
Michael Lewis and the parable of the lucky man taking the extra cookie (2017) - Tomte
http://kottke.org/17/06/michael-lewis-and-the-parable-of-the-lucky-man-taking-the-extra-cookie
======
tempestn
If I recall correctly, this isn't quite accurate—with four cookies, no one ate
the fourth. So they changed to five cookies, and the group leader then usually
took the fourth (with no one taking the fifth).

~~~
pbreit
The researcher says it was 4 cookies and the leader nearly always took the 4th
(and ate it messily). The researcher attributed it to "power" but I can see
that luck was certainly involved.

[https://hbr.org/2016/10/dont-let-power-corrupt-
you](https://hbr.org/2016/10/dont-let-power-corrupt-you)

~~~
tempestn
I wonder if he's simplifying when describing it, since the aside about no one
eating the last cookie when there are only four is kind of beside the point. I
can't find the original study. I definitely recall listening to an interview
where the researcher mentioned having to add a fifth cookie, but of course I
could be mistaken too.

~~~
inyourtenement
I wonder why people are having such a hard time taking this study at face
value, given the plain description from the researcher. I'm not saying this is
a universal effect, but several comments are doubting that it ever happened.

I think you're misunderstanding the comment about nobody taking the last
cookie. He's setting up the situation. Every group left one cookie (at first),
and then usually the leader to that cookie.

~~~
tempestn
No, I recall a specific comment that they had to tweak the experiment to add a
fifth cookie since no one took the fourth, then they saw the effect described
here, lip smacking and all, with the fourth cookie.

Ah, here we go—I found where I heard it. It was in an episode of the podcast
"Hidden Brain", called "The Perils of Power." It's an interview with the
researcher who ran the experiment, Dacher Keltner. He starts describing the
experiment at about 16:20, and explicitly discusses why they added a fifth
cookie:

"Well this was where it's really interesting because the rules of politeness
suggest you should really not be that uncouth person that takes the last
cookie off the plate, and so we did pilot testing for the experiment and no
one would take that fourth cookie—so that's why we added the fifth cookie:
just to free somebody up to take that second-to-last cookie."

[https://www.npr.org/2016/09/06/492305430/the-perils-of-
power](https://www.npr.org/2016/09/06/492305430/the-perils-of-power)

~~~
pbreit
Ok, I see, thanks for looking it up. That's interesting but seems unrelated to
the point of the research and of the Lewis retelling.

~~~
tempestn
Totally, yeah, it's beside the point; just thought it was interesting!

------
kulkarnic
Yes, the story is inaccurate: the study was about how power, not luck, changes
perceptions. But the message is still right. It's easy to be a jerk if you are
powerful. (And it's easy to be negative when you're just commenting on the
Internet.)

If you actually care about the facts, read the original researcher's essay:
[https://hbr.org/2016/10/dont-let-power-corrupt-
you](https://hbr.org/2016/10/dont-let-power-corrupt-you) And if you want to
still believe your success is the exclusive result of your hard work, read
about Raj Chetty's work on just how much luck matters.
[http://scopeblog.stanford.edu/2016/04/12/stanford-study-
shed...](http://scopeblog.stanford.edu/2016/04/12/stanford-study-sheds-light-
on-wealth-zip-code-and-lifespan/)

Edit: I got it wrong, the original study was four people as Lewis reports, not
five as some commenters here believe. Lewis is also right about table manners,
btw.

~~~
pdpi
> Yes, the story is inaccurate: the study was about how power, not luck,
> changes perceptions.

I think you misunderstood the situation. The Michael Lewis speech is precisely
pointing that power changes perceptions, because we like to believe that we
deserve the power you have. He's challenging the students to eschew that
altered perception by pointing out that they're in that position of power but,
like in the experiment, their power doesn't come from intrinsic worthiness but
from sheer dumb luck.

------
jeffdavis
We have to be careful throwing around words like "luck" too much. Success is a
combination of good choice and luck. Those good choices are very important to
emphasize because that's what we have control over.

Given the success, it's also important to try improve others' odds. But good
choices should also be respected.

Note that hard work may or may not be a good choice; and if it is, it's one
good choice among many.

