5 ms·

I'm not quite getting how can you put talent vs luck, when talent is based on luck you got from your genes, parents, environment etc. I see it as the same thin

I'm not quite getting how can you put talent vs luck, when talent is based on luck you got from your genes, parents, environment etc. I see it as the same thing.

BerislavLopac 9y ago
You can look at it as grouping your personal "luck" around the most important event in your life -- your conception.
aaron695 9y ago
This is totally reductio ad absurdum. My parents were 100% not luck. If I had different parents, well I'd be dead wouldn't I since I was never born. Same with my genes, if my brain genes were different, I'd be dead. As with environment.... because of my parents genes they got me into a good environment... cause they too didn't rely on luck. Pretty much very little was luck. To think it was luck would mean you'd have to believe in a god who gives out souls.
rptv 9y ago
Well, sure. You have your luck as determined at conception, your luck of upbringing, and then your luck as an adult. They're all luck-based, but qualitatively different.
- icantdrive55 9y ago
  I like to keep it simple; if you have a sympathetic, wealthy father/mother--you will have to work pretty hard to screw up the lucky lottery ticket.
ska 9y ago
Are you then assuming that two people with the same "talent" (your definition) would in probability then have the same outcomes? And the converse? Neither of these things are obviously true in practice, though measurements are admittedly difficult.
- mapcars 9y ago
  I didn't give any definition to talent, I just said that it is related, very closely, to luck so I don't see how you can oppose them to each other. I see it similar to asking "what is more important for a fruit - the peel or the meat?" while you can't have one without another, both are there together making a fruit what it is :)
  - ska 9y ago
    That doesn't answer either of my questions. Sorry I was unclear about "your defintion" - it was implicit and allowed for folding in all the "luck" aspects you are including. I see why you are saying the factors are somewhat confounded, but that does not implicitly mean that separable analysis is not possible or useful. I don't think your analogy holds and these are nearly as coupled concepts as parts of a fruit.
amelius 9y ago
Yes. Therefore, ultimately, in a society without work, wealth should be distributed according to the happiness it delivers. If one person loves reading books and another person loves driving expensive cars, then it's clear how the money should be distributed. On the other hand, this might take the fun out of driving expensive cars, because in a society with such wealth-distribution, having an expensive car doesn't mean "I'm more successful than you", but rather something like "I have a pathetic need to show off".
- KozmoNau7 9y ago
  It could also mean "I simply enjoy driving cars with a lot of power and/or comfort, because the sensations are inherently pleasurable to me". I love driving cars. Not to show off or because of prestige, I just really like driving, for some reason. I don't care if it's a 300hp grand tourer or a 60hp supermini, it's the act of driving that's enjoyable to me personally. Not everything is a matter of "keeping up with the Joneses".
  - amelius 9y ago
    Yes, I stand corrected. It's difficult to predict how people would think/live in a Utopian society. Perhaps cars wouldn't be owned, but borrowed/rented whenever people would want to have an experience like you described.
    - KozmoNau7 9y ago
      We could certainly do that today (and we are, on a limited scale), and I think it may happen with electric cars surprisingly soon. Certainly for those of us living in larger cities, a subscription service would make sense, so you would have to worry a lot less about parking. Especially with self-driving cars that could deliver themselves when needed.
ksec 9y ago
I tried to explain ( or briefly mention ) something similar that luck plays apart in one's success in job interviews. I thought I was being humble, and in truth I do think luck plays a part in many ways. After a few times I stopped mentioning it. It is clear the world doesn't buy this idea.
pcurve 9y ago
There's an old saying that goes something like, whether you will be successful in life or not will largely be determined by the following 3 things in the order of importance. 1. What country you were born. 2. What teacher and friends you end up having. 3. Your parents. ($, gene, personality, parenting) Of course, I would add just random luck as 4th factor. None of these, you have any control over. We're all here mostly through our good luck. Yes, some of us work very hard, but so do most people in impoverished countries. Let's take a minute to count our blessings. :)
- projektir 9y ago
  0. What species you're born as.

