not being an asshole, i.e. not assuming that other people could do just as well as you, if they only were not so fucking lazy;
realizing that your chances to achieve something may be better than you expected, because you have all these advantages over most potential competitors, so if you hesitated to do something because “there are so many people, many of them could do it much better than I could”, the actual number of people who could do it may be much smaller than you have assumed, and most of them will be busy doing something else instead.
Knowing the importance of the advantages people have makes you better able to judge how well people are likely to do, which lets you make better decisions when e.g. investing in someone’s company or deciding who to hire for an important role (or marry).
Also orients you towards figuring out the difficult-to-see advantages people must have (or must lack), given the level of success that they’ve achieved and their visible advantages.
If you’re in a position to influence what advantages people end up with—for example, by affecting the genes your children get, or what education and training you arrange for them—then you can estimate how much each of those is worth and prioritize accordingly.
One of the things you probably notice is that having some advantages tends to make other advantages more valuable. Certainly career-wise, several of those things are like, “If you’re doing badly on this dimension, then you may be unable to work at all, or be limited to far less valuable roles”. For example, if one person’s crippling anxiety takes them from ‘law firm partner making $1 million’ to ‘law analyst making $200k’, and another person’s crippling anxiety takes them from ‘bank teller making $50k’ to ‘unemployed’, then, well, from a utilitarian perspective, fixing one person’s problems is worth a lot more than the other’s. That is probably already acted upon today—the former law partner is more able to pay for therapy/whatever—but it could inform people who are deciding how to allocate scarce resources to young people, such as the student versions of the potential law partner and bank teller.
(Of course, the people who originally wrote about “privilege” would probably disagree in the strongest possible terms with the conclusions of the above lines of reasoning.)
Excellent point about the compounding, which is often multiplicative, not additive. Incidentally, multiplicative advantages result in a power law distribution of income/net worth, whereas additive advantages/disadvantages result in a normal distribution. But that is a separate topic, well explored in the literature.
Absolutely. For a quick model of why you get multiplicative results:
Intelligence—raw intellectual horsepower—might be considered a force-multiplier, whereby you produce more intellectual work per hour spent working.
Motivation (combined with say, health) determines how much time you spend working. We could quantify it as hours per week.
Taste determines the quality of the project you choose to work on. We might quantify it as “the expected value, per unit of intellectual work, of the project”.
Then you literally multiply those three quantities together and it’s the expected value per week of your intellectual work. My mentor says that these are the three most important traits that determine the best scientists.
What are the advantages of noticing all of this?
better model of the world;
not being an asshole, i.e. not assuming that other people could do just as well as you, if they only were not so fucking lazy;
realizing that your chances to achieve something may be better than you expected, because you have all these advantages over most potential competitors, so if you hesitated to do something because “there are so many people, many of them could do it much better than I could”, the actual number of people who could do it may be much smaller than you have assumed, and most of them will be busy doing something else instead.
Also:
Knowing the importance of the advantages people have makes you better able to judge how well people are likely to do, which lets you make better decisions when e.g. investing in someone’s company or deciding who to hire for an important role (or marry).
Also orients you towards figuring out the difficult-to-see advantages people must have (or must lack), given the level of success that they’ve achieved and their visible advantages.
If you’re in a position to influence what advantages people end up with—for example, by affecting the genes your children get, or what education and training you arrange for them—then you can estimate how much each of those is worth and prioritize accordingly.
One of the things you probably notice is that having some advantages tends to make other advantages more valuable. Certainly career-wise, several of those things are like, “If you’re doing badly on this dimension, then you may be unable to work at all, or be limited to far less valuable roles”. For example, if one person’s crippling anxiety takes them from ‘law firm partner making $1 million’ to ‘law analyst making $200k’, and another person’s crippling anxiety takes them from ‘bank teller making $50k’ to ‘unemployed’, then, well, from a utilitarian perspective, fixing one person’s problems is worth a lot more than the other’s. That is probably already acted upon today—the former law partner is more able to pay for therapy/whatever—but it could inform people who are deciding how to allocate scarce resources to young people, such as the student versions of the potential law partner and bank teller.
(Of course, the people who originally wrote about “privilege” would probably disagree in the strongest possible terms with the conclusions of the above lines of reasoning.)
Excellent point about the compounding, which is often multiplicative, not additive. Incidentally, multiplicative advantages result in a power law distribution of income/net worth, whereas additive advantages/disadvantages result in a normal distribution. But that is a separate topic, well explored in the literature.
Absolutely. For a quick model of why you get multiplicative results:
Intelligence—raw intellectual horsepower—might be considered a force-multiplier, whereby you produce more intellectual work per hour spent working.
Motivation (combined with say, health) determines how much time you spend working. We could quantify it as hours per week.
Taste determines the quality of the project you choose to work on. We might quantify it as “the expected value, per unit of intellectual work, of the project”.
Then you literally multiply those three quantities together and it’s the expected value per week of your intellectual work. My mentor says that these are the three most important traits that determine the best scientists.
That makes sense! Maybe you feel like writing a post on the topic? Potentially including a numerical or analytical model.
I mostly meant your second point, just generally being kinder to others, but the other two are also well taken.