There's an unspoken assumption in this discussion that ability, however it is defined, leads inevitably to success, whatever that means. Then you're looking at

There's an unspoken assumption in this discussion that ability, however it is defined, leads inevitably to success, whatever that means. Then you're looking at whether IQ is a good measurement of ability in the first instance (is it often wrong in what it is trying to measure it not?) And whether it is trying to measure the right thing or is ability elsewhere unmeasured? Nowhere in all of it is dumb luck considered a factor. Lottery winners are successful. What can you infer about their personality attributes? It's obviously risible. At the other end of the scale is there ability so profound that considering the role of luck is uninteresting? Or are there N others with comparable ability who weren't so fortunate and did not succeed? How big is that N? Is it possible to answer such questions with anything more than prejudice? Do you have to get lucky with your research to get a Nobel? Eg would Feynmann have got one for something else if QED was published by someone else a couple of years before he got there? Don Bradman was lucky to achieve what he did in sports, really? My own prejudice is that IQ is total bullshit. I believe in my ability and was once told as a child that my IQ was impressive (whatever that meant - I don't know). I know I mirror my parents reaction to that news: "We think you're clever and always did, just not because of this nonsense." Maybe I'm not super remarkable too and who cares? Life is too short. All of us should rise early, work hard and strike oil.