4 ms·

The original model was so abstracted that it was absurd. There is no such thing as “luck”, it is only a name for what we call the intersection of preparation a

The original model was so abstracted that it was absurd. There is no such thing as “luck”, it is only a name for what we call the intersection of preparation and opportunity. Both can be controlled. People tend to think opportunities are random and based on chance – they aren’t. They are the result of smaller intersections of preparations and opportunities that happened previously.

pron 9y ago
For the purpose of this discussion, the precise definition of luck doesn't matter, and can be taken to be anything that isn't talent.
- matte_black 9y ago
  There is no such thing as talent either. No one is born with a natural skill to do something unnatural. Genetic traits are not talents, they are traits. To be born with a talent would be to be able to do whatever it is you do from the moment you are born, if you had the physical capacity for it. Otherwise, any “talent” you display later is really just the result of effective learning and practice, but that is just what you would call a skill, there is no need to build it up with all the mythology of “talent”. Just another form of ladder kicking to discourage others from thinking they could achieve that same level of skill. So if neither definition matters, then in essence this discussion is about nothing.
  - noelwelsh 9y ago
    Luck is anything the individual cannot control. You don't get to choose your parents, for example. I don't see what your point is.
    - matte_black 9y ago
      If that is all luck is, then is there ever a point to these discussions? No one is going to leave with an understanding of how they can “be more lucky”. You just either are, or you aren’t and that’s all you’ll ever be. Either that or it becomes a contest for who is the most or least lucky.
      - noelwelsh 9y ago
        Yes there is, as neoliberal culture holds that luck has no effect on outcomes. If you believe this you believe that welfare, for example, is not needed as the poor are just lazy.
    - beobab 9y ago
      I read an interesting book which suggested that what we call luck was a learnable skill in and of itself. It suggested that luck is no more than effective noticing, and a "lucky" person is simply more likely to notice something that would be construed as lucky by a neutral third party. The book also noted that lucky people didn't win more than statistics suggested they should (they were no more likely to win the lottery), but they opened themselves to situations which allowed a win to happen, and so had more chances to win than someone who closed off their options. In case you're interested, the book is "The Luck Factor", by Richard Wiseman.
    - wavefunction 9y ago
      @matte_black There's a big component in American culture at least, that assumes that the success in life is due to talent. It provides an excuse for inequitable distributions of resources, for example, by justifying the distribution as a natural consequence of individual talent, skill, and hard work. This study shows that this cultural assumption is not true, that talent or hard-work alone are not enough to achieve success, and much of success is down to random events. I think talent and hard-work along with ambition better prepare an individual to take advantage of these random events but without fortuitous providence, they aren't enough to provide success.
      - zip1234 9y ago
        Well, as an American, I can say that it isn't an assumption that success in life is solely due to talent. However, there is a belief that one can be successful with an entrepreneurial, hard-working attitude. Everyone knows that ultimate level of success is influenced by things out of one's control, but the American work ethic is more about making the most of what one has. People choose to control what they can, which is effort and attitude, and not worry about that which they can't.
        projektir 9y ago
        The problem is people mix personal motto with social policy. Social policy isn't about personal comfort with the concept, it's about what actually works, and if luck matters to social policy, then it needs to be taken into account, regardless of how much you pay attention to luck on a personal level. > People choose to control what they can Don't worry, everyone already does that. The difference is do you look down on other people (or even yourself) who are not doing as well?
    - mapcars 9y ago
      This is an interesting statement. Because how much you can and can not control is already defined by your past luck :)
      - noelwelsh 9y ago
        Luck certainly compounds.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - pron 9y ago
    The paper is not concerned with philosophical definitions. It picks a certain mathematical model, and describes the effect of two concepts which it calls "talent" and "luck". The question is whether or not the model captures reality sufficiently accurately, not about whether the two quantities match a specific definition nor about the philosophy of that definition.
- markshead 9y ago
  So where would you put what we call "determination?" When someone has 9 businesses/jobs/experiments/etc fail and gets "lucky" with the 10th one, it seems like there is another aspect other than luck and talent.
  - projektir 9y ago
    "determination" as a trait is likely genetic. Most personality traits appear to be. At the very list there's the issue of having enough resources to fail 9 times and not end up homeless. Most people can afford to fail maybe once.
  - imcrs 9y ago
    I would call that having health insurance and a place to stay when things go south 9 times in a row.
wiz21c 9y ago
https://www.inc.com/minda-zetlin/do-you-need-a-wealthy-background-to-be-a-successful-entrepreneur.html https://www.inc.com/minda-zetlin/do-you-need-a-wealthy-backg...
Broken_Hippo 9y ago
Call it circumstances you can't control if you want. People don't choose which country they are born into. They don't choose the quality of their primary education, whether or not their parents vaccinate them before they catch one of those sorts of diseases. They don't choose any disease (cancer, genetic defects, etc) for that matter. There is a whole range of things most people don't choose. To be a violence victim or in a car accident, for example. Most people can't choose whether or not they will be eligible for an inheritance that makes them better off financially - nor do they choose an inheritance filled with financial obligations. Sure, some opportunities are the sort that one can do things to make them more likely and choose to take them, but a great number are quite random to the individual and completely outside of their control. Just because they have cause doesn't mean they aren't what most folks consider "luck".
skrebbel 9y ago
I'm pretty proud of the careful preparation I did that led me to be born in the Netherlands.
- mapcars 9y ago
  ha-ha, I'm grateful to all the luck which resulting me living in the Netherlands :)
barrkel 9y ago
If someone gets killed in a plane crash, which intersection of preparation and opportunity caused that? Or was it just bad luck?
- fenwick67 9y ago
  They should have prepared better by bringing a parachute \s

pron 9y ago

For the purpose of this discussion, the precise definition of luck doesn't matter, and can be taken to be anything that isn't talent.

