stream/fp_Jared_Diamond-
Guns_Germs_and_Steel/Jared_Diamond-Guns_Germs_and_Steel_djvu.txt)

~~~
manfredo
The full quote is:

> Besides this genetic reason, there is also a second reason why New Guineans
> may have come to be smarter than Westerners. Modern Euro- pean and American
> children spend much of their time being passively entertained by television,
> radio, and movies. In the average American household, the TV set is on for
> seven hours per day. In contrast, traditional New Guinea children have
> virtually no such opportunities for passive entertainment and instead spend
> almost all of their waking hours actively doing something, such as talking
> or playing with other children or adults. Almost all studies of child
> development emphasize the role of childhood stimulation and activity in
> promoting mental development, and stress the irreversible mental stunting
> associated with reduced childhood stimulation. This effect surely
> contributes a non-genetic component to the superior average mental function
> displayed by New Guineans.

> That is, in mental ability New Guineans are probably genetically superior to
> Westerners, and they surely are superior in escaping the devastating
> developmental disadvantages under which most children in industrialized
> societies now grow up. Certainly, there is no hint at all of any
> intellectual disadvantage of New Guineans that could serve to answer Yali's
> question.

This is part of the prologue where Diamond rejects this genetic explanation,
as well as Classical environmental determinism:

> A GENETIC EXPLANATION isn't the only possible answer to Yali's question.
> Another one, popular with inhabitants of northern Europe, invokes the
> supposed stimulatory effects of their homeland's cold climate and the
> inhibitory effects of hot, humid, tropical climates on human creativity and
> energy. Perhaps the seasonally variable climate at high latitudes poses more
> diverse challenges than does a seasonally constant tropical climate. Perhaps
> cold climates require one to be more technologically inventive to survive,
> because one must build a warm home and make warm clothing, whereas one can
> survive in the tropics with simpler housing and no clothing. Or the argument
> can be reversed to reach the same conclusion: the long winters at high
> latitudes leave people with much time in which to sit indoors and invent.

> Although formerly popular, this type of explanation, too, fails to survive
> scrutiny. As we shall see, the peoples of northern Europe contributed
> nothing of fundamental importance to Eurasian civilization until the last
> thousand years; they simply had the good luck to live at a geographic
> location where they were likely to receive advances (such as agriculture,
> wheels, writing, and metallurgy) developed in warmer parts of Eurasia. In
> the New World the cold regions at high latitude were even more of a human
> backwater. The sole Native American societies to develop writing arose in
> Mexico south of the Tropic of Cancer; the oldest New World pottery comes
> from near the equator in tropical South America; and the New World society
> generally considered the most advanced in art, astronomy, and other respects
> was the Classic Maya society of the tropical Yucatan and Guatemala in the
> first millennium A.D.

(some paragraphs later)

> Nevertheless, we have to wonder. We keep seeing all those glaring,
> persistent differences in peoples' status. We're assured that the seemingly
> transparent biological explanation for the world's inequalities as of A.D.
> 1500 is wrong, but we're not told what the correct explanation is. Until we
> have some convincing, detailed, agreed-upon explanation for the broad
> pattern of history, most people will continue to suspect that the racist
> biological explanation is correct after all. That seems to me the strongest
> argument for writing this book.

And the answer he offer to refute the racist biological explanation is a
geographic one.

~~~
wahern
> Why did New Guineans wind up technologically primitive, despite what I
> believe to be their superior intelligence?

That's a direct quote where he says flat-out what he believes. It sets the
tone for the entire book and the implications about how societies evolve. In
the context of everything else, one could reasonably infer that he believes
that Eurasians conquered the world because they _genetically_ evolved to
develop authoritarian, centralized societies where intelligence took a back
seat to being a pawn in a hierarchical political machine.

But he doesn't say that explicitly, and probably doesn't even think that. His
discussion of natural selection and evolution is so loose, equivocal, and as
you point out even contradictory, who knows what he believes. Point being, no
matter who's the good guy or bad guy, he uses very specious reasoning to build
a sophisticated theory about how the world is ordered, the very kind of
specious logic used in racist thinking everywhere.

~~~
manfredo
His discussion of New Guineans is used to directly refute the claim that
Eurasians were more advanced due to intelligence - New Guineans are just as
intelligent (or more intelligent in his opinion) as Europeans, but did not
develop advanced technology, thus intelligence cannot be the determining
factor in technological development. He rejects intelligence as a determining
factor, and spends the rest of the book after the preface explaining how
influence of geography is much more convincing causal factor.

How you reach the conclusion that this reinforces racist thinking,
particularly when he explicitly states that the geographic explanation he
offers in Guns, Germs, and Steel is meant as a refutation to race-based
explanations, is beyond me.

------
deepsun
Family psychologists say it's false -- there's only a handful of problems that
families are unhappy about. But there are millions surprising ways happy
families are happy.

