[HN Gopher] The Carrot Problem ___________________________________________________________________ The Carrot Problem Author : deadcoder0904 Score : 260 points Date : 2023-08-12 13:57 UTC (9 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.atvbt.com) (TXT) w3m dump (www.atvbt.com) | parentheses wrote: | I think this is a good mental model to employ, but also has the | potential to poison positivity. | | Hard work and perseverance can (and IME often does) lead to | success. There's this attractive narrative that any outlier | success is entirely built from seedy/unethical/immoral/corrupt | acts. This narrative helps to justify and excuse mediocrity. | Instead, we should be asking the hard questions which may | encourage harder/smarter work and perseverance. | isaacremuant wrote: | It depends on the type of success you are after. | | Doing well and creating great stuff can be due to hard work but | raising to certain positions of power definitely requires | gaming the system in ways that can be seen as anti ethical or | at least counter to the alleged ethos of the company, group, | etc. | | People in different hierarchies end up optimizing for their | careers and detract from any Analysis that will conclude | otherwise, putting themselves in positions where they have | always someone to deflect to and focus on personal branding | over real results because, in the end, it's what allow them to | also have real results some times. | | It's an "end justifies the means" and "it's the name of the | game". | | It becomes more and more buteocratic, political and networkey | the higher you climb/interact. | | Those will be very interested in talking abour merit ( | pretending others are "mediocre") and fairness while playing | under different rules | parentheses wrote: | I agree with you - not all success can be achieved only | through hard work. | | I feel that our (societal) culture is all about bringing down | those who achieve success by vilifying them for specific | actions. My purpose of my post was purely to shed light that | carrot problems are not as common as one may think and that | they are only part of the story. | | Said another way, the article is right that what is said | about success and how it was achieved is often a marketing | oriented autobiography. That doesn't necessarily mean that | the lies and embellishments conceal insidious actions. | Rexxar wrote: | I would say that hard work and perseverance are always | necessary at some point but not always sufficient for success. | ilyt wrote: | It's pretty much "if your success depends on luck you still | have to show up and start rolling the dice" | winwang wrote: | I find that people place too much emphasis on "hard" work and | not the "right" work. Personally, I know too many people who | have worked their butts off... on the wrong problems. | | It's quite simple to continue sweating on the same path, if | not easy. But it feels like people prefer difficulty to | complexity. | | Of course, even working hard on the right problems carries no | guarantee. Yet, life isn't about guarantees, but about | rigging the dice in your favor. | dale_glass wrote: | You should be suspicious of anyone outlining their strategy for | success. | | Because if I was lucky enough to stumble upon some great hack to | make lots of money, why would I be telling people about it? | Either I get competition, or I might get whatever loophole I was | abusing closed. | | So either I'm lying, or what I'm saying isn't possible to | reproduce, or the usefulness of the technique ran out and now I'm | just trying to squeeze a few more dollars by telling the tale, or | I'm actually stupid and about to see my business model crash and | burn. | nuancebydefault wrote: | Another reason that they disclose strategies might be that it | makes them feel good about themselves. -- Whoah you have such I | pretty girlfriend! How did you accomplish this? -- Well i went | to those and those places, worked out at the gym and behaved | like a cool guy in this and that way. (he feels good talking | about it) | | Even if it is true, who says it would work for someone else, | maybe the real reason for success in this case is just being | pretty or rich. | | The problem is not so much carrot stories, the root of the | carrot problem is that some people look up to other people's | accomplishments and want it too. It is easy then to | see/follow/come up with patterns that have nothing to do with | it. | tomcam wrote: | Well I did it when I had a very successful SAAS 20 years ago | that still exists. I ended up with multiple competitors who | stole my business model completely, right down to the micro | payment system I devised. I had a fantastic run, became friends | with several of my competitors, and eventually sold my business | to one of those competitors. I never hid anything about how the | business was run. I just delivered on the fundamentals and | wasn't greedy. | | I never sold a course or a book or charged for any advice. | | The funny thing is, although I mentor people for free they | often don't call after the initial conversation because they | think I'm somehow trying to get money out of it. | | So I guess you're right? | ilyt wrote: | I think that's only when you actually cheated/lied/used | loopholes to get where you are. | | I'm not losing my senior engineer job because I tell some soon- | to-be junior engineers how to be good at the job. Neither will | say an established artist or maker; they already have their | brand. | gnicholas wrote: | I'm not sure I'd go this far. Think of the advice that PG | gives, which is along the lines of: make something