
Risk of Discovery (2017) - mgdo
http://www.paulgraham.com/disc.html
======
dare0505
On a similar note, Nassim Taleb says:

"Something central, very central, is missing in historical accounts of
scientific and technological discovery. The discourse and controversies focus
on the role of luck as opposed to teleological programs (from telos, “aim”),
that is, ones that rely on pre-set direction from formal science.

The luck versus knowledge story is as follows. Ironically, we have vastly more
evidence for results linked to luck than to those coming from the
teleological, outside physics—even after discounting for the sensationalism.
In some opaque and nonlinear fields, like medicine or engineering, the
teleological exceptions are in the minority, such as a small number of
designer drugs. This makes us live in the contradiction that we largely got
here to where we are thanks to undirected chance, but we build research
programs going forward based on direction and narratives. And, what is worse,
we are fully conscious of the inconsistency."

What's interesting, according to Taleb, is that science has been hiding this
fact, that progress mainly comes from trial & error & risk-taking, as opposed
to well-defined theories and narratives.

[https://www.forbes.com/sites/rawnshah/2012/11/02/for-
innovat...](https://www.forbes.com/sites/rawnshah/2012/11/02/for-innovation-
knowledge-is-a-poor-substitute-for-experimentation)

~~~
Kalium
Chance favored the prepared mind and laboratory. Directed effort won't get you
everything, but it _will_ help position you to take maximum advantage of
serendipity should it come wandering along.

------
leethargo
The example of Newton and the relation between the seemingly disparate fields
of physics, alchemy and theology is explored in detail in Neal Stephenson's
Baroque Cycle.

There, Newton does not actually make that distinction (is always working on
one and the same set of problems) and is also successful in all, though not
recognized as such.

------
veddox
I have enjoyed many of PG's essays, but I am somewhat upset by this one. I'm
not too keen on his throwing theology into the same pot as alchemy, labeling
it an "obvious waste of time", and implying that only crazy people would have
anything to do with it.

For one, theology is not a science and doesn't claim to be a science (at least
not in the sense that physics is and alchemy claimed to be). Secondly,
Newton's theology was actually a driving force behind the science he did -
like many scholars of his time, he was deeply religious and did science with
the explicit intent of exploring God's creation. And thirdly, discarding all
theologians as "crazy" seems gratuitously anti-religious.

PG's point about the "risk of discovery" is valid, but his example is
unfortunately chosen and worded.

~~~
Simon_says
Evidently you're right; it's _not_ obvious.

------
lordnacho
This is why we need to make sure scientists who don't find anything
interesting are still funded. They came out of a pool of scientists who
started looking for something, and some of them worked on hypotheses that
turned out to be correct.

Too often science is portrayed as a series of eureka moments. What gets missed
is years spent in the lab trying yet another iteration.

~~~
maxxxxx
Totally agree. A lot of big discoveries only got made because it was possible
to look at previous attempts and learn from them.

------
wumms
Or how Steve Jobs put it:

"Again, you can’t connect the dots looking forward; you can only connect them
looking backward. So you have to trust that the dots will somehow connect in
your future. You have to trust in something — your gut, destiny, life, karma,
whatever."

Text:
[https://news.stanford.edu/2005/06/14/jobs-061505/](https://news.stanford.edu/2005/06/14/jobs-061505/)

Video:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UF8uR6Z6KLc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UF8uR6Z6KLc)

------
motohagiography
If you are randomly placed above the median on a pareto or exponential
distribution of rewards,and everyone below the 40th percentile selects out,
you are going to be phenomenally successful just from survivor bias. Just
survive long enough to be lucky.

William Blake said it well with, "if only the fool would persist in his folly
he would become wise."

~~~
chosenbreed37
> William Blake said it well with, "if only the fool would persist in his
> folly he would become wise."

Thanks for the quote ;-)

------
T3OU-736
The usual motivational stuff of "if [PersonX] did it, to can you" so prevalent
in the business world also relies on the very same thing - hiding the role
luck plays in success. Sometimes this is accidental, and sometimes, as in the
case of motivational "seminars", intentional. (Yeah, I have a bone to pick
with that entire industry).