~~~
mixmax
yes, it's important to choose the right country to be born in, the right
affluent and wealthy parents, the right ethniticity and of course the right
gender.

~~~
rtpg
There are tactical choices you can make in life beyond that. Stuff like
choosing the right extracurricular activities, choosing "good" majors, hanging
out with the "right" people.

Of course the factors you mentioned make a lot of this easier. And perhaps
more importantly those factors mean that you're more likely to be forgiven for
not doing the "right" thing. While those from less fortunate categories will
be berated for ever having spent a single second not hustling

~~~
mixmax
sure - choosing the right extracurricular activities if they don't cost too
much, are available in Minnesota and can fit in between your 2 jobs.

Sure - choosing good majors is important, if your parents can afford your
school.

Sure, hanging out with the right people is important. Too bad they don't live
in Minnesota, and too bad you don't have access to them.

~~~
rtpg
To be clear: I 100% agree with the sentiment here.

There are things "in your control", but the prerequisites to having any
control is based around the factors you've mentioned.

In theory even if your parents are super successful and the stars have
aligned, you can still mess your life up. But at least you're given the
opportunity to mess it up, instead of just being handed a shitty life from the
outset.

------
jeffdavis
"Luck" has a negative connotation, so it's not symmetrical.

If someone puts a blindfold on and runs across the freeway and doesn't get
hurt, they are lucky. If they do get hurt, you wouldn't call them "unlucky".

If someone has balanced investments (in line with mainstream recommendations)
and the market crashes right after they retire, they are unlucky. If the
market doesn't crash and they have a comfortable retirement, you wouldn't call
them "lucky".

~~~
dsacco
Based on your examples, the "antisymmetry" of luck has much more to do with
the probability of events than it does with the societal connotation of luck.
You're more likely to get hit by a car than you are to be safe if you cross a
busy road with a blindfold. The market is more likely to be not crashing than
crashing in any particular point in time. We don't avoid using the inverse of
"unlucky" to describe the inverse set of those scenarios because the inverse
is simply likely, not because of a connotation with the word itself. Most
events don't model a coin toss.

I don't think people avoid using one word or the other when it's
_appropriate_. The words "lucky" and "unlucky" both map to the same positive
statement ("This event that happened was unlikely"). But they have
respectively opposite normative statements ("This event's occurrence is good"
or "This event's occurrence is bad"). When a person does extremely well and
it's unlikely to have happened, such a person will (in my experience) be
straightforwardly honest and say things like, "I am very lucky", even if they
very clearly had a hand in their success (such as by founding a successful
company).

This is to say: I don't think people avoid using chance-based terminology to
refer to their or others' success because of a profound insight about
attribution. I think they avoid it because words such as "lucky" and "unlucky"
are more often associated with events that are much closer to random than they
are to simply unlikely. Going back to your examples: if I put a blindfold on
and run into traffic, I have extremely limited agency with which to force an
unlikely event (my safety) to happen. I'll be exceptionally lucky to be safe.
But if I found a company and sell it for $10 billion, it's not comparable to
assume I had little agency over that occurrence, let alone none at all.

------
replicatorblog
I agree with the belief that "to whom much is given, much is expected," but
the framing of "luck" bothers me.

Sure, there are some undeserving rich people and their stories are trotted out
whenever we talk about someone earning a salary in the top 5%. But what about
the doctor at a premier children's hospital who has done nothing but study and
sacrifice for their first 30 years on the planet to earn a job that involves
telling parents with depressing regularity that their child is going to die
despite the best efforts of medical science? Those folks can have all the
cookies they want.

Are many high-earners the beneficiaries of unearned privilege? Absolutely. Do
the majority of these "lucky" people also work hard and add tremendous value
to society? Absolutely. We should always try to help the needy but dismissing
the very real efforts of the most successful (of which I'd not count my self a
member) is bad practice.

~~~
lkrubner
" _we talk about someone earning a salary in the top 5%_ "

You seem to be using the word "rich" the way Chris Rock uses the word
"wealthy".

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EeOUty4SWvI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EeOUty4SWvI)

I don't know many people who would consider someone at the 96% percentile of
income as "rich". Even folks at the 99% are still basically just upper middle
class. If you have a high paying job such that you've got 2 homes and and a
few nice cars and all your kids are going to expensive private schools then
you are simply upper middle class. Being wealthy suggests that you possess
such capital that you've never had to work. Work is entirely optional. If you
never work, you will still continue to grow more wealthy, because the assets
you own continue to accrue profits.

If you look at the Forbes list of richest 400 people, it tends to be a handful
of tech people, plus a whole lot of people who inherited their wealth, plus
obvious criminals such as the oligarchs who stole much of the wealth of
Russia, after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Of those who inherited their
money, then obviously all of their money comes from luck. Of those who are
criminals, we can admire their entrepreneurial skills, but remember they are
sociopaths who have broken the law and who have sometimes killed people. Also,
the collapse of the Soviet Union can be viewed as pure luck, as they had
nothing to do with it.