people want, | get it in front of those people, and work very hard. | | This is very useful advice to someone who has never heard it | (though the last one is very obvious), and it doesn't really | take away anything from PG to say it loudly. He is especially | unlikely to care if people use his advice to get rich, since he | is himself already very very rich. But even someone who was not | rich wouldn't really care unless there is a good likelihood | that he is giving his competitors a leg up by sharing this | advice. | | And for someone like PG, there's a net benefit to giving this | advice because (1) it will lead to more people who are willing | to work hard becoming successful (which will lead to useful | products/services being available in the world -- including to | PG), and it helps to build PG's brand. | | The thing you do have to worry about is when there's a | potential conflict between (1) what they did to become | successful and (2) what they want people to think they did to | become successful. That's what this article is about. People | want you to think they got ripped by lifting a ton -- not by | using steroids. | blobbers wrote: | Loose lips sink ships, right? | | Yeah, this is why hedge funds keep secrets, and sell side | analysis isn't very trustworthy in the investment world. If | their info was so good, they would act on it instead of | publishing it.* | | * some people act on it, then publish it in order to push | prices in their favor. | winwang wrote: | It's even worse in the case of hedge funds (well, arbitrage | in general), because any given strategy has a maximum amount | of profit it could make before the market loses that specific | inefficiency. Or at least, that's the theory. | | It's basically like finding a gold mine and telling everyone | to come over and take what they want from it. | Scene_Cast2 wrote: | This is exactly why I don't understand the strategy behind | sites like https://www.quiverquant.com/ | | My optimistic theory is that it might be a form of social | activism to enact change, as opposed to a plain carrot | problem. | lordnacho wrote: | Reminds me of the constant hum around Renaissance Technologies. | Everybody brings up that rumour about them using satellite data | and other exotic stuff, but there's no way that is the | difference between winning and losing. | Cpoll wrote: | By that token, we should be suspicious of you for telling us | how to avoid bad strategies for making money :) | TedDoesntTalk wrote: | Exception: you've exited and have nothing to lose by sharing | kurthr wrote: | Beware the, "I'm already a bitcoin billionaire so I'll share | my secret to success". Either they're lying about the Lambos, | or they suddenly got less greedy. One of those is more | likely. | throwaway290 wrote: | Unless they charge for the advice in which case it would be | obvious, maybe they just know that keeping more people | buying it is required for it to keep value | ilyt wrote: | Or, in rare cases where someone gets to billion dollars and | says "okay it is enough": The opportunity is no longer | there and world changed enough for advice to be near- | useless. | a1369209993 wrote: | _Or_ their actual secret to success is "Buy a bunch of | bitcoin when it cost less than a dollar.", and any | subsequent success is a artifact of that non-replicable | starting point. | lapcat wrote: | > have nothing to lose by sharing | | Not necessarily true if "every successful business got there | by doing something ugly". | Ozzie_osman wrote: | Or the boost to my ego of being admired for being so smart is | larger than the boost to my ego of being even richer. | habitue wrote: | > Because if I was lucky enough to stumble upon some great hack | to make lots of money, why would I be telling people about it? | | People like explaining things to other people. They like | sharing knowledge, they like having other people pay attention | to and listen to the knowledge they share. I am pretty | convinced that it's an evolutionary adaptation that we feel a | compulsion to explain and share interesting things we've | learned. | | Your logic probably overcomes this built-in tendency for | sharing things when the alpha is very directly tied to one's | success. So, for example, a hedge fund manager isn't sharing | their trading strategies. | | But if an executive is explaining how OKRs worked for them, or | an engineer is saying typescript was a big help, our first | instinct shouldn't be to assume it's a psyop. Those things are | not the singular competitive advantage of a company, success is | usually the aggregate result of many different things. | kurthr wrote: | In general this is true of influencer type garbage and "get | rich" stuff. It's junk food for the fearful/hopeful/greedy | mind. | | However, there are entire industries that don't exist without a | growing capable workforce. It's not like software programming | would have been much higher paid, if we could have just kept it | a secret longer. You need a certain number of skilled people to | fill out all the positions and get large projects done. It's | not like it's easy, or doesn't require training, but since it | produces value everyone can win, because of the productivity of | others. | | Another example of this right now is building/contracting work. | It's a skill that takes time to develop and you can't just do | it from watching a video or reading a book, but it pays well. | Right now a lot of older folks got out of the game so there's | real demand and wages are high. If that demand doesn't get | filled... it will be replaced with more automation. It's a case | where, if there aren't