Upside decay (2020)(brianlui.dog)
brianlui.dog
Upside decay (2020)
https://brianlui.dog/2020/10/06/upside-decay/
33 コメント
I agree with your assessment of the main points of this article.
However, when I read the post, it felt very disconnected. He presents his model of upside decay... and then, a GDP graph? Ok... let's see how this is relevant... Ummm... it's not really.
The problem is, I'm sympathetic to some of the drive underlying his points I think, they're just too diffuse and unconnected for me to appreciate in this article.
From top to bottom:
1. what evidence is there GDP growth is predicated upon a few large bursts of progress rather than steady iteration (I think this is likely, but it's asserted without evidence).
2. We've established that we're talking about upside decay, so why are we switching to comparing 0.5 ^ 5 vs. 0.3 ^ 5? (you can argue that he's integrating the side of the normal distribution above 0 for the non-upside-decay and upside-decay case, but why? it doesn't fit with the argument being made, why are we arguing that this model fits what we're trying to look at?).
3. So now we introduce "weak ties" and how they regulate upside-decay. Why? It's presented with no evidence or argument.
e.t.c.
I feel like my comment has come off negative, though I don't particularly want it to. I think there's some interesting stuff here, I just don't think it's particularly well grounded.
However, when I read the post, it felt very disconnected. He presents his model of upside decay... and then, a GDP graph? Ok... let's see how this is relevant... Ummm... it's not really.
The problem is, I'm sympathetic to some of the drive underlying his points I think, they're just too diffuse and unconnected for me to appreciate in this article.
From top to bottom:
1. what evidence is there GDP growth is predicated upon a few large bursts of progress rather than steady iteration (I think this is likely, but it's asserted without evidence).
2. We've established that we're talking about upside decay, so why are we switching to comparing 0.5 ^ 5 vs. 0.3 ^ 5? (you can argue that he's integrating the side of the normal distribution above 0 for the non-upside-decay and upside-decay case, but why? it doesn't fit with the argument being made, why are we arguing that this model fits what we're trying to look at?).
3. So now we introduce "weak ties" and how they regulate upside-decay. Why? It's presented with no evidence or argument.
e.t.c.
I feel like my comment has come off negative, though I don't particularly want it to. I think there's some interesting stuff here, I just don't think it's particularly well grounded.
my take:
1. It's an assertion. I think a punctuated equilibrium model is a reasonable argument looking at the last 250 years or so of technology progress but I agree he does not present data.
2. I understood this to mean that a breakthrough is a "combination lock" event that requires multiple positive events to align. If counter parties are more suspicious of you then the odds of a favorable interaction go from 50% to 30% so the odds crater.
3. Your reputation is bounded within a group context. Your weak ties are more likely to lead novel insights and (see for example Granovetter's "Strength of Weak Ties" https://sociology.stanford.edu/publications/strength-weak-ti...) by enabling unique combinations of multiple ideas.
I think your critique is accurate but from my perspective Lui's article represents some very innovative thinking that offer the core of several valuable insights.
1. It's an assertion. I think a punctuated equilibrium model is a reasonable argument looking at the last 250 years or so of technology progress but I agree he does not present data.
2. I understood this to mean that a breakthrough is a "combination lock" event that requires multiple positive events to align. If counter parties are more suspicious of you then the odds of a favorable interaction go from 50% to 30% so the odds crater.
3. Your reputation is bounded within a group context. Your weak ties are more likely to lead novel insights and (see for example Granovetter's "Strength of Weak Ties" https://sociology.stanford.edu/publications/strength-weak-ti...) by enabling unique combinations of multiple ideas.
I think your critique is accurate but from my perspective Lui's article represents some very innovative thinking that offer the core of several valuable insights.
It appears he was taking notes on a talk he attended and published them.
Oh... that explains things. Apologies if I was negative!
Would love to see additional arguments from this talk. Does anyone know the primary source?
Would love to see additional arguments from this talk. Does anyone know the primary source?
The article was from October 2020 so this looks more like someone being facetious.
[deleted]
The distinction of cultures into "virtuous" and "unvirtuous" is meaningless. China hasn't achieved a miracle by being "virtuous", they achieved it by working very hard and accepting outside investment. Their strategic and social policies have been not consistent, but they have been driven from a consistent culture (the internals of the Communist Party) for decades.
They not only can, but probably already have, gotten away with cultural genocide in Tibet. Nobody did anything about it. Ripping up the Sino-British declaration is a non-event in global politics.
