3 ms·

FTA "almost never the most talented people reach the highest peaks of success, being overtaken by mediocre but sensibly luckier individuals." It's also interes

FTA "almost never the most talented people reach the highest peaks of success, being overtaken by mediocre but sensibly luckier individuals." It's also interesting that regardless of anything, in the end your genes and where/when you were born determine pretty much your whole life, and that's just luck. In the end success attribution to anything but luck is just ego.

ythn 8y ago
If everyone in the world is an equally hard worker, then yes, all success is luck. But that's just not the case. Anecdotally, I knew two identical twins who were both obese. They both tried to diet, but one always relapsed, while the other got serious and lost weight. Ultimately only one of the twins was "successful" at getting down to a healthy weight, while the other "failed". Is it just luck, then, that one of the twins was born with more mental fortitude? Is that your logic?
saghm 8y ago
> in the end your genes and where/when you were born determine pretty much your whole life Interestingly, your genes arguably determine (and at the very least heavily influence) your talent also, implying that having talent itself is a result of luck.
baxtr 8y ago
Sometimes I think the same. But then again I think that this is a very depressing view because it’s somehow deterministic: there’s absolutely nothing in this view that can be attributed to yourself, because either it’s in your genes or the place you were born. That’s why I don’t like that thinking. I want to believe that you’ve were given a spectrum from a start and that you can move in that spectrum if you want to by exposing yourself to luck (you’ll probably say: depending on your genes...)
imgabe 8y ago
> "almost never the most talented people reach the highest peaks of success, being overtaken by mediocre but sensibly luckier individuals." One can be talented at many different things. Perhaps the people at the top were talented at a less obvious but more relevant skill than those who didn't "succeed". Looking strictly at monetary success, people who succeed purely and obviously by luck (lottery winners) generally do not stay successful very long. They quickly lose their money. AFAIK, the bankruptcy rate for people who get rich via working on something is far less than people who were randomly assigned riches. This would seem to imply that the former are doing something differently.

ythn 8y ago

If everyone in the world is an equally hard worker, then yes, all success is luck. But that's just not the case. Anecdotally, I knew two identical twins who were both obese. They both tried to diet, but one always relapsed, while the other got serious and lost weight. Ultimately only one of the twins was "successful" at getting down to a healthy weight, while the other "failed". Is it just luck, then, that one of the twins was born with more mental fortitude? Is that your logic?

saghm 8y ago

> in the end your genes and where/when you were born determine pretty much your whole life Interestingly, your genes arguably determine (and at the very least heavily influence) your talent also, implying that having talent itself is a result of luck.

baxtr 8y ago

Sometimes I think the same. But then again I think that this is a very depressing view because it’s somehow deterministic: there’s absolutely nothing in this view that can be attributed to yourself, because either it’s in your genes or the place you were born. That’s why I don’t like that thinking. I want to believe that you’ve were given a spectrum from a start and that you can move in that spectrum if you want to by exposing yourself to luck (you’ll probably say: depending on your genes...)

imgabe 8y ago

> "almost never the most talented people reach the highest peaks of success, being overtaken by mediocre but sensibly luckier individuals." One can be talented at many different things. Perhaps the people at the top were talented at a less obvious but more relevant skill than those who didn't "succeed". Looking strictly at monetary success, people who succeed purely and obviously by luck (lottery winners) generally do not stay successful very long. They quickly lose their money. AFAIK, the bankruptcy rate for people who get rich via working on something is far less than people who were randomly assigned riches. This would seem to imply that the former are doing something differently.