enough workers economics will adjust to | require fewer workers, perhaps dramatically so. | kabalunga wrote: | [dead] | edgineer wrote: | "Success" could include a type of "business model" but other | positive-sum games, too. | somsak2 wrote: | What a cynical take. For your own sake, I'd recommend looking | for more positives in others. | chrchang523 wrote: | The possibilities you mention are definitely worth keeping in | mind. However, they are not an exhaustive list; there are | positive scenarios that are better than "trying to squeeze a | few more dollars by telling the tale". | | The hard part is recognizing them in the midst of a lot of | chaff. | Karellen wrote: | > if I was lucky enough to stumble upon some great hack to make | lots of money, why would I be telling people about it? | | Because you understand that the number in your bank account | isn't the score of some weird game. Having more money than | other people doesn't make you a better person. | | If you have enough money to reach your goals - pay your rent, | buy food, indulge your hobbies - that's good. If 20 other | people also have enough money to reach their goals, that's a | world with more happiness in it. That's a better world. So why | not tell other people how to make money in the same way you | did, and help bring that world about? | kabalunga wrote: | [dead] | tomcam wrote: | Oops, I didn't realize you had made this comment, which is | better than mine: | | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37103107 | jancsika wrote: | OP would presume they covered that in their last OR branch: | | > or I'm actually stupid and about to see my business model | crash and burn | | In other words, they wouldn't be able to reach their long | term goals because one of the 20 other people are going to | eat their lunch. (And all will in fact attempt to monopolize | their lunch.) | the_snooze wrote: | >So why not tell other people how to make money in the same | way you did, and help bring that world about? | | I think this does happen quite frequently. It's just that the | knowledge gets passed through networks, so the most | successful people help those who are socially near them (and | probably not too different in terms of success and comfort). | | This is the whole "insider knowledge" that the article | alludes to. | Consultant32452 wrote: | This comment is in no way an endorsement of Scott Adams, I | generally do not like him. However, he recently posted | something on Twitter that has been a brain worm for me. | | >"Success is mostly imitation. We study successful people | and then try to imitate what worked." | | >"Imagine being Black, learning the history of slavery and | racism, and being asked to imitate your oppressors to | succeed." | | And a followup tweet: | | >"The most damaging reframe in American history is that | using the universal tools for success is "acting white." | Solve that problem and we'll have better visibility on the | systemic racism that is primarily caused by the teachers | unions." | jdpigeon wrote: | The last tweet is a little confusing. Teacher's unions? | Really? | tomcam wrote: | 1. No evidence at all that teacher unions help students. | Test scores have gone down drastically all over the | country for the last 30 years or so. | | 2. The teacher unions are against school vouchers, which | almost completely eliminates competition in the districts | that need it most. A large majority of black families are | in favor of school vouchers. | Consultant32452 wrote: | I used to watch Adams' podcast. It would require a lot of | context to fully make sense. Suffice to say he thinks | teacher's unions are a big component of the problem here | and imo the primary value of his comment here could be | conveyed if you remove the tail end of that Tweet which | puts it on the teacher's unions. | lostlogin wrote: | I'm not sure context helps him with his other outbursts. | | "Based on the current way things are going, the best | advice I would give to White people is to get the hell | away from Black people," the 65-year-old author | exclaimed. "Just get the (expletive) away. Wherever you | have to go, just get away. Because there's no fixing | this. This can't be fixed." | | https://www.mercurynews.com/2023/02/23/dilberts-scott- | adams-... | | "The reality is that women are treated differently by | society for exactly the same reason that children and the | mentally handicapped are treated differently." | | https://ew.com/article/2011/03/30/dilbert-scott-adams- | femini... | | Trump is like the founding fathers and Jesus. | | https://www.thedailybeast.com/dilbert-creator-on-how- | trump-i... | | There is a bit of coverage in the wiki. He writes a good | cartoon but he is radioactive in his views. | | https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Adams | Consultant32452 wrote: | Terrible people are sometimes capable of saying things | worth considering, and it's possible to consider one | thing he says without endorsing or accepting other things | he's said or even his personal context for the words | being considered. | zlg_codes wrote: | It's difficult to defend a stance like one you're | adopting, because of how quick to judge the general | public is. They'd never know that someone like Ted | Kaczynski actually held a PhD and wrote an interesting | essay before committing to his campaign of terror. | (Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Kaczynski) | | It's rather strange that people will choose to wholly | dismiss a person based on one thing, without realizing | that even "evil" people have more facets than a simple | bevel. | | Ted killed himself in