This isn't a case of "well they were virtuous in 1990 and abandoned virtue in 2020". Ditto America or the Europeans. Virtue is that the winners of the big wars get to decide what crimes will be highlighted and what will be ignored - until they lose a war. Realpolitik is a more powerful and explanatory lens to explain all the manoeuvrings than whatever this 'virtuous culture' concept is meant to represent.
Anyone can put together a "virtuous" or "unvirtuous" list of 20 dot points for any country with more than 100 million people. 100 million is a lot of people. There is a lot going on.
They not only can, but probably already have, gotten away with cultural genocide in Tibet. Nobody did anything about it. Ripping up the Sino-British declaration is a non-event in global politics.
This isn't a case of "well they were virtuous in 1990 and abandoned virtue in 2020". Ditto America or the Europeans. Virtue is that the winners of the big wars get to decide what crimes will be highlighted and what will be ignored - until they lose a war. Realpolitik is a more powerful and explanatory lens to explain all the manoeuvrings than whatever this 'virtuous culture' concept is meant to represent.
Anyone can put together a "virtuous" or "unvirtuous" list of 20 dot points for any country with more than 100 million people. 100 million is a lot of people. There is a lot going on.
I don’t think it’s supposed to be the culture of the country rather the culture of leadership and it’s relations to their peers. In the case of China it’s actions that people they depend on such as the leadership of the USA see as bad that increased friction which then compounds in the upside decay.
Thanks for sharing the article. He has a nice way of framing things:
> My conclusion: Management is the most noble of professions if it’s practiced well. No other occupation offers as many ways to help others learn and grow, take responsibility and be recognized for achievement, and contribute to the success of a team.
I'd be very interested in actual data that compares virtuous and unvirtuous cultures, out of curiosity of course!
> My conclusion: Management is the most noble of professions if it’s practiced well. No other occupation offers as many ways to help others learn and grow, take responsibility and be recognized for achievement, and contribute to the success of a team.
I'd be very interested in actual data that compares virtuous and unvirtuous cultures, out of curiosity of course!
The first 15 of 24 instances of the term "Upside Decay" that are actually in the article title/body are not at all definitional. Somewhere between 1 and 15 I stopped caring about whatever the writer is either too cool to tell me or assumes I already know and decided to count instead...
The 16th use gets close: "Upside decay is preceded by a lack of virtue."
The 17th, 18th, and 19th invocations get closer still (but, pardon my French, sound like astrology):
> There’s a good reason why lack of virtue causes upside decay, and why virtue isn’t just a feel-good luxury: weak ties.
> Weak ties control upside decay > Unvirtuous actions cause upside decay through the mechanism of weak ties.
The 20th use is the first to say anything I'm comfortable with calling a definition:
> Without weak ties, organizations resort to strong ties and hard assets. This leads them to adopt a mercantilist approach. Their zero-sum mindset alienates others and makes them even less virtuous, because their positive-sum actions are now viewed suspiciously by others. Left with no choice but to double down on their zero-sum approach, they’ll antagonize all their weak ties and enter upside decay.
If you write anything, please don't do this. If you must, put a disclaimer at the beginning that says the article is too cool for people who don't already know what upside decay is. Or a link to the definition. Anything, really, that shows respect for the reader's time.
Edit: or, per slowmovintarget in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27376573, a disclaimer that this is notes on a talk.
The 16th use gets close: "Upside decay is preceded by a lack of virtue."
The 17th, 18th, and 19th invocations get closer still (but, pardon my French, sound like astrology):
> There’s a good reason why lack of virtue causes upside decay, and why virtue isn’t just a feel-good luxury: weak ties.
> Weak ties control upside decay > Unvirtuous actions cause upside decay through the mechanism of weak ties.
The 20th use is the first to say anything I'm comfortable with calling a definition:
> Without weak ties, organizations resort to strong ties and hard assets. This leads them to adopt a mercantilist approach. Their zero-sum mindset alienates others and makes them even less virtuous, because their positive-sum actions are now viewed suspiciously by others. Left with no choice but to double down on their zero-sum approach, they’ll antagonize all their weak ties and enter upside decay.
If you write anything, please don't do this. If you must, put a disclaimer at the beginning that says the article is too cool for people who don't already know what upside decay is. Or a link to the definition. Anything, really, that shows respect for the reader's time.
Edit: or, per slowmovintarget in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27376573, a disclaimer that this is notes on a talk.
>The reduction in area under the curve (the orange part) represents the loss of positive outcomes. The total loss is small, but it’s concentrated in the tail of the curve where the extreme successes happen. This is upside decay and it’s catastrophic.
