Pranam
Owning wealth in abundance did exist from day one and its not new; it
is inevitable; tirukkural says that," குறள் 396
<https://www.ytamizh.com/thirukural/kural-396/>: தொட்டனைத் தூறும் மணற்கேணி
மாந்தர்க்குக் கற்றனைத் தூறும் அறிவு. மணலில் உள்ள கேணியில் தோண்டிய
அளவிற்க்கு நீர் ஊறும், அதுபோல் மக்களின் கற்றக் கல்வியின் அளவிற்கு அறிவு
ஊறும். English Couplet 396:In sandy soil, when deep you delve, you reach
the springs below;The more you learn, the freer streams of wisdom flow.Couplet
Explanation:Water will flow from a well in the sand in proportion to the
depth to which it is dug, and knowledge will flow from a man in proportion
to his learning. (knoledge).
ஊருணி நீர்நிறைந் தற்றே உலகவாம் பேரறி வாளன் திரு.பொருள் பொதுநல
நோக்குடன் வாழ்கின்ற பேரறிவாளனின் செல்வமானது ஊர் மக்கள் அனைவருக்கும் பயன்
தரும் நீர் நிறைந்த ஊருணியைப் போன்றதாகும்.
Tamil Transliteration Ooruni Neernirain Thatre Ulakavaam Perari Vaalan
Thiru. The wealth of men who love the 'fitting way,' the truly wise,Is as
when water fills the lake that village needs supplies.*Explanation*: The
wealth of that man of eminent knowledge who desires to exercise the
benevolence approved of by the world, is like the full waters of a city-tank
.
In both wealth and the Knowledge it is tank water that satisfies the
people in public charity. Wealth is given as per Karma, and if used sharing
with the society that is water shared; if not its paper to be burnt along
with his body; and in Tamil SELVAM" MEANS sel+ vom (aum)= we shall depart;
Our Vedic concepts deter it. Communism thought it can distribute the nation
wealth to all but only the politburo became the richest. But our vedas said
that a BRAHMIN is one who receives and disburses as dhanam (charity) thro
public welfare acts; meaning the varna helping the society is Brahmin by
Dharma; kshatriya grabs and distributes; vysya adopts tricks to earn and
distribute; Shudra (shudram eva iti shudra: meaning shudra=miscellaneous
and not a mean term as spread) fixes a price on product of stomach and
earns and distributes; but the varna whoever is doing it with the knowledge
as service to the society in its welfare has no profit motive. The casteist
would demand money; the varna takes lives and gives out the surplus. Wealth
is like water flowing out. KR IRS 29421
On Thu, 29 Apr 2021 at 08:03, Rangarajan T.N.C. <[email protected]>
wrote:
> The Role of Luck in Life Success Is Far Greater Than We Realized
>
> Are the most successful people in society just the *luckiest people?*
> [image: The Role of Luck in Life Success Is Far Greater Than We Realized]
> Credit: Clark Tibbs *Unsplash* <https://unsplash.com/photos/oqStl2L5oxI>
>
> What does it take to succeed? What are the secrets of the most successful
> people? Judging by the popularity of magazines such as *Success*, *Forbes*
> , *Inc.*, and *Entrepreneur,* there is no shortage of interest in these
> questions. There is a deep underlying assumption, however, that we can
> learn from them because it's their personal characteristics--such as
> talent, skill, mental toughness, hard work, tenacity, optimism, growth
> mindset, and emotional intelligence-- that got them where they are today.
> This assumption doesn't only underlie success magazines, but also how we
> distribute resources in society, from work opportunities to fame to
> government grants to public policy decisions. We tend to give out resources
> to those who have a past history of success, and tend to ignore those who
> have been unsuccessful, assuming that the most successful are also the most
> competent.
>
> But is this assumption correct? I have spent my entire career studying the
> psychological characteristics that predict achievement and creativity.
> While I have found that a certain number of traits
> <https://www.amazon.com/Wired-Create-Unraveling-Mysteries-Creative/dp/0399175660>--
> including passion, perseverance, imagination, intellectual curiosity, and
> openness to experience-- do significantly explain differences in success, I
> am often intrigued by just how much of the variance is often left
> *unexplained*.