prison a few months ago. What | benefit could society have gained if someone had heard | him out and took some measures to help the environment? | Most people won't ask that question, because they have | the intellectual and philosophical depth of a puddle. | | One of the most illuminating things in my life has been | discovering what the "bad" and "evil" side of humanity | actually thought, instead of the version that the | authorities or victors give us. | | There's also this modern tendency to assume that whatever | you read, you become. So superstitious. | weaksauce wrote: | > There's also this modern tendency to assume that | whatever you read, you become. So superstitious. | | Sure... but there's also a wealth of information out | there and filtering out people with known abhorrent views | is a decent first pass filter. maybe alex jones or some | other neo-nazi dimwit has a few good ideas here and there | but why would I subject myself to listening to them(and | also enriching them in the process) when I could listen | to people that aren't generally awful people? | setr wrote: | I think shallow views is a much better first-pass filter | than abhorrent views; a sufficiently in-depth abhorrent | view can and likely will have components worth taking | from, even if their final conclusion is absurd (or just | overreaching). | | An acceptable-but-shallow view and an abhorrent-but- | shallow view are equally worthless; effectively as much | value an upvote. | ilyt wrote: | > Ted killed himself in prison a few months ago. What | benefit could society have gained if someone had heard | him out and took some measures to help the environment? | Most people won't ask that question, because they have | the intellectual and philosophical depth of a puddle. | | Well it's not all that interesting question coz he wasn't | exactly first or last preaching same thing about the | environment, so there is a plenty of other people to | listen to that do not happen to be crazy. | | But in general I agree that the trend of disregarding | someone's entire contribution to everything they | contributed based on this or that opinion that is | currently regarded as "bad". After all, if you dig far | enough (especially in time, kids/teenagers do/think some | utterly dumb stuff) you won't find an innocent soul | alive... | pharmakom wrote: | Reading Ordinary Men changed how I feel about good and | evil. | AnthonyMouse wrote: | The thing to understand about Scott Adams is that if he | says something that sounds outrageous, he's probably | trolling you. He'll in fact describe how to do this in | order to generate publicity, or as a mechanism to expose | hypocrisy or bad logic. But when he's in the middle of it | he'll commit to the bit. | | Basically, someone says X, which is crazy, because if X | then logically Y would be true and Y is not only wrong | but offensive. So he'll publicly assert Y and get people | to argue with him, but the only real way to show that Y | is wrong is to admit that X is wrong, which was the | point. | | And then the people arguing with him don't want to do | that. They want to be offended by Y without admitting | that X is wrong. So he has a bunch of fun with them | because they've foreclosed themselves at the outset from | winning the debate on the merits. | lazyasciiart wrote: | The thing to understand about this argument is that it is | unfalsifiable nonsense. Anything he says that is wrong is | him joking, you just can't tell because he pretends so | well! No, dude. He is wrong a lot and like a 5yo, when he | realizes he cannot actually defend or explain something | he did he falls back on "it was just a joke!" | AnthonyMouse wrote: | Of course he's wrong a lot. The point isn't that Y is | _right_ , it's that X and Y are both wrong but you can't | admit to that if you're a hypocrite. | | And the "anything he says that is wrong is him joking" is | the idea, because it works both ways. If someone says | something which is actually wrong, you can make a | convincing argument for why if you're willing to be | logically consistent yourself. | | But there are also things which are politically offensive | yet true, and having a reputation for this kind of | trolling is what allows someone to say those things out | loud. Because then you make the same claim: "Maybe I'm | trolling you, if I am just provide the counterargument." | | Which you can't do if the counterargument requires you to | admit that X is wrong and you refuse to do that, but you | also can't do if there is no counterargument because Y is | true. | | It doesn't matter whether "is he trolling this time" is | falsifiable. What matters is if you can disprove his | claim. If you can, go for it. If not, what does that say? | rodrattt wrote: | Just a thing I noticed since I don't know Scott Adams | etc. -- surely being a slave couldn't be considered a | success!? | | I'm sure I'm missing the meaning here somehow but to me | it's quite obvious we may imitate something successful | and not imitate something unsuccessful. | barrkel wrote: | The implied theory in the paraphrased quotes is that | Black people are not successful in part because they have | learned a framing where success requires acting like a | slave owner, or acting white. That is, behaviors that | correlate with success are tainted with being the way | (oppressive) white people act. | Consultant32452 wrote: | I think this part clarifies it: | | >The most damaging reframe in American history is that | using the universal tools for success is "acting white." | | If you are not American it may not be clear. One specific | example of a "universal tool for