"Loss of positive outcomes" is the definition. That is, rare but really good outcomes become rarer.
The diagram at the beginning of the article illustrates it pretty clearly to me. I had never heard of upside decay before this article, and as soon as I saw the diagram I understood the meaning (but not the cause).
"Loss of positive outcomes" is the definition. That is, rare but really good outcomes become rarer.
The diagram at the beginning of the article illustrates it pretty clearly to me. I had never heard of upside decay before this article, and as soon as I saw the diagram I understood the meaning (but not the cause).
Yes--I exaggerated. The diagram clearly depicts a shaded fraction of the right-tail of a normal distribution.
The text asserts:
- this shaded fraction represents the loss of positive outcomes (and implies that there are real-world conditions that can lead to this loss)
- this loss of outcomes is upside decay
- upside decay catastrophic
So, sure. It's a definition in the sense that anyone can highlight a distribution, assert that part of it could go missing, assert a name for such a missing portion, and assert that it would be a catastrophe if whatever the shaded area represents went missing.
But this definition has nothing to do with the article's topic. You can s/upside decay/-8 luck/ without having much impact on what the first ~2/3 mean.
Tautological highlights on graphs of normal distributions surely aren't the kind of catastrophe the definition means. The map is not the territory.
The definition has multiple dangling references, and has little bearing on the topic until the author starts resolving them.
The text asserts:
- this shaded fraction represents the loss of positive outcomes (and implies that there are real-world conditions that can lead to this loss)
- this loss of outcomes is upside decay
- upside decay catastrophic
So, sure. It's a definition in the sense that anyone can highlight a distribution, assert that part of it could go missing, assert a name for such a missing portion, and assert that it would be a catastrophe if whatever the shaded area represents went missing.
But this definition has nothing to do with the article's topic. You can s/upside decay/-8 luck/ without having much impact on what the first ~2/3 mean.
Tautological highlights on graphs of normal distributions surely aren't the kind of catastrophe the definition means. The map is not the territory.
The definition has multiple dangling references, and has little bearing on the topic until the author starts resolving them.
> But this definition has nothing to do with the article's topic. You can s/upside decay/-8 luck/ without having much impact on what the first ~2/3 mean.
Given that the very first appearance of the term "Upside decay" says "an organization doesn’t get any lucky breaks." I think the author would agree with you on this point. I don't see how this is a criticism; until the author finishes their explanation, the explanation is incomplete?
Given that the very first appearance of the term "Upside decay" says "an organization doesn’t get any lucky breaks." I think the author would agree with you on this point. I don't see how this is a criticism; until the author finishes their explanation, the explanation is incomplete?
I think his argument is that weak ties (counter-parties you have some connection with but not a deep one) are not inclined to punish you (increasing your bad luck) as much as are disinclined to give you the benefit of the doubt. I think luck includes "good luck" and "bad luck." His argument is that nonvirtuous behavior by an organization (or the ruling group of a nation) leads to fewer lucky breaks and less upside. He is not suggesting your bad luck increases so I don't think the substitution holds.
But does state investment into R&D and state sponsored companies more than compensate for this? I think (as does Ray Dalio) that the U.S. will be surpassed in the next 15 years. The U.S. aggressively removes meritocratic gifted programs and replaces them with diversity quotas [1] while China's Gao Kao is widely studied for (in contrast to say the SAT) and pure meritocracy. How can you claim that lower odds events will occur more often in the U.S. when we're suppressing the programs which produce people that go on to make those lower odds events happen?
1: https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/thomas-jeffer...
1: https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/thomas-jeffer...
I am highly sceptical of the idea that standardized testing is truly meritocratic. There's a recent KnowingBetter video that goes into detail on how it can be viewed as a segregation tool and how that idea of "we are educationally disarming ourselves" started with Reagan and Ayn Rand, but that would veer too much into politics, so I'll make my own argument: the fact that you benefit from private tutoring, having a good learning environment, a culture of academic expectations etc. will make rich kids and kids that are pushed into studying more by their parents much more likely to do well on standardized tests. It won'tnecessarily transfer though. So by focusing on standardised testing, you filter out poor people (which still just happen to be overproportionally PoC in the US...) while optimising for people who can do at standardised tests, not necessarily those who'll do well in research.
And given the number of diagnosed AD(H) and dyslexic people I've encountered in my higher education who only pass their exams because of accomodation of specialised needs but who are brilliant at their roles now... I'll rather take diversity I think than trust some government to codify what "intelligence" and "merit" means.