>
> In recent years, a number of studies and books--including those by risk
> analyst Nassim Taleb
> <http://www.amazon.com/Black-Swan-Improbable-Robustness-Fragility/dp/081297381X>,
> investment strategist Michael Mauboussin
> <http://www.amazon.com/Success-Equation-Untangling-Business-Investing/dp/1422184234/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1519866890&sr=1-1&keywords=The+Success+Equation>,
> and economist Robert Frank
> <http://www.amazon.com/Success-Luck-Good-Fortune-Meritocracy/dp/0691178305/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1519866911&sr=1-1&keywords=Success+and+Luck>--
> have suggested that luck and opportunity may play a far greater role than
> we ever realized, across a number of fields, including financial trading,
> business, sports, art, music, literature, and science. Their argument is
> not that luck is *everything*; of course talent matters. Instead, the
> data suggests that we miss out on a really importance piece of the success
> picture if we only focus on personal characteristics in attempting to
> understand the determinants of success.
> Advertisement
>
> Consider some recent findings:
>
> - About half of the differences in income
>
> <http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/712251468165866186/pdf/946720JRN0Box30LIC00190rest0a000432.pdf>
> across
> people worldwide is explained by their country of residence and by the
> income distribution within that country,
> - Scientific impact is randomly distributed
>
> <http://www.sciencesuccess.org/uploads/1/5/5/4/15543620/science_quantifying_aaf5239_sinatra.pdf>,
> with high productivity alone having a limited effect on the likelihood of
> high-impact work in a scientific career,
> - The chance of becoming a CEO is influenced by your name or month of
> birth
> <http://hanswisbrun.nl/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Zomerbabies.pdf>,
> - The number of CEOs born in June and July
> <http://hanswisbrun.nl/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Zomerbabies.pdf> is
> much smaller than the number of CEOs born in other months,
> - Those with last names earlier in the alphabet
>
> <http://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/089533006776526085?utm_source=weibolife>
> are
> more likely to receive tenure at top departments,
> - The display of middle initials
>
> <http://ulir.ul.ie/bitstream/handle/10344/5412/Igou_2014_middle.pdf?sequence=4>
> increases
> positive evaluations of people's intellectual capacities and achievements,
> - People with easy to pronounce names
>
> <http://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/7abf/3823a05c49e01ed140a7b95838e108e20a3a.pdf>
> are
> judged more positively than those with difficult-to-pronounce names,
> - Females with masculine sounding names
> <http://sbmblog.typepad.com/files/ssrn-id1348280.pdf> are more
> successful in legal careers.
>
> The importance of the hidden dimension of luck raises an intriguing
> question: Are the most successful people mostly just the *luckiest people* in
> our society? If this were even a little bit true, then this would have some
> significant implications for how we distribute limited resources, and for
> the potential for the rich and successful to actually benefit society
> (versus benefiting themselves by getting even more rich and successful).
>
> In an attempt to shed light on this heavy issue, the Italian physicists
> Alessandro <http://www2.dfa.unict.it/home/pluchino/> Pluchino
> <http://www2.dfa.unict.it/home/pluchino/> and Andrea Raspisarda
> <http://www2.dfa.unict.it/home/rapisarda/> teamed up with the Italian
> economist Alessio
> <https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Alessio_Emanuele_Biondo> Biondo
> <https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Alessio_Emanuele_Biondo> to make
> the first ever attempt to quantify the role of luck and talent in
> successful careers <http://arxiv.org/abs/1802.07068>. In their prior work,
> <https://arxiv.org/abs/0907.0455> they warned against a "naive
> meritocracy", in which people actually fail to give honors and rewards to
> the most competent people because of their underestimation of the role of
> randomness among the determinants of success. To formally capture this
> phenomenon, they proposed a "toy mathematical model
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toy_model>" that simulated the evolution
> of careers of a collective population over a worklife of 40 years (from age
> 20-60).