success" being marred in | this way is that black kids who are successful | academically are sometimes bullied for "acting white." | I've intentionally found a left leaning source discussing | this phenomenon. | https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/07/acting- | whi... | porkbeer wrote: | My darker friends often caught hell from associating with | a 'white boy' like me. The racism problem is bad on the | other side too and many people discount this, but it may | be a bigger problem than the obverse for culture and | progress. | chasd00 wrote: | Didn't even Obama face some of this in his campaign | because he wasn't "black enough"? I think SNL even had a | running gag about it. | dark_star wrote: | The quote is talking about emulating the white | oppressors, who oppressed people to gain wealth and | power. | jwie wrote: | I'd believe the thing about the carrots was about marketing for | carrots before tricking the Germans. | | It's not like such things haven't been done. In the states there | are plenty of scams (marketing) to convince us to eat more | grains, or drink milk, or consume more {product}. Don't see why | it wouldn't be the same anywhere else. | | We had a whole cartoon character dedicated to convincing people | to eat spinach, which we were wrong about being particularly | beneficial as well. These kinds of things, even when well | intentioned, have secondary, harmful effects, that far outweigh | their purported benefits. | q_andrew wrote: | As someone who went into a STEM field without any family | connections to STEM, I have definitely been stuck eating carrots | and not knowing why it didn't work. | | Interestingly, the human brain tells itself carrot stories all | the time: | | https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-hidden-prospect/... | | tldr: patients with split brain hemispheres will reflexively make | up explanations for decisions made by the other half of their | brains. Fascinating stuff, and makes me wonder how many things | I've done that serve my subconscious' ulterior motives. | bennettnate5 wrote: | I'd love to hear more about what kinds of carrots you were fed | coming in from a non-STEM background. For me, the one I can | remember was a family friend recommending I stick to an | engineering field (mechanical, electrical, civil, etc.) rather | than CS because "there was much more money to be made in those | fields". Thankfully I stuck to what I liked, which was coding. | isaacremuant wrote: | Even if you made less with coding, there's also a life | balance question on the trade-off of doing what you like VS | pure money quantity. Long term, you want to enjoy your day to | day, in any kind of endeavour and the good can get you | through the bad. | nathan_compton wrote: | I don't dispute the split hemispheres story but I don't think | its particularly informative about normal cognitive function. I | mean missing the connection between your brains is a pretty | extreme situation. | atleastoptimal wrote: | There are deliberate carrot problems, where the successful person | deliberately misleads their audience as to the source of their | success, and non-deliberate ones, where the successful people | themselves doesn't understand why they are successful so tell | people the narratives that make them feel the best about | themselves. You see this often when someone with prodigious | genetic ability doesn't want to admit to others or themselves | that their success was determined before they were born, and not | due to hard work or some immeasurable character trait. | duped wrote: | > You see this often when someone with prodigious genetic | ability doesn't want to admit to others or themselves that | their success was determined before they were born | | I don't think many people asked Yao Ming if being 7'6" helped | with his basketball career, or Michael Phelps if his human | flipper feet helped win a medal or two. But they have spoken at | length about how they trained for their careers, and sane | people can understand that being a genetic freak doesn't make | you a world class anything. It predisposes you to success if | you seek it - and both those people spent an enormous amount of | their youth working to get there. | | The point is that success is not determined before you're born, | and reasonable people understand that there's such a thing as | variance in human anatomy. | achenet wrote: | I think there's a lot of truth to the quote "hard work beats | talent when talent doesn't work hard". | | For top .0001% success in some fields (most sports, for | example), you need genetic qualities AND hard work. | opportune wrote: | I think it's not that people with prodigious abilities don't | want to attribute that to their success so much as mentioning | that as a factor comes across as very narcissistic and | unlikeable (even if it's true) unless you are literally an | Einstein/Von Neumann type. For example, even Terry Tao has | enough humility to self censor himself not to attribute his | success to being a far-outlier-genius. | | In fact I'd bet a lot more people _think_ to themselves that | they are only successful because they are a genius than there | are geniuses. Because it's even more likely that coming from a | highly rich or well connected family is truly the key factor in | their success, and people would would much rather attribute | success to talent or intelligence than daddy. | | It is definitely true though that prodigious talent isn't by | itself sufficient to be successful. Also, intelligence helping | you is kind of a given - it'd be like an NBA player saying | "being 6'8" really helps". There