5 ms·

Why do you believe that acknowledging the role of luck in success is 'toxic' and 'hostile'? If there were sound scientific studies to back up the assertion, wou

Why do you believe that acknowledging the role of luck in success is 'toxic' and 'hostile'? If there were sound scientific studies to back up the assertion, would they also be considered toxic and hostile?

AnimalMuppet 9y ago
You can acknowledge that luck has a role, and prove it with scientific studies. That's valid, and is neither toxic nor hostile. You can go on from there, and say "Most wealth is appropriated from others, not made." Or "The American dream is a myth, just like the London investment banker’s fantasy. Those who make money are often not very talented at all. They were just lucky at the right points in their lives." That is, the claim is not just that luck plays a role, but that luck plays the dominant role. That's a different claim. And where it goes from there is often toxic and hostile (whether or not this particular article crossed the line). It usually goes to "So give us our share of it, because you don't deserve it, because you're not actually successful, just lucky."
- rbanffy 9y ago
  I think the benefit of this is that you must think at your own successes and wonder how much is because you are really good at that and can't possibly fail, and how much of that is because you got insanely lucky.
clavalle 9y ago
Acknowledging luck as a factor is good sense. Flatly attributing to luck is foolish. Tearing down the wealthy because they happened to be lucky in some way is hostile. Statements like 'Most wealth is appropriated from others, not made.' are hostile and toxic. Not just toxic but toxic along several axes. First, it obfuscates the real problems. The problem isn't inequality of income or assets -- it is when that inequality leads to monopolistic situations for the have's or desperation for the have nots. This is a much easier problem to solve than forced equality thus making a surmountable problem seem much more intractable than it is. Second, it unfairly vilifies an entire group of people. For the most part, in functioning societies where wealth is generated through voluntary exchanges of value, the wealthy are, generally speaking, doing a ton of good in the world. If we discourage people from taking that path by vilifying it, we are doing much more harm than good. And finally, it allows people to feel good about doing little. If the wealthy are only wealthy because of luck, well, not generating wealth is as good as creating value for other people and generating wealth, right? Wrong. Luck is a factor in wealth generation, no doubt about it, but luck is a secondary characteristic. Focusing on it, especially while discounting all of the other factors of financial success, is a mistake that hurts everyone.
- vannevar 9y ago
  Second, it unfairly vilifies an entire group of people. How? If someone wins the lottery, obviously it isn't vilifying them to say that it was predominantly luck. If someone by chance invests in a mining company that the very next day discovers a rich deposit in a mine though played out, is it vilifying the investor to praise their luck? The author believes that most great wealth is attributable to luck. You can argue that this is not true. But if it is true, it's certainly not vilifying anyone to make the suggestion. And finally, it allows people to feel good about doing little. No, it allows people to feel good about not being rich. It also makes them less likely to blindly worship the wealthy. Human beings are, on the whole, naturally productive. They want to contribute, and feel needed. It's human nature. It's not like everyone will suddenly sit on their hands if we were to find out that becoming rich is mostly luck. Not getting cancer is mostly luck too, but that doesn't mean people don't take prudent measures to reduce their risk.

AnimalMuppet 9y ago

You can acknowledge that luck has a role, and prove it with scientific studies. That's valid, and is neither toxic nor hostile. You can go on from there, and say "Most wealth is appropriated from others, not made." Or "The American dream is a myth, just like the London investment banker’s fantasy. Those who make money are often not very talented at all. They were just lucky at the right points in their lives." That is, the claim is not just that luck plays a role, but that luck plays the dominant role. That's a different claim. And where it goes from there is often toxic and hostile (whether or not this particular article crossed the line). It usually goes to "So give us our share of it, because you don't deserve it, because you're not actually successful, just lucky."

rbanffy 9y ago
I think the benefit of this is that you must think at your own successes and wonder how much is because you are really good at that and can't possibly fail, and how much of that is because you got insanely lucky.

clavalle 9y ago

Acknowledging luck as a factor is good sense. Flatly attributing to luck is foolish. Tearing down the wealthy because they happened to be lucky in some way is hostile. Statements like 'Most wealth is appropriated from others, not made.' are hostile and toxic. Not just toxic but toxic along several axes. First, it obfuscates the real problems. The problem isn't inequality of income or assets -- it is when that inequality leads to monopolistic situations for the have's or desperation for the have nots. This is a much easier problem to solve than forced equality thus making a surmountable problem seem much more intractable than it is. Second, it unfairly vilifies an entire group of people. For the most part, in functioning societies where wealth is generated through voluntary exchanges of value, the wealthy are, generally speaking, doing a ton of good in the world. If we discourage people from taking that path by vilifying it, we are doing much more harm than good. And finally, it allows people to feel good about doing little. If the wealthy are only wealthy because of luck, well, not generating wealth is as good as creating value for other people and generating wealth, right? Wrong. Luck is a factor in wealth generation, no doubt about it, but luck is a secondary characteristic. Focusing on it, especially while discounting all of the other factors of financial success, is a mistake that hurts everyone.

vannevar 9y ago
Second, it unfairly vilifies an entire group of people. How? If someone wins the lottery, obviously it isn't vilifying them to say that it was predominantly luck. If someone by chance invests in a mining company that the very next day discovers a rich deposit in a mine though played out, is it vilifying the investor to praise their luck? The author believes that most great wealth is attributable to luck. You can argue that this is not true. But if it is true, it's certainly not vilifying anyone to make the suggestion. And finally, it allows people to feel good about doing little. No, it allows people to feel good about not being rich. It also makes them less likely to blindly worship the wealthy. Human beings are, on the whole, naturally productive. They want to contribute, and feel needed. It's human nature. It's not like everyone will suddenly sit on their hands if we were to find out that becoming rich is mostly luck. Not getting cancer is mostly luck too, but that doesn't mean people don't take prudent measures to reduce their risk.