And given the number of diagnosed AD(H) and dyslexic people I've encountered in my higher education who only pass their exams because of accomodation of specialised needs but who are brilliant at their roles now... I'll rather take diversity I think than trust some government to codify what "intelligence" and "merit" means.
[deleted]
It's one thing to play catch up and invest against a technology tree that has already been mapped by more advanced competitors. It's quite another to have to fund exploration. Governments have not proven adept at funding technology advances in peacetime compared to private industry.
There’s a very strong counter argument.
First, exams like Gao Kao, Bac, SAT are indeed “meritocratic” in that they tend to predict success…because success” tends to mean “does well in this exam” rather than later outcome; to the degree they predict later outcome they reflect a pre existing network, wealth, etc on the part of the students.
Now knowing how to speak with people and having some informal network support can make things run smoothly and even in some cases “better” — I think there’s little argument to that.
The problem with these pre-existing networks is that they become intellectually and socially inbred (in the US just look for example at the networks that led to the viet nam war, or the crowned heads of Europe, or the churning (over the centuries) dynasties of China).
A society built on hybrid vigour is likely to be more resilient and capable than one built on the “fitness” of legacy-based entrants. The latter is a flawed definition of “merit”.
First, exams like Gao Kao, Bac, SAT are indeed “meritocratic” in that they tend to predict success…because success” tends to mean “does well in this exam” rather than later outcome; to the degree they predict later outcome they reflect a pre existing network, wealth, etc on the part of the students.
Now knowing how to speak with people and having some informal network support can make things run smoothly and even in some cases “better” — I think there’s little argument to that.
The problem with these pre-existing networks is that they become intellectually and socially inbred (in the US just look for example at the networks that led to the viet nam war, or the crowned heads of Europe, or the churning (over the centuries) dynasties of China).
A society built on hybrid vigour is likely to be more resilient and capable than one built on the “fitness” of legacy-based entrants. The latter is a flawed definition of “merit”.
I don't think you can argue that a society built on admitting based on diversity rather than even imperfect standardized testing can be more independent of the pre-existing network. By denying admits from poor "overrepresented" minorities you preserve the status quo, since in practice affirmative action merely admits minorities who are already wealthy and connected rather than lifting people out of poverty. At least in the Gao Kao system you have new entrants in upper socioeconomic tiers since you can realistically study your way out of poverty. Those entrants can bring new viewpoints whereas wealthy people, even if they're different races, are fairly homogenous in life experience.
Personally I believe standardized tests reflect the degree of time and diligence invested into preparing for them ("grit"), which although negatively impacted by poverty is still a strong signal for future success.
Personally I believe standardized tests reflect the degree of time and diligence invested into preparing for them ("grit"), which although negatively impacted by poverty is still a strong signal for future success.
>since you can realistically study your way out of poverty
Since the advent of standardized testing, wealthy subjects have used their means to cheat.
Since the advent of standardized testing, wealthy subjects have used their means to cheat.
The Bac was a tool of neutral advancement but I really don’t think it has been in decades. SAT has a more mixed history and has never been particularly neutral (more like am IQ test). Gao Kao has a very long and mixed record but I agree that for a long time it was at least intended to be neutral. But the “princelings” (太子黨) show how neutral it really is today.
Personally I take a dim view of the utility of any test that can be crammed for.
> I don't think you can argue that a society built on admitting based on diversity rather than even imperfect standardized testing can be more independent of the pre-existing network.
Certainly you can, and I am not only citing such an argument and agreeing with it, but am such an example. It’s hardly perfect of course.
But just for myself: I am genetically a “mongrel” (per the then laws of the country of my birth), my father was the only of his siblings to enter university; their parents had finished only grades 3 and 6. My mother of a race normally banned from the country. Zero status there.
But I attended what is at times described as the “best”* high school in the USA and the so-called “best” university due in part to great SAT scores. (Note: almost four decades ago!). So the system can work. Those with preexisting networks will still have an advantage, but I gained access to them too. I suppose you could say I traveled to the USA so I was inherently in some sort of “in group”.
I don’t remember that there was any SAT prep in those days though perhaps it was just not available to me. I certainly don’t remember any of my schoolmates studying for it.
* quotation marks because I consider such unidimensional claims to be fatuous. Mentioning them simply to supply a real world example.
Personally I take a dim view of the utility of any test that can be crammed for.
> I don't think you can argue that a society built on admitting based on diversity rather than even imperfect standardized testing can be more independent of the pre-existing network.
Certainly you can, and I am not only citing such an argument and agreeing with it, but am such an example. It’s hardly perfect of course.