~~~
Eli_P
It's hard to understand how family as an abstract entity can be happy. If we
don't have some metric of happiness for one, how can we add it up?

If abstract happiness existed it would be incomprehensible, like consciousness
in China brain[1] thought experiment. Or such happiness would be observable
for all but this particular family, i.e. show-off happiness. The latter is a
punchline in Dostoevsky books.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_brain](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_brain)

~~~
carapace
I'm not sure what you're saying, but I would point out that there is no such
thing as an abstract family. Families are real living organisms.

~~~
Eli_P
I mean family is a structure built on top of real human beings. Social
structures are real while everybody trusts in them, same as how any belief
system works, money, etc. Even the definitions of family are different in
various cultures.

What it means in real life, the happiness of family is not a sum of
everyone's, but some sort of compromise.

~~~
carapace
It's complex and unquantifiable, I agree.

------
egdod
When I worked in a research lab with some finicky bespoke equipment, I
remember the boss making a related point. If our experimental device is made
up of N components that are each 95% reliable, that sounds pretty good...
until you start thinking about how big N is, and how the overall reliability
is only 0.95^N. It doesn’t take long before you’re only getting data one day a
week or whatever.

~~~
zwkrt
This is a point to think about when combining 20 services with “5 9s” of
uptime in your favorite cloud provider.

~~~
anchpop
For those curious, .99999 ^ 20 is around 0.9998.

~~~
nojvek
And that’s 1.7 hours of downtime per year.

Usually WiFi/internet is a bigger downtime problem for most users.

------
niftich
Compare and contrast with the Swiss cheese model [1].

There's not enough cross-domain awareness and discussion of such quips that
approximate useful and widely-applicable mental models.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_cheese_model](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_cheese_model)

~~~
marcosdumay
The Swiss cheese model applies for redundant checks, the Anna Karerina
principle applies for cumulative checks. Or, if you get success if _any_ of
your components works, you get the Swiss cheese model, if you get success only
if _all_ your components work, you get the Anna Karerina principle.

------
ChrisMarshallNY
On a practical note, when I need to write code for a platform (I usually write
for Apple platforms), there's usually a dozen ways to do something, but only
one or two ways to do it right.

I just went through this today, as I was selecting the best way to trap and
pipe stdout.

~~~
ken
My experience is that with software there's very often _no_ correct way to do
it. It seems to me that most of engineering is simply deciding which
compromises are acceptable to you today. Or picking something, and shoring up
the leaks yourself.

~~~
inimino
There's always at least one right way, but it may not be cost-effective to do
it right.

~~~
nostrademons
Various impossibility theorems say otherwise, eg. the CAP theorem for
distributed computing, the scalability trilemma for blockchains, Arrow's
impossibility theorem for voting systems. Many times you have mutually
incompatible constraints that are both desirable, and the best you can do is
pick a point on the continuum that's satisfactory to the particular subset of
users you wish to serve.

~~~
a1369209993
> the CAP theorem for distributed computing

The (highly cost-ineffective) Right Thing is to invest enough in network
infrastructure that there _are_ no network partitions.

I don't know about the other examples off the top of my head, but they're
probably similar (and similarly impractical).

Anyone can design a bridge that won't fall down; engineering is the process of
figuring out which corners you can cut and still have the bridge _just barely_
not fall down.

~~~
heavenlyblue
>> The (highly cost-ineffective) Right Thing is to invest enough in network
infrastructure that there are no network partitions.

And... It’s no longer a distributed system.

~~~
wolf550e
It's still a distributed system if clients connect to the closest server,
speed of light latency between servers exists, and the system deals with
consensus between servers, even if the design assumes network partitions never
happen.

------
Alex3917
In organizational behavior, success is also multiplicative:

Success = ability * motivation * opportunity

(So if any factor is zero, success is zero.)

~~~
dmit
In criminal investigation, success is also multiplicative:

Success = means * motive * opportunity.

------
bitL
It's difficult to verify Tolstoy's original statement: does anyone know a
happy family?

~~~
wwarner
It's just a pithy quote that is obviously false and yet very difficult to
unlearn. People with different values can be equally happy. There are tons of
objectively crazy people who are happy, and even a few who are rich. There
lots of miserable people with "perfect lives". There are many approaches to
learning something. There are many ways to contribute to a successful team.
There are lots of good programming languages, and lots of different ways to
solve problems.

I'm not suggesting that there is no such thing as happiness or that wrong
can't be distinguished from right, I'm just pointing out that you'll probably
go through life being very judgmental and probably unhappy if you really
believe Tolstoy's quip.

------
peterwwillis
You could call this the "maze principle": there is one way to get out of the
maze, and all other routes are dead ends. (Actually, there's often more than
one way to get out, just like not all "happy families" are the same; it's just
much harder to find another correct route than it is to run into a dead end)

~~~
jacquesm
Solving mazes is dead easy: put your hand against one wall and keep it there,
now run.

~~~
macoovacany
Assumes the exit is on the periphery and you're not stuck on a loop (a free
standing wall in the interior).