are a lot of really tall | people not in the NBA and a lot of prodigiously talented people | who aren't conventionally "successful" either. | HumblyTossed wrote: | Secret to success: Rich parents and luck | | Another secret to success: Have enough luck to make up for not | having rich parents. | achenet wrote: | I like to believe consisently making good decisions is also | part of success, but I'm not that successful yet. | | Also, if "luck" is factors outside of your control, having rich | parents would count as luck. :) | derefr wrote: | This is one reason the field of behavioral economics is important | to society: there are things that an individual or company would | never publicly admit to doing -- but which they're fine to | admitting under NDA, to be used as a datapoint in an anonymized | dataset used in academic research. | | So, while no individual company will tell you that everyone's | using dark patterns or hiring their friends, behavioral | economists _can_ put forth evidence-backed arguments that this is | the case -- and so save you the trouble of bothering to chase the | Carrot. | hammock wrote: | There is a great quote I read here about how your life changes | once you are read into valuable info that no one else has. It | was Daniel Ellsberg giving advice to Henry Kissinger when he | first got his security clearances: | | _> You will feel like a fool for having studied, written, | talked about these subjects, criticized and analyzed decisions | made by presidents for years without having known of the | existence of all this information, which presidents and others | had and you didn't, and which must have influenced their | decisions in ways you couldn't even guess. In particular, | you'll feel foolish for having literally rubbed shoulders for | over a decade with some officials and consultants who did have | access to all this information you didn't know about and didn't | know they had, and you'll be stunned that they kept that secret | from you so well._ | | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36364718 | esafak wrote: | See also Bruce Schneier's essay on the same subject, | discussed just yesterday: | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37091989 | bombcar wrote: | There's an offshoot of this where they don't know why anything | worked, so they ascribe success to the things they hope worked. | 123pie123 wrote: | I was thinking the same. Luck also plays a huge part in this | area, but will the highly paid managers admit this or even know | about it | | no - they'll say it's down to <insert absolutlty anything they | can make up> | bombcar wrote: | They admit luck plays a huge part - but only bad luck | destroying their perfect plans. | leoc wrote: | Viz. the screenwriter William Goldman's "Nobody knows anything" | from his book _Adventures in the Screen Trade_. | https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1991-08-11-ca-807-st... | https://variety.com/2018/film/opinion/william-goldman-dies-a... | snthd wrote: | The carrot misdirection had sincerity behind it. That doesn't | apply to the other examples, so I don't think it's a good term to | use. | porkbeer wrote: | How is a literal psyop sincere? | hinkley wrote: | I had to deal with that (digital) six sigma crap because Jack | Welch had not yet left a giant crater in the ground and so people | thought he was a wizard. | | He helped bring us the mass layoff and made tons of money dumping | PCBs into the river. Apparently wells there are still toxic | without treatment. | [deleted] | noduerme wrote: | Here's another carrot problem: | | You see people all around you appearing to be cooler and more | popular by proclaiming there's no point in working hard because | the whole system is rigged. Not working and riding to the top of | HN on your cynicism sure is tempting if you can justify it. But | you don't know whether the people who claim that are actually | secretly successful and just trying to win points by appealing to | popular discontent. And you won't find out whether studying and | working could have made you successful, because now you feel it's | not worth trying. | | Even in the slacker 90s where we were all convinced we'd never | earn as much as our parents, the self-pitying cynicism wasn't | this rampant. | opportune wrote: | I don't think you can ever really learn from what a person says | helped them do X. You have to look at the person themselves and | try to figure out what about them made X happen - people have too | much of a blind spot comparing themselves to the world outside | their bubble, or understanding how other people perceive them. | They lack the perspective to really know what about them is | different | | For example most successful founders and CEOs in my experience | may say taking meeting notes or setting a high bar helps. But | really what helped is that they had personality traits leading to | these behaviors which are what truly drove the benefits - they | are meticulous and detail oriented so they want to use writing to | nail down ideas, they set high standards for themselves and | others so they do whatever it takes to avoid a bad hire or lazy | decision. It would be considered impolite for the CEO to say that | about themselves, and maybe they don't even notice how much of an | outlier they are in those traits, so instead you get told the | effect rather than the cause of their success. Someone without | those traits trying to ape out the processes won't be able to | realize the benefits. | | Similarly I think to a degree the whole "be connected or | privileged from birth" is meant to be taken implicitly rather | than