I'm not quite getting how can you put talent vs luck, when talent is based on luck you got from your genes, parents, environment etc. I see it as the same thing.

BerislavLopac 9y ago

You can look at it as grouping your personal "luck" around the most important event in your life -- your conception.

aaron695 9y ago

This is totally reductio ad absurdum. My parents were 100% not luck. If I had different parents, well I'd be dead wouldn't I since I was never born. Same with my genes, if my brain genes were different, I'd be dead. As with environment.... because of my parents genes they got me into a good environment... cause they too didn't rely on luck. Pretty much very little was luck. To think it was luck would mean you'd have to believe in a god who gives out souls.

rptv 9y ago

Well, sure. You have your luck as determined at conception, your luck of upbringing, and then your luck as an adult. They're all luck-based, but qualitatively different.

icantdrive55 9y ago
I like to keep it simple; if you have a sympathetic, wealthy father/mother--you will have to work pretty hard to screw up the lucky lottery ticket.

ska 9y ago

Are you then assuming that two people with the same "talent" (your definition) would in probability then have the same outcomes? And the converse? Neither of these things are obviously true in practice, though measurements are admittedly difficult.

mapcars 9y ago
I didn't give any definition to talent, I just said that it is related, very closely, to luck so I don't see how you can oppose them to each other. I see it similar to asking "what is more important for a fruit - the peel or the meat?" while you can't have one without another, both are there together making a fruit what it is :)
- ska 9y ago
  That doesn't answer either of my questions. Sorry I was unclear about "your defintion" - it was implicit and allowed for folding in all the "luck" aspects you are including. I see why you are saying the factors are somewhat confounded, but that does not implicitly mean that separable analysis is not possible or useful. I don't think your analogy holds and these are nearly as coupled concepts as parts of a fruit.

amelius 9y ago

Yes. Therefore, ultimately, in a society without work, wealth should be distributed according to the happiness it delivers. If one person loves reading books and another person loves driving expensive cars, then it's clear how the money should be distributed. On the other hand, this might take the fun out of driving expensive cars, because in a society with such wealth-distribution, having an expensive car doesn't mean "I'm more successful than you", but rather something like "I have a pathetic need to show off".

KozmoNau7 9y ago
It could also mean "I simply enjoy driving cars with a lot of power and/or comfort, because the sensations are inherently pleasurable to me". I love driving cars. Not to show off or because of prestige, I just really like driving, for some reason. I don't care if it's a 300hp grand tourer or a 60hp supermini, it's the act of driving that's enjoyable to me personally. Not everything is a matter of "keeping up with the Joneses".
- amelius 9y ago
  Yes, I stand corrected. It's difficult to predict how people would think/live in a Utopian society. Perhaps cars wouldn't be owned, but borrowed/rented whenever people would want to have an experience like you described.
  - KozmoNau7 9y ago
    We could certainly do that today (and we are, on a limited scale), and I think it may happen with electric cars surprisingly soon. Certainly for those of us living in larger cities, a subscription service would make sense, so you would have to worry a lot less about parking. Especially with self-driving cars that could deliver themselves when needed.

ksec 9y ago

I tried to explain ( or briefly mention ) something similar that luck plays apart in one's success in job interviews. I thought I was being humble, and in truth I do think luck plays a part in many ways. After a few times I stopped mentioning it. It is clear the world doesn't buy this idea.

pcurve 9y ago

There's an old saying that goes something like, whether you will be successful in life or not will largely be determined by the following 3 things in the order of importance. 1. What country you were born. 2. What teacher and friends you end up having. 3. Your parents. ($, gene, personality, parenting) Of course, I would add just random luck as 4th factor. None of these, you have any control over. We're all here mostly through our good luck. Yes, some of us work very hard, but so do most people in impoverished countries. Let's take a minute to count our blessings. :)

projektir 9y ago
0. What species you're born as.