~~~
saalweachter
Also, that there isn't a hungry Minotaur hunting in the maze.

------
carapace
Buried the lede I think:

"Correlations, Risk and Crisis: From Physiology to Finance"

Abstract

> We study the dynamics of correlation and variance in systems under the load
> of environmental factors. A universal effect in ensembles of similar systems
> under the load of similar factors is described: in crisis, typically, even
> before obvious symptoms of crisis appear, correlation increases, and, at the
> same time, variance (and volatility) increases too. This effect is supported
> by many experiments and observations of groups of humans, mice, trees,
> grassy plants, and on financial time series. A general approach to the
> explanation of the effect through dynamics of individual adaptation of
> similar non-interactive individuals to a similar system of external factors
> is developed. Qualitatively, this approach follows Selye’s idea about
> adaptation energy.

[https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222687003_Correlati...](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222687003_Correlations_Risk_and_Crisis_From_Physiology_to_Finance)

------
elcomet
Amazing book. I recommend it a lot.

~~~
Deimorz
Did you read a particular translation? It's a book I've always intended to
read and I started trying to read Constance Garnett's translation recently,
but the writing felt awkward and it turned me off pretty quickly. It felt like
I was reading poorly written fanfiction or a book intended for young adults
with limited vocabularies.

An example from one of the first few pages:

"There happened to him at that instant what does happen to people when they
are unexpectedly caught in something very disgraceful. He did not succeed in
adapting his face to the position in which he was placed towards his wife by
the discovery of his fault."

~~~
elcomet
I read a french translation so I cannot recommend an English one, sorry. But
it definitely didn't read like fanfiction in my translation!

~~~
norrius
I wonder if the French parts of the book were altered in the translation or
kept as is. Or do you get excerpts of untranslated Russian instead, huh?

~~~
elcomet
No excerpts of untranslated Russian. What about the English version?

But I read that Tolstoy participated in the french translation, since he spoke
french fluently.

------
mooreds
I wonder if this could be applied to success of frameworks or programming
languages. (Of course, you'd have to define "success" as something relatively
binary which might be hard to do.)

~~~
AnimalMuppet
Each tool unsuited to a job is unsuited in a different way?

------
bmmayer1
There is a crime version along the lines of, a criminal needs to be lucky 100%
of the time, the police only need to be lucky once.

~~~
james_s_tayler
There is a security version which is the inverse of that!

Security is fundamentally asymmetric as you have to make 0 mistakes and the
attacker only has to find one.

------
ryanmarsh
I must use this quote at least once a month with various clients, in an
attempt to awaken them to the source and solution for their delivery
performance problems

------
hyperpallium
aka the _weakest link_ : because a chain breaks if any link breaks. (Being
more mechanically-minded, I prefer this less literate metaphor.)

I haven't read AK; from context, is that really what Tolstoy meant? Without
context, the well-known quote could be read as happy families are alike in
that they are happy, since, in practice, happy families are not identical.

------
ranprieur
None of these examples are about being good, exactly. They're about being a
good fit for another thing.

------
lifeisstillgood
So, how do I raise a happy family?

Or rather, I have a idea of starting a MOOP company - Massive Open Online
Psychology.

By monitoring a household, listening to conversations (interruptions, time to
respond, aggression etc) and even vision (physical contact etc) it should be
possible to see where we all are on some scale of "good interpersonal
relations"

And presumably guide us to be better

Let's say a SatNav for your life

------
breck
The "Perfect Principle" would be a much better name.

------
robot
Can you fix the typo anna KARERINA please?

------
BurningFrog
Oh, the "weakest link" syndrome!

------
informativeguy
Is it Karerina or Karenina?

~~~
_kst_
It's Karenina. There's a typo in the title.

------
mproud
This post has a misspelling. Can you fix this?

`s/Katerina/Karenina`

~~~
mkl
To be clear, the title's misspelling is "Karerina".

~~~
quickthrower2
He is clearly stating the substitution assuming time is reversed.

~~~
mkl
That can't be, as "Katerina" is neither the mistake nor the correct name.

------
Pimpus
Yeah, I've noticed this to be true in many different ways. As Jesus said, the
path to heaven is narrow.