> *Initial setup of simulations (N=1000 agents)**. Credit: Pluchino,
> Biondo, & Rapisarda 2018 <https://arxiv.org/abs/1802.07068>*
>
> The Italian researchers stuck a large number of hypothetical individuals
> ("agents") with different degrees of "talent" into a square world and let
> their lives unfold over the course of their entire worklife. They defined
> talent as whatever set of personal characteristics allow a person to
> exploit lucky opportunities (I've argued elsewhere
> <https://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/jul/07/can-science-spot-talent-kaufman>
> that this
> is a reasonable definition of talent). Talent can include traits such as
> intelligence, skill, motivation, determination, creative thinking,
> emotional intelligence, etc. The key is that more talented people are going
> to be more likely to get the most 'bang for their buck' out of a given
> opportunity (see here
> <http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1467-8721.00110> for support
> of this assumption).
>
> All agents began the simulation with the same level of success (10
> "units"). Every 6 months, individuals were exposed to a certain number of
> lucky events (in green) and a certain amount of unlucky events (in red).
> Whenever a person encountered an unlucky event, their success was reduced
> in half, and whenever a person encountered a lucky event, their success
> doubled proportional to their talent (to reflect the real-world interaction
> between talent and opportunity).
> Advertisement
>
> What did they find? Well, first they replicated the well known "Pareto
> Principle <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_principle>", which
> predicts that a small number of people will end up achieving the success of
> most of the population (Richard Koch refers to it as the "80/20 principle
> <https://www.amazon.com/80-20-Principle-Secret-Achieving/dp/0385491743>").
> In the final outcome of the 40-year simulation, while talent was normally
> distributed, success was *not.* The 20 most successful individuals held
> 44% of the total amount of success, while *almost half of the population
> remained under 10 units of success* (which was the initial starting
> condition). This is consistent with real-world data, although there is some
> suggestion that in the real world, wealth success is even more unevenly
> distributed, with just eight men owning the same wealth as the poorest
> half of the world <https://www.oxfam.org/en/research/economy-99>.
> *Normal Distribution of Talent. Credit: Pluchino, Biondo, & Rapisarda 2018
> <https://arxiv.org/abs/1802.07068>**Highly Skewed Distribution of Success**.
> Credit: Pluchino, Biondo, & Rapisarda 2018
> <https://arxiv.org/abs/1802.07068>*
>
> Although such an unequal distribution may seem unfair, it might be
> justifiable if it turned out that the most successful people were indeed
> the most talented/competent. So what did the simulation find? On the one
> hand, talent wasn't irrelevant to success. In general, those with greater
> talent had a higher probability of increasing their success by exploiting
> the possibilities offered by luck. Also, the most successful agents were
> mostly at least average in talent. So talent mattered.
>
> However, talent was definitely not sufficient because *the most talented
> individuals were rarely the most successful. *In general,
> mediocre-but-lucky people were much more successful than
> more-talented-but-unlucky individuals. The most successful agents tended to
> be those who were only slightly above average in talent but with a lot of
> luck in their lives.
> [image: newsletter promo]Sign up for Scientific American’s free
> newsletters. Sign Up
>
> Consider the evolution of success for the most successful person and the
> least successful person in one of their simulations:
> *Evolution **of Success for the Most Successful and Least Successful
> Individuals**. Credit: Pluchino, Biondo, & Rapisarda 2018
> <https://arxiv.org/abs/1802.07068>*
>
> As you can see, the highly successful person in green had a series of very
> lucky events in their life, whereas the least successful person in red (who
> was even more talented than the other person) had an unbearable number of
> unlucky events in their life. As the authors note, "even a great talent
> becomes useless against the fury of misfortune."
> Advertisement
>
> Talent loss is obviously unfortunate, to both the individual and to
> society. So what can be done so that those most capable of capitalizing on
> their opportunities are given the opportunities they most need to thrive?
> Let's turn to that next.
>
> *Stimulating Serendipity*
>
> Many meritocratic strategies used to assign honors, funds, or rewards are
> often based on the past success of the person. Selecting individuals in
> this way creates a state of affairs in which the rich get richer and the
> poor get poorer (often referred to as the "Matthew effect
> <https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/beautiful-minds/200807/the-nature-genius-iii-the-rich-get-richer-and-the-poor-get-poorer>").