ignored altogether, sometimes. Nobody wants to launch into a | discussion about social class or inequality in some PR puff piece | that's like "oh mr startup ceo why are you so rich and | successful". Like in tennis nobody is going to say the secret to | success is to have tiger parents and access to facilities and | training from a young age that 99% of people can't afford. When | people say "leverage your connections" they're kind of saying Joe | Average without connections is out of the game until they build | those connections, but politely. | codeulike wrote: | So a bit like big corporations making tons of money through | monopolies, regulatory capture and corporate welfare, but then | having to pretend their success was down to 'the market' | the_snooze wrote: | >For this reason, Carrot Problems greatly increase the value fo | being an "insider". | | >There's some fields where it really might be true that you can | learn everything you need to know by reading books at the public | library. But anytime people are succeeding for reasons they won't | admit in public, it's hard to get a grasp on the situation unless | you have private back-channels. | | I feel this is a natural response when you're in a low-trust low- | signal-to-noise-ratio environment. You have to keep things close | to the chest and limit access, or else you'll spend all your time | sifting through the noise. For example, the best way to reach me | is by phone. But it's not enough to know my phone number to | successfully reach me; you have to be in my private circle for me | to pick up and respond. Everyone else is likely just scammers and | telemarketers. | bonoboTP wrote: | It's also often the case that a lot of the hands-on day-to-day | practical things are simply not very prestigious and can't be | published in a way that they will appear in the "public | library" or academic journals. It's not even necessarily that | people want to withhold that knowledge to reduce competition, | but simply the effort of writing it all up properly is not | worth it. The same time could be spent working on something | that results in a prestigious publication. Of course sometimes | people will altruistically draft up such things in blog posts. | But then again, anything people write passes through their own | internal filter of "will this make me look good?" so | ultimately, you can only see the real tips by closely working | with and watching with successful people. | | For example many of these people may work ridiculous hours and | sacrifice on their personal relations. Now try posting that on | Twitter and you'll be crucified that you are encouraging | unhealthy culture and you are a bad person for posting this. So | most people don't bother. | DanHulton wrote: | This is a great way to describe all those "buy my book to learn | how to make money online!" scams. The real way to make the money | is to trick people into buying the books/courses/doodads, but you | can't actually _say_ that. (Or if you do, you have to do so in | such a way that you're pretending you're letting the buyer become | part of the "inside club", so they don't feel tricked, they feel | like they can start tricking people now, too. Very classic con | strategy.) | mercurialsolo wrote: | Business advantages only exist with some degree of information | asymmetry. People only want to share this over when either they | are not playing the game or the market incentivizes open sharing | (e.g. patent systems for innovation). | | Unfortunately for business outcomes or in case of war advantages | - it has the exact opposite incentive - sharing this leads to | loss of market share, more competition, chances of leaks and | enemy knowing about your tactics and investing in R&D. | tantalor wrote: | "dark patters" -> "dark patterns" | ubac wrote: | thanks, fixed! | re-thc wrote: | The carrot problem is that there are too many rabbits. | CosmicShadow wrote: | or is that an opportunity?... | Jeff_Brown wrote: | I'm really glad to have a word for this now. | | It makes me wonder how many carrot problems I've fallen for | myself, or have been intending to fall for )not realizing they | are carrot problems) and haven't got around to yet. | | Also how many other ideas I would like to have a word for. | MrPatan wrote: | The formula for success is not a sum of factors, it's a | multiplication of factors. | | Yes, you need luck to be > 0. But you better have hard work also | > 0, or you won't have any success anyway. | | No, the sales and marketing guys are not parasites leeching off | your hard work because you're the one wrinting the code. It's not | S + C, it's S * C. | | No, it doesn't matter how good and productive you are, if you | don't know how to search for jobs, pass interviews, etc, you | won't have a job. | | And not wanting to work hard because "you need luck anyway" is | not a winning strategy. | swayvil wrote: | 1) People want X | | 2) Tell people a big lie about how to acquire X. | | 3) Chortle, possibly profit. | chefandy wrote: | While the carrot problem is real, it alone doesn't explain the | shittiness of rich people's advice on becoming rich. So much | opportunity is either created or destroyed by external | circumstances that we don't perceive, let alone control. Since we | all subconsciously write our own creation myths, it's not easy to | discover and attribute forces that we aren't aware of when | looking back on our life paths. The perennial bullshit self- | explanation is _hard work._ How hard they work is one thing that | they _can_ control, and they know they worked hard, so they | assume it had more of an effect than it did... and in