~~~
frgtpsswrdlame
>I don't know many people who would consider someone at the 96% percentile of
income as "rich".

Hmm? I'm getting $240,000 in household income yearly. I'd call that rich, I
think lots of people I know would call that rich. Quarter mil per year is good
money.

>Even folks at the 99% are still basically just upper middle class.

Huh? I'm getting $400,000 a year in income. That's rich

This strikes me as the same thing poor people do, to always define poverty as
just below themselves but since this community has many people with large
salaries, we define rich as just above us, just out of reach enough. If you
pull in $400,000 a year you aren't middle class, you're rich. Accept it.

~~~
lkrubner
" _If you pull in $400,000 a year you aren 't middle class, you're rich._"

This is from the character Gordon Gecko, in the 1987 movie "Wall Street":

" _Wake up, will ya, pal? If you 're not inside, you're outside, okay? And I'm
not talking a $400,000 a year working Wall Street stiff flying first class and
being comfortable, I'm talking about liquid. Rich enough to have your own jet.
Rich enough not to waste time. Fifty, a hundred million dollars, buddy. A
player, or nothing. Now, you had what it took to get into my office; the real
question is whether you got what it takes to stay._"

[https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Wall_Street_(1987_film)](https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Wall_Street_\(1987_film\))

Wealthy people live on capital. That is a traditional definition of what it
means to be wealthy. If you have to work, at all, then you are not wealthy.

~~~
frgtpsswrdlame
No, that's my point, you're just defining 'rich' as the next step up. If you
are earning a 99 percentile income you're rich. Gordon Gecko or not, you may
not be uber-wealthy yacht-buying or anything like that but there's no way
someone who makes $400,000 can be called middle-class at all.

>Wealthy people live on capital. That is a traditional definition of what it
means to be wealthy. If you have to work, at all, then you are not wealthy.

That's not traditional at all. Doctors are traditionally referred to as
wealthy and they work. You're saying a CEO (of a smaller company) isn't
wealthy? A hedge fund manager isn't wealthy? Of course these people are
wealthy and yet they'd all probably still have to work.

It's totally inane to define middle class as everything from 25%-99.5%.

~~~
taneq
Doctors are _rich_. If they have to work to keep their nice
car/house/boat/lifestyle then they aren't _wealthy_. Of course, there are
wealthy doctors, but the definition of wealth is financial independence, not
any set income level.

~~~
dragonwriter
Rich and wealthy are usually synonyms, and seem to match pretty well what you
call wealthy. I think what you label “rich” would be better labeled “high
income”.

------
gerdesj
"With incredible consistency the person arbitrarily appointed leader of the
group grabbed the fourth cookie, and ate it. Not only ate it, but ate it with
gusto: lips smacking, mouth open, drool at the corners of their mouths. In the
end all that was left of the extra cookie were crumbs on the leader’s shirt."

Bollocks.

~~~
paulsutter
Michael Lewis is a "financial journalist". In journalism its called "good
storytelling" to portray a cartoonish world of good and evil.

~~~
davidkuhta
While that may be true, in this instance he is quoting (nearly verbatim) from
the study author:
[https://youtu.be/0vvl46PmCfE?t=1m41s](https://youtu.be/0vvl46PmCfE?t=1m41s)

~~~
paulsutter
Does this raise any questions for you about the objectivity of the study
author?

~~~
gerdesj
Are you having a laugh?

Soz, I should explain: Allow a speech about something a bit of leeway but if
the source is bollocks, then call it out as such.

Science is a thing. The scientific method is a thing. A speech at an event can
be a bit wayward and take liberties but the original, quoted, research should
be sound.

Is it?

~~~
im3w1l
Scientists are just people who slept through a few more lectures than the rest
of us. Of course they can be full of shit occasionally.

------
curiousgal
Judging by the comments, no one has bothered to listen to the speech. The
study is not the point of the speech.

