3 ms·
How about: success is log-normally distributed, with individual factors, environmental and random factors all ~multiplying together. If you select the most succ
by aoeusnth1 10y ago
How about: success is log-normally distributed, with individual factors, environmental and random factors all ~multiplying together. If you select the most successful people, they are likely to be both talented AND lucky.
- backpropaganda 10y agoSure. Talent is a function of luck too. I'm not denying the role of luck. Just saying that someone who made it big is not following a random policy, and that imitating their behaviour might help you too.
- MagnumOpus 10y agoIf talent counts as luck, everything does. Maybe you mean that talent is also outside the individuals purview? In the context of predicting success it does not make sense to put talent - or other non-changeable initial endowments like country of birth, parental wealth, attractiveness - into the "luck" bucket. While you can't do anything about these factors, an accurate assessment of them will tell you a lot about your chances of success in a given domain. I.e.: you might need all three of exceptional talent, hard work and luck to succeed in an endeavour - and while luck might be random, and "hard work" can be influenced by yourself, the talent factor can be gauged but cannot be influenced so it can be a hard limit that should guide you in the path you take. I.e. you don't dedicate your life to being a supermodel if you were born butt-ugly, or to be an NBA player if you are 5 feet tall. You might succeed, but your chances are microscopic.
- jrjf940 10y agowhy would talent not count as luck?