turn, | others that worked less hard didn 't succeed. For example, they | might assume that their uncle was willing to set up that meeting | with their first big client because they worked hard enough to be | worthy of it, rather than realizing that others who worked as | hard or harder lacked a _connected uncle_. | Waterluvian wrote: | These people need to believe they're exceptional and therefore | deserve it. In reality they (sometimes) worked very hard in | order to have a chance to be lucky. | II2II wrote: | In other words: you can't make luck, but you need to lay the | foundations for it. | Waterluvian wrote: | Yeah. You need to work hard for a chance to roll the dice. | duped wrote: | The carrot problem in TFA describes when there is an incentive | to lie - what you're describing is something else entirely. | It's not usually in the interest of someone with wealth to lie | about how they got there. | | There's a big difference between being wrong/full of shit and | outright lying because to tell the truth would harm your | ability to make money. The former is just being an idiot, the | latter is being a market manipulator/con /artist/grifter/etc. | bruce511 wrote: | Very few business success stories credit luck with being a root | cause. | | But in real life luck (or "chance" , if you prefer) plays a | part, sometimes a significant part. | | It was lucky that John and Paul went to school together. It was | lucky they got on together and became good friends. Thanks to | that luck ee got the Beatles. | | Of course it (usually) takes -more- than just luck, but dig | deep enough and its there. | jancsika wrote: | > Various companies make a lot of money by implementing "dark | patterns", such as getting customers onto subscriptions and then | making it hard for them to cancel. They can't admit that this is | why their revenue went up, so they make a bunch of claims about | how their success comes out of [various beneficent strategies], | but anyone who tries to replicate the success by using those | lovely strategies is liable to go broke. | | This bullet point makes me wonder if there are situations where | newcomers end up beating the original company because consumers | are willing to pay an enormous premium just to avoid the dark | patterns. | | Carrot _solutions_? :) | rossdavidh wrote: | Another example: when I realized that most of the commercially | successful bands that got played on the radio when I was young, | including a few that I liked, were there because of payola, not | because their music was better or their work ethic or whatever. | They were probably better at sucking up to the gatekeepers who | would pay off radio stations (illegally) to play their songs. | the_gipsy wrote: | So, "lying". | iandanforth wrote: | A specific and interesting form of lying! The pantheon of lies | is rich enough to warrant additional terminology :) | swayvil wrote: | Oh there's a whole lying taxonomy and nomenclature. Be | assured of it. But only the members of the inner house are | allowed to see it. It is restricted technology. | solarbubblewate wrote: | Two of my favorites are "Affirming the Consequent" and the | logically equivalent "Denying the Antecedent". How about | you? | cauliflower2718 wrote: | Are there other examples that you particularly like? | solarbubblewate wrote: | The fallacy of the undistributed middle is particularly | prevalent. However, in practice it is usually hidden in | implications rather than explicitly stated. For example: | | 1. Murder is a crime. 2. We should be tough on murder. 3. | Therefore, we should be tough on crime. (Deliberately) | Omitted: Jaywalking is a crime. Should we be tough on | jaywalking? | jsunderland323 wrote: | Damn. My mom told me carrots would improve my eyesight when I was | little and I've lived with this my whole life. This article | ruined my sense of accomplishment after eating carrots but I | loved it. | badrabbit wrote: | Another possible term for it: | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction | Horffupolde wrote: | "Sandbagging" fits better. | hk__2 wrote: | And another related concept: | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult | almostnormal wrote: | One entity provides advice, a different one applies it. | | Cargo cult: The advice is applied incorrectly. | | Carrot problem: The advice is provided incorrectly. | | How to distinguish the two, without understanding the | details? Looking at what worked doesn't help. Checking the | motivation for providing the advice is asymmetric. Any other | ideas? | solarbubblewate wrote: | Another wiki describing the term: | | https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Parallel_Construction | jrflowers wrote: | I like how the author has established "The Carrot Problem" as a | novel concept that cannot be explained as "the stuff that happens | after people lie" | bonoboTP wrote: | But it's much more specific than that. I know that it's common | in such blogs to introduce useless neologisms and reinvent | established concepts, but this seems to warrant it enough. | | It's specifically that success often relies on something that | its user doesn't want to admit (either to stop competition, as | in the war example, or just because the tool is socially | unacceptable or wouldn't make them look good), but they also | don't want to say "I won't tell you, it's a secret" and instead | they make up some other reason that actually doesn't work. This | is way more concrete than just "what happens after people lie". | Many lies aren't about reasons and recipes for success. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2023-08-12 23:00 UTC)