The slightly more formal name for this phenomenon is this:
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias),
of which [https://xkcd.com/1827/](https://xkcd.com/1827/) is a decent
illustration.

Pair it up with the law of large numbers, and, for fun, confirmation bias, and
it takes a concerted effort to make sure that our minds aren't leading is
astray when we try to evaluate risks, or even reason about what risks there
are.

~~~
chosenbreed37
> The usual motivational stuff of "if [PersonX] did it, to can you" so
> prevalent in the business world also relies on the very same thing - hiding
> the role luck plays in success

Indeed. Although I think it is important to strive for some kind of balance.
In my understanding the more extraordinary the result the greater the degree
of luck involved. All the motivational talk and general review of the success
of others is useful in terms of stirring us to positive action. On the balance
of probabilities were are more likely to enjoy some degree of success by
following in the footsteps of others. We may not be as successful as they
were. E.g. if one studies, reads and follows the investment approach adopted
by Warren Buffet and Charlie Munger, given time, one might expect some degree
of success but it is unlikely to match theirs.

~~~
maxxxxx
"All the motivational talk and general review of the success of others is
useful in terms of stirring us to positive action. "

Very true. I just wish they would leave out the guarantees that you will 100%
succeed if you follow their advice.

------
zshrdlu
Hence Feyerabend's _Against Method_.

------
MarsAscendant
The reason I disliked Arnold Schwarzenegger's biography, _Total Recall_ , was
that it white-washed his path in life.

It's clear now that he's been a successful businessman, with great
achievements in bodybuilding and physical culture that will have him
remembered for a long time after he's dead, as well as a number of what a
regular Joe would consider big breaks: his acting career, and his political
career. People might not know he's a sharp businessman, but he's made his
millions _before_ acting _somehow_. The book, however, portrays him as a
juggernaut of success. "I did that, then I did that, and that, and that..."

After reading Vladimir Pozner's _Parting with Illusions_ – an insightful
autobiography of vivid images of his time – this just didn't seem right.
Pozner had a lot of success in the field of journalism, he's been on TV, he
owns a number of businesses – but in the book, he also speaks about his
failures and his worries – something noticeably absent from Schwarzenegger's.

(Apparently, Schwarzenegger writes about his affair in one of the chapters of
the book. I never read past about the middle of it: couldn't stomach it.)

(EDITed to add: I recognize that both men are writing _auto_ biographies – the
"auto" part I find difficult to believe in Schwarzenegger's case – which means
they're going to be somewhat biased to their own side of the story, especially
with something that's happened a while ago and is no longer so full on detail.
I realize, too, that Pozner's book was biased in such way, regardless of how
much effort he'd put into averting it.

I do posit, however, is that Pozner's account is far less biased than
Schwarzenegger's, in no small part because of the heart-felt, genuine nature
of the former's stories.)

There was this blog post by Dan Abramov, of overreacted.io, called "Things I
Don't Know as of 2018" [[https://overreacted.io/things-i-dont-know-as-
of-2018/](https://overreacted.io/things-i-dont-know-as-of-2018/)]. It lists
Dan's known unknowns, and encourages others to do the same publicly, in an
effort to shed the idea that a developer must know _everything_ in their field
to be considered capable.

I think this is what we need more of: to know that people arounds us, amateurs
and experts alike, are fallible, before the pedestal is violently broken down
the line. It doesn't necessarily mean that their expertise is, as well, but as
human beings, we're all failing in some areas where others wouldn't be able to
guess. Scientists, artists, businessmen, craftsmen of other calibers...

From personal experience, it's one of the big things that keep artists anxious
about their craft: that they aren't good enough because they're not as good as
their aspiration figure. They don't know that the person they revere got to
where they are partly because they struggled until they got their big break.

We may not have control over external circumstances, but we _do_ have control
over what we choose to do with our own self. Practice is what brings skill
about.

