The Lindy effect and survivorship bias are one in the same. That's kind of the idea.
Take programming languages for example. If I asked you to bet on 30 different programming languages which would still be in use in 10 years, and all you knew about them was how long they had already been in use, you'd probably correlate your bets to some degree with their age.
It's exactly survivorship bias, but the contextual usage is different. Usually you use survivorship bias to discredit the relevance of an observation. You should think of the lindy effect as survivorship bias as a supporting heuristic for a prediction.
They are unrelated things. The lindy effect says the future lifespan is proportional to how long it’s been around already (The Bible writings have been around 2000 years, so it will probably be around for another 2000 years). Survivorship bias is saying that things that survive are representative of the whole sample (saying the The Brothers Karamazov was typical for literature of that period without other evidence would be an example of survivorship bias).
A reply to myself since I can't edit: Survivorship bias may not completely describe what I'm talking about here but another commenter posted about Lindy Effect, which is 100% on the nose:
I think the difference is that survivorship bias applies when the difference between winners and losers is mostly due to chance. I don't think the fact that we use 4-legged chairs and not 5-legged is survivorship bias. I believe the Lindy effect's prediction that 4-legged chairs will be around a long time. Of course, whether it's survivorship or not is case-by-case.
Take programming languages for example. If I asked you to bet on 30 different programming languages which would still be in use in 10 years, and all you knew about them was how long they had already been in use, you'd probably correlate your bets to some degree with their age.
reply