Definitely professional athletics seems to be an exception, since it has a clearly defined metric for merit, and big enough rewards to picking the winners to justify global search.
I'd assume at some level finance is like this; the algorithmic trading parts, not the "we went to Yale together and you have compromising pictures of me with that nun, so I'll give you this business" parts.
Actually finance is a very socially oriented business. Not to the extent that you use in your example, but frankly if the M.D. doesn't like the person they spend 60 to 100 hours/week with that person will be out of a job. Same thing goes on the client side; if they don't like you, you won't get their business.
Right, but in the long run, a really obnoxious guy who is right about the market more than everyone else could probably end up running money, using other people as buffers. A small hedge fund really doesn't have a lot of overhead, so one obnoxious genius could work with 2-3 other people.
There are lots of roles in finance where connections and likability are probably primary (once you pass a certain level of competence), though.
The main shift in Moneyball wasn't the math per se (its there, but wasn't really the secret sauce), much of it was a shift in which metrics were actually important. Billy Beane's ranking of players was still merit based, they just measured by a different ruler.
Re:Arrington, Race, and Silicon Valley
by jacques_chester on Saturday October 29, 2011 @06:10AM
(#3171583)
Nitpick: isn't inheritance a type of luck?
If I had to put a bunch of rich people on a chart with three axises of merit, luck, and inheritance, I still think professional athletes lie the closest to the pure merit line.