~~~
teach
But the study _is_ the point of this article.

~~~
sutterbomb
Forest for the trees - the study was used to drive home a point about the
position in the world these graduates were in. The study wasn't used to incite
curiosity about p-values.

------
b1daly
This is one of those truisms about life. That it is well understood is
expressed in the cliche about “having to play the hand you were dealt.”

Lewis is making an observation here about the bias of the lucky, which blinds
them to the objective reality of their situation.

I like the point.

------
mancerayder
It's curious because these leaders obviously don't care much about nutrition,
itself a possible problem variable. They're not athletes, diabetics, or
someone else who would refuse one cookie, much less a second. I certainly
wouldn't eat two cookies, and that doesn't mean I don't act entitled in other
ways. Conversely, what if this leader was extra hungry that moment or has an
eating disorder.

I'm sure this social psychology experiment could have been done differently.

------
idlewords
Replicated study or it didn't happen.

------
jimhefferon
Anyone know of a write-up for the study?

~~~
tanderson92
See: "POWER, APPROACH, AND INHIBITION" \-- Keltner et al

PDF:
[http://www.communicationcache.com/uploads/1/0/8/8/10887248/p...](http://www.communicationcache.com/uploads/1/0/8/8/10887248/power_approach_and_inhibition.pdf)

~~~
discoursism
[http://www.communicationcache.com/uploads/1/0/8/8/10887248/p...](http://www.communicationcache.com/uploads/1/0/8/8/10887248/power_approach_and_inhibition.pdf)

From that, here's the actual paper. Little methodology description, no
significance testing, no indication of the number of participants or how they
were selected. This has significantly diminished my belief in the proposition
that power makes people more selfish in the cookie scenario. I still believe
it is somewhat more likely to be true because of my priors, but this study
didn't contribute much.

~~~
tanderson92
"From that, here's the actual paper."

I included the paper, the precise link, in my OP.

~~~
discoursism
Oops! I only saw the other child, who was replying with links. My apologies.
My comment will stand unedited so people don't get confused about your reply.

------
getpost
I wish I’d been in this experiment as a “leader” to see what I’d do, because I
can’t imagine taking the cookie without at least asking whether anyone else
wanted it, or offering to divide it. I can’t see any of my friends taking the
cookie either. Is not having any manners so common?

------
mcnamaratw
Really, the psychological study had data about lips smacking and drool? I
can't find a link.

~~~
mod
Someone else posted this link where the author of the study speaks about it:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vvl46PmCfE&feature=youtu.be...](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vvl46PmCfE&feature=youtu.be&t=1m41s)

------
mchupa
What an ingenious way to shape a leadership scenario. Have never been nor
worked for a leader who ate the 4th cookie. If 5 cookies were given out, most
leaders would abstain.

------
debt
Didn’t know Michael Lewis lived in Berkeley; that’s cool.

------
kolbe
Why does everyone want to try to belittle the children of rich and well-
connected parents as being undeserving of their status? No man is an island.
And specifically, children are a continuation of the lives of those who came
before them. They carry the genes and often the wisdom of their ancestors. In
a deeper, Darwinian sense, no one 'deserves' anything beyond or below what
they have, and these 'lucky' people are just members of a different chain of
life.

~~~
sutterbomb
Advising young graduates to retain humility seems a far stretch from
belittling.

------
jnordwick
How much luck?

People seem to often use things like this to rationalize any amount of
takings. The word "fair" comes up a lot. But who decides what is fair and how
you balance out this luck?

Is 50% taxes "fair" and by what standard? How about if person constantly gives
to charity? Why should taxes be the preferred way to balance fairness?

Or how about if the person lives miserly, saving every penny as if it's their
last? All that money goes into new business and reducing the cost of capital.
That helps the entire world.

Trying to balance out luck seems like a fool's game. While individuals should
be aware and be decent human that help others, i don't think society or
government should be in the position of trying to rebalance the scales fate
has given you.

There are too many ways to be wrong, have unintended consequences, or make the
world more fair by dragging everybody down.

(Edit: have i been shadow banned or some similar enforcement? It seems
comments i post often run to -1 very quickly)

~~~
mod
You're not hellbanned FWIW.

~~~
jnordwick
Just voted down to -3 again. /shrug/

