3 ms·

> all the conditions for success are within your control I don't feel this is a necessary conclusion. In addition to accepting that some factors are outside yo

> all the conditions for success are within your control I don't feel this is a necessary conclusion. In addition to accepting that some factors are outside your control, one must also realize that not all factors are weighted equally.

zepto 10y ago
Why did you say it then? You talked about choosing how to attribute success based on how 'useful' the belief is rather than how accurate. If you are now trying to claim that luck is a factor but isn't weighted highly, this changes nothing about your desire to choose a belief that is false based on how motivating it is.
- notduncansmith 10y ago
  So there are a few orthogonal discussions here (largely due to lack of focus in my original comment, I'm afraid - haven't had my Sunday morning coffee yet). Firstly, luck is a label for a subset of all factors on the outcome of a particular endeavor: specifically the subset that we aren't consciously aware of. I wanted to refute it as a singular reason for success (being, by definition, multiple reasons). Secondly, I think an attitude that mostly dismisses the importance of luck (by emphasizing the importance of factors you can control) can help inspire confidence, an often-necessary and entirely-insufficient factor in successful human endeavors. Thirdly, I make no claims as to knowing the single most heavily-weighted factor for success, or even the absolute weight of any given factors. I have lightly-held opinions about relative weights of various factors, based on my own experience and things I've read on the Internet.
  - zepto 10y ago
    This is a good set of distinctions. I disagree with your refutation of 'luck' in point 1: I agree that luck is an aggregate of 'all factors beyond your control', but I do not agree that conscious awareness is sufficient to place things into your control. Therefore, luck includes all factors beyond our control, whether we are aware of them or not. It's perfectly reasonable to group these together under a category. If your argument is that aggregate categories are invalid, then you must apply the same logic to 'success'. More importantly, I agree with your second point, but I think it's harmful. Confidence based on self-deception is known as hubris, and leads to deceiving others and thus doing harm. There is no need to deceive oneself in order to feel confident. That simply comes from an accurate sense of one's capabilities and the situation one finds oneself in.
    - notduncansmith 10y ago
      I didn't mean to imply that being aware of conditions is sufficient for being in control of them. Obviously that would be wrong. > Aggregate categories are invalid In the search for a single factor, groups of factors seem like invalid entries. Talking about the influence of chance on the outcome of a given set of circumstances in the universe, we're getting into free will / determinism here (and that's probably not going to be a terribly productive discussion) so I'll move on to your other point. > I think it's harmful I'll concede that in a vacuum you'd be right, but we're not in a vacuum. Making decisions based on factors you know about is different from consciously ignoring external factor outside your control or assuming that the factors you control are weighted more heavily. I think this conclusion of yours about my argument, though, is based on the "awareness" vs "control" confusion from above, so my overall conclusion is that we're on the same page.
      - zepto 10y ago
        > In the search for a single factor, groups of factors seem like invalid entries. Grit is most certainly a group of factors. Nobody is taking about free will or determinism. You are introducing that as a straw man. We are not on the same page. Weights or not, you are advocating intentionally miss-attributing effects to causes that are under your control. Making reference to 'confusion' doesn't change that, and looks like another straw man. Given that you advocate self-deception, your response seems consistent with your policy. I salute you for your consistency.

zepto 10y ago

Why did you say it then? You talked about choosing how to attribute success based on how 'useful' the belief is rather than how accurate. If you are now trying to claim that luck is a factor but isn't weighted highly, this changes nothing about your desire to choose a belief that is false based on how motivating it is.

notduncansmith 10y ago
So there are a few orthogonal discussions here (largely due to lack of focus in my original comment, I'm afraid - haven't had my Sunday morning coffee yet). Firstly, luck is a label for a subset of all factors on the outcome of a particular endeavor: specifically the subset that we aren't consciously aware of. I wanted to refute it as a singular reason for success (being, by definition, multiple reasons). Secondly, I think an attitude that mostly dismisses the importance of luck (by emphasizing the importance of factors you can control) can help inspire confidence, an often-necessary and entirely-insufficient factor in successful human endeavors. Thirdly, I make no claims as to knowing the single most heavily-weighted factor for success, or even the absolute weight of any given factors. I have lightly-held opinions about relative weights of various factors, based on my own experience and things I've read on the Internet.
- zepto 10y ago
  This is a good set of distinctions. I disagree with your refutation of 'luck' in point 1: I agree that luck is an aggregate of 'all factors beyond your control', but I do not agree that conscious awareness is sufficient to place things into your control. Therefore, luck includes all factors beyond our control, whether we are aware of them or not. It's perfectly reasonable to group these together under a category. If your argument is that aggregate categories are invalid, then you must apply the same logic to 'success'. More importantly, I agree with your second point, but I think it's harmful. Confidence based on self-deception is known as hubris, and leads to deceiving others and thus doing harm. There is no need to deceive oneself in order to feel confident. That simply comes from an accurate sense of one's capabilities and the situation one finds oneself in.
  - notduncansmith 10y ago
    I didn't mean to imply that being aware of conditions is sufficient for being in control of them. Obviously that would be wrong. > Aggregate categories are invalid In the search for a single factor, groups of factors seem like invalid entries. Talking about the influence of chance on the outcome of a given set of circumstances in the universe, we're getting into free will / determinism here (and that's probably not going to be a terribly productive discussion) so I'll move on to your other point. > I think it's harmful I'll concede that in a vacuum you'd be right, but we're not in a vacuum. Making decisions based on factors you know about is different from consciously ignoring external factor outside your control or assuming that the factors you control are weighted more heavily. I think this conclusion of yours about my argument, though, is based on the "awareness" vs "control" confusion from above, so my overall conclusion is that we're on the same page.
    - zepto 10y ago
      > In the search for a single factor, groups of factors seem like invalid entries. Grit is most certainly a group of factors. Nobody is taking about free will or determinism. You are introducing that as a straw man. We are not on the same page. Weights or not, you are advocating intentionally miss-attributing effects to causes that are under your control. Making reference to 'confusion' doesn't change that, and looks like another straw man. Given that you advocate self-deception, your response seems consistent with your policy. I salute you for your consistency.