> But is this the most effective strategy for maximizing potential? Which is
> a more effective funding strategy for maximizing impact to the world:
> giving large grants to a few previously successful applicants, or a number
> of smaller grants to many average-successful people? This is a fundamental
> question about distribution of resources, which needs to be informed by
> actual data.
>
> Consider a study
> <http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0065263>
> conducted
> by Jean-Michel Fortin and David Currie, who looked at whether larger grants
> lead to larger discoveries. They found a positive, but only very small
> relationship between funding and impact (as measured by four indices
> relating to scientific publications). What's more, those who received a
> second grant were not more productive than those who only received a first
> grant, and impact was generally a decelerating function of funding.
>
> The authors suggest that funding strategies that focus more on targeting
> diversity than "excellence" are likely to be more productive to society. In
> a more recent study <https://arxiv.org/pdf/1602.07396.pdf>, researchers
> looked at the funding provided to 12,720 researchers in Quebec over a
> fifteen year period. They concluded that "both in terms of the quantity of
> papers produced and of their scientific impact, the concentration of
> research funding in the hands of a so-called 'elite' of researchers
> generally produces diminishing marginal returns."
> Advertisement
>
> Taking these sort of findings seriously, the European Research Council
> recently gave the biochemist Ohid Yaqub 1.7 million dollars
> <https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-01405-7> to properly
> determine the extent of serendipity in science. Coming up with a
> multidimensional definition of serendipity, Yaqub pinned down some of the
> mechanisms by which serendipity in science happens, including astute
> observation, "controlled sloppiness" (allowing unexpected events to occur
> while tracking their origins), and the collaborative action of networks of
> scientists. This is consistent with Dean Simonton's extensive work on the
> role of serendipity and chance
> <https://www.amazon.com/Creativity-Science-Chance-Genius-Zeitgeist/dp/052154369X>in
> the evolution of creative and impactful scientific discoveries.
>
> Building on this work, the Italian team who simulated the role of luck in
> success went one step further in their simulation. Playing God (so to
> speak), they explored the effectiveness of a number of different funding
> strategies. They applied different strategies every five years during the
> 40 year worklife of each agent in the simulation. Without any funding at
> all, we already saw that the most successful agents were very lucky people
> with about average levels of talent. What happens once they introduced
> various funding opportunities into the simulation?
> *Efficiency of Different Funding Strategies**. Credit: Pluchino, Biondo,
> & Rapisarda 2018 <https://arxiv.org/abs/1802.07068>*
>
> This table reveals the most efficient funding strategies over the 40 year
> period in descending order of efficiency (i.e., requiring the least amount
> of funding for the greatest return on the investment). Starting at the
> bottom of the list, you can see that the least effective funding strategies
> are those that give a certain percentage of the funding to only the already
> most successful individuals. The "mixed" strategies that combine giving a
> certain percentage to the most successful people and equally distributing
> the rest is a bit more effective, and distributing funds at random is even
> more efficient. This last finding is intriguing because it is consistent
> with other <https://arxiv.org/pdf/1209.5881.pdf> research suggesting that
> in complex social and economic contexts where chance is likely to play a
> role, strategies that incorporate randomness can perform better than
> strategies based on the "naively meritocratic" approach.
>
> With that said, the *best *funding strategy of them all was one where an
> equal number of funding was distributed to everyone. Distributing funds at
> a rate of 1 unit every five years resulted in 60% of the most talented
> individuals having a greater than average level of success, and
> distributing funds at a rate of 5 units every five years resulted in 100%
> of the most talented individuals having an impact! This suggests that if a
> funding agency or government has more money available to distribute, they'd
> be wise to use that extra money to distribute money to everyone, rather
> than to only a select few. As the researchers conclude,
>
> "[I]f the goal is to reward the most talented person (thus increasing
> their final level of success), it is much more convenient to distribute
> periodically (even small) equal amounts of capital to all individuals
> rather than to give a greater capital only to a small percentage of them,
> selected through their level of success - already reached - at the moment
> of the distribution."