But just for myself: I am genetically a “mongrel” (per the then laws of the country of my birth), my father was the only of his siblings to enter university; their parents had finished only grades 3 and 6. My mother of a race normally banned from the country. Zero status there.
But I attended what is at times described as the “best”* high school in the USA and the so-called “best” university due in part to great SAT scores. (Note: almost four decades ago!). So the system can work. Those with preexisting networks will still have an advantage, but I gained access to them too. I suppose you could say I traveled to the USA so I was inherently in some sort of “in group”.
I don’t remember that there was any SAT prep in those days though perhaps it was just not available to me. I certainly don’t remember any of my schoolmates studying for it.
* quotation marks because I consider such unidimensional claims to be fatuous. Mentioning them simply to supply a real world example.
I also think this “upside decay” idea has some weight as an argument for some kind of economic reform. There are many would-be entrepreneurs whose potential remains untapped because the low odds of an extreme upside aren’t worth the high odds of a (relatively low-cost) downside to them as an individual, even if those odds are attractive to the society when scaled across many individuals.
I don’t see any way to overcome that discrepancy between the individual and the society except by guaranteeing the individual some acceptable standard of living even when they fail. VC tries to do this, but only for ideas tied to specific economic sectors. Lambda school did something that’s halfway there (cover basic expenses, but only for schooling — not for business ventures). Basic income is the broadest idea that helps free entrepreneurs to pursue more frictionlessly these ideas that society benefits from without worry of the cost of failure, yet I hardly ever see people frame it that way.
I don’t see any way to overcome that discrepancy between the individual and the society except by guaranteeing the individual some acceptable standard of living even when they fail. VC tries to do this, but only for ideas tied to specific economic sectors. Lambda school did something that’s halfway there (cover basic expenses, but only for schooling — not for business ventures). Basic income is the broadest idea that helps free entrepreneurs to pursue more frictionlessly these ideas that society benefits from without worry of the cost of failure, yet I hardly ever see people frame it that way.
[deleted]
This reminds me of a similar point I first heard by Jordan Peterson, regarding how stereotypical judgements often have a true basis given the extremes of the distribution with regard to a trait, but are effectively false with regard to the vast majority of the population under the curve, explained in a purely statistical manner.
E.g. Why is it always X (e.g. men) that do bad thing Y (e.g. violence)? Well, it's because, if the mean of the distribution of X vs ¬X is shifted by even just a 0.00001, then at the super-rare-extremes of the distribution, X will still have a much higher probability than ¬X for that event at the tail. However, for the most part, at anything but the extremes, there's virtually no difference.
So in many ways, stereotypes are simply the basic fallacy of mistaking a likelihood for a posterior.
E.g. Why is it always X (e.g. men) that do bad thing Y (e.g. violence)? Well, it's because, if the mean of the distribution of X vs ¬X is shifted by even just a 0.00001, then at the super-rare-extremes of the distribution, X will still have a much higher probability than ¬X for that event at the tail. However, for the most part, at anything but the extremes, there's virtually no difference.
So in many ways, stereotypes are simply the basic fallacy of mistaking a likelihood for a posterior.
Bold prediction on China.
Agreed but I felt like the difficulties with rising health care, housing, & other costs across much of the world, coupled with an increased difficulty forming new enterprises is a gate worldwide that makes upside growth increasingly difficult. Liu talked about China but the message felt ultra applicable to the parts of the world that I know better.
What is the point of a "content warning" about current Chinese politics? Seems needlessly meek.
Being reminded of an ongoing genocide makes some people upset. Those people might choose to avoid reading about it.
I follow Chinese politics pretty closely and I had no idea wtf the author was talking about. Not a huge fan of this kind of tepid tone.
1. Upside decay is hard to spot. It’s invisible if we’re not specifically looking for it, because the absence of rare positive events is unexceptional.
2. Upside decay is preceded by a lack of virtue that leads to zero-sum or even win-lose transactions
3. Two Leadership choices: virtuous or unvirtuous culture which leads to two disparate outcomes:
virtuous culture -> positive sum interactions -> weak ties help -> lucky breaks
unvirtuous culture -> zero sum interactions -> weak ties abandon -> upside decay
“The right culture, the highest and best culture, is a seamless web of deserved trust.” Charles Munger
Note: Clayton Christensen makes the same point for individuals who prioritize "winning" and "career advancement" over relationships in "How Will You Measure Your Life (https://hbr.org/2010/07/how-will-you-measure-your-life). Summary at https://www.skmurphy.com/blog/2020/02/16/clayton-christensen...