matte_black 9y ago
There is no such thing as talent either. No one is born with a natural skill to do something unnatural. Genetic traits are not talents, they are traits. To be born with a talent would be to be able to do whatever it is you do from the moment you are born, if you had the physical capacity for it. Otherwise, any “talent” you display later is really just the result of effective learning and practice, but that is just what you would call a skill, there is no need to build it up with all the mythology of “talent”. Just another form of ladder kicking to discourage others from thinking they could achieve that same level of skill. So if neither definition matters, then in essence this discussion is about nothing.
- noelwelsh 9y ago
  Luck is anything the individual cannot control. You don't get to choose your parents, for example. I don't see what your point is.
  - matte_black 9y ago
    If that is all luck is, then is there ever a point to these discussions? No one is going to leave with an understanding of how they can “be more lucky”. You just either are, or you aren’t and that’s all you’ll ever be. Either that or it becomes a contest for who is the most or least lucky.
    - noelwelsh 9y ago
      Yes there is, as neoliberal culture holds that luck has no effect on outcomes. If you believe this you believe that welfare, for example, is not needed as the poor are just lazy.
  - beobab 9y ago
    I read an interesting book which suggested that what we call luck was a learnable skill in and of itself. It suggested that luck is no more than effective noticing, and a "lucky" person is simply more likely to notice something that would be construed as lucky by a neutral third party. The book also noted that lucky people didn't win more than statistics suggested they should (they were no more likely to win the lottery), but they opened themselves to situations which allowed a win to happen, and so had more chances to win than someone who closed off their options. In case you're interested, the book is "The Luck Factor", by Richard Wiseman.
  - wavefunction 9y ago
    @matte_black There's a big component in American culture at least, that assumes that the success in life is due to talent. It provides an excuse for inequitable distributions of resources, for example, by justifying the distribution as a natural consequence of individual talent, skill, and hard work. This study shows that this cultural assumption is not true, that talent or hard-work alone are not enough to achieve success, and much of success is down to random events. I think talent and hard-work along with ambition better prepare an individual to take advantage of these random events but without fortuitous providence, they aren't enough to provide success.
    - zip1234 9y ago
      Well, as an American, I can say that it isn't an assumption that success in life is solely due to talent. However, there is a belief that one can be successful with an entrepreneurial, hard-working attitude. Everyone knows that ultimate level of success is influenced by things out of one's control, but the American work ethic is more about making the most of what one has. People choose to control what they can, which is effort and attitude, and not worry about that which they can't.
      - projektir 9y ago
        The problem is people mix personal motto with social policy. Social policy isn't about personal comfort with the concept, it's about what actually works, and if luck matters to social policy, then it needs to be taken into account, regardless of how much you pay attention to luck on a personal level. > People choose to control what they can Don't worry, everyone already does that. The difference is do you look down on other people (or even yourself) who are not doing as well?
  - mapcars 9y ago
    This is an interesting statement. Because how much you can and can not control is already defined by your past luck :)
    - noelwelsh 9y ago
      Luck certainly compounds.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- pron 9y ago
  The paper is not concerned with philosophical definitions. It picks a certain mathematical model, and describes the effect of two concepts which it calls "talent" and "luck". The question is whether or not the model captures reality sufficiently accurately, not about whether the two quantities match a specific definition nor about the philosophy of that definition.
markshead 9y ago
So where would you put what we call "determination?" When someone has 9 businesses/jobs/experiments/etc fail and gets "lucky" with the 10th one, it seems like there is another aspect other than luck and talent.
- projektir 9y ago
  "determination" as a trait is likely genetic. Most personality traits appear to be. At the very list there's the issue of having enough resources to fail 9 times and not end up homeless. Most people can afford to fail maybe once.
- imcrs 9y ago
  I would call that having health insurance and a place to stay when things go south 9 times in a row.

wiz21c 9y ago

https://www.inc.com/minda-zetlin/do-you-need-a-wealthy-background-to-be-a-successful-entrepreneur.html https://www.inc.com/minda-zetlin/do-you-need-a-wealthy-backg...

Broken_Hippo 9y ago

Call it circumstances you can't control if you want. People don't choose which country they are born into. They don't choose the quality of their primary education, whether or not their parents vaccinate them before they catch one of those sorts of diseases. They don't choose any disease (cancer, genetic defects, etc) for that matter. There is a whole range of things most people don't choose. To be a violence victim or in a car accident, for example. Most people can't choose whether or not they will be eligible for an inheritance that makes them better off financially - nor do they choose an inheritance filled with financial obligations. Sure, some opportunities are the sort that one can do things to make them more likely and choose to take them, but a great number are quite random to the individual and completely outside of their control. Just because they have cause doesn't mean they aren't what most folks consider "luck".

skrebbel 9y ago

I'm pretty proud of the careful preparation I did that led me to be born in the Netherlands.

mapcars 9y ago
ha-ha, I'm grateful to all the luck which resulting me living in the Netherlands :)

barrkel 9y ago

If someone gets killed in a plane crash, which intersection of preparation and opportunity caused that? Or was it just bad luck?

fenwick67 9y ago
They should have prepared better by bringing a parachute \s