>
> *Stimulating the Environment*
> Advertisement
>
> This incredible Italian team didn't even stop there! Hey, if you're
> playing God, why not go all the way. :) They also ran simulations in which
> they varied the environment of the agents. Using this framework, they
> simulated either a very stimulating environment, rich of opportunities for
> everyone (like that of rich and industrialized countries such as the U.S.)
> as well as a much less stimulating environment, with very few opportunities
> (like that of Third World countries). Here's what they found:
> *Success of the Most Successful Individuals Living in an Environment with
> Rich Opportunities (top) or an Environment with Poor Opportunities (bottom)**.
> Credit: Pluchino, Biondo, & Rapisarda 2018
> <https://arxiv.org/abs/1802.07068>*
>
> Look at the difference between the outcome distribution of the environment
> rich in opportunities for everyone (top) from the outcome distribution of
> the environment poor in opportunities for everyone (bottom). In the
> universe simulated at the top, a number of medium to highly talented
> individuals were able to reach very high levels of success, and the average
> number of medium-highly talented individuals who reached at least above
> average levels of success was quite high. In contrast, in the universe
> simulated at the bottom of the figure, the overall level of success of the
> society was low, with an average of only 18 individuals able to increase
> their initial level of success.
>
> *Conclusion*
>
> The results of this elucidating simulation, which dovetail with a growing
> number of studies based on real-world data, strongly suggest that luck and
> opportunity play an underappreciated role in determining the final level of
> individual success. As the researchers point out, since rewards and
> resources are usually given to those who are already highly rewarded, this
> often causes a lack of opportunities for those who are most talented (i.e.,
> have the greatest potential to actually benefit from the resources), and it
> doesn't take into account the important role of luck, which can emerge
> spontaneously throughout the creative process. The researchers argue that
> the following factors are all important in giving people more chances of
> success: a stimulating environment rich in opportunities, a good education,
> intensive training, and an efficient strategy for the distribution of funds
> and resources. They argue that at the macro-level of analysis, any policy
> that can influence these factors will result in greater collective progress
> and innovation for society (not to mention immense self-actualization of
> any particular individual).
>
> © 2018 Scott Barry Kaufman <http://www.scottbarrykaufman.com/>, All
> Rights Reserved
>
> *Note: One suggestion I made to the Italian team is for their future
> simulations to take into account the real-world finding that *talent
> develops over time
> <https://www.amazon.com/Ungifted-Intelligence-Scott-Barry-Kaufman/dp/0465025544>*,
> and is not a fixed quantity of the individual. They graciously said this
> was a valid point and would definitely take that into consideration in
> their future work.*
>
> The views expressed are those of the author(s) and are not necessarily
> those of Scientific American.
> ABOUT THE AUTHOR(S)[image: author-avatar]
>
> Scott Barry Kaufman, Ph.D., is a humanistic psychologist exploring the
> depths of human potential. He has taught courses on intelligence,
> creativity, and well-being at Columbia University, NYU, the University of
> Pennsylvania, and elsewhere. He hosts The Psychology Podcast
> <https://scottbarrykaufman.com/podcast/>, and is author and/or editor of
> 9 books, including *Transcend: The New Science of Self-Actualization*
> <https://www.amazon.com/Transcend-Self-Actualization-Scott-Barry-Kaufman/dp/0143131206>
> , *Wired to Create: Unravelling the Mysteries of the Creative Mind*
> <https://www.amazon.com/Wired-Create-Unraveling-Mysteries-Creative/dp/0399175660>(with
> Carolyn Gregoire), and *Ungifted: Intelligence Redefined*
> <https://www.amazon.com/Ungifted-Intelligence-Scott-Barry-Kaufman/dp/0465066968/>.
> In
> 2015, he was named one of "50 Groundbreaking Scientists who are changing
> the way we see the world" by *Business Insider*. Find out more at
> http://ScottBarryKaufman.com <https://scottbarrykaufman.com/>. He wrote
> the extremely popular *Beautiful Minds*
> <https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/beautiful-minds/> blog for *Scientific
> American* for close to a decade.
>
> Credit: Andrew French
>
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Thatha_Patty" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/thatha_patty/CAL5XZorJ3FcMGqosU63d6KTmxBJjEczcw5P8Wb7EzcokczVX%2BA%40mail.gmail.com.
