4 ms·

I think another point of the article (that I at least read into, maybe too much, I am not sure) was that having merit/skill is luck based in itself. To give an

I think another point of the article (that I at least read into, maybe too much, I am not sure) was that having merit/skill is luck based in itself. To give an example, whenever I play a video game with my friends, they are usually a lot better than I am. I play probably just as much as them but they are inherently better. I don't think either of us worked harder, we all play roughly the same games and all grew up playing together. I am just not as good at them. Was this me not working as hard/harder as them or was it them being lucky and they were born good at those particular skills? I feel like my skill cap at the games we play are much lower than them and they usually rank much higher than me even though we put in the same amount of hours. Personally, I would say it is luck.

ewzimm 8y ago
You're absolutely right that this is the way the article presents it, but I'm not so sure that it's a useful definition of luck. It really just seems to extend the definition of luck to include everything and makes the argument a tautology. Everything is luck-based because everything is luck. I don't think anyone who values people's aptitude diminishes their opinion of that aptitude because it requires a certain genetic profile. In things like athletics, it's even emphasized. This argument seems to create a strawman version of merit which means some kind of inner quality gained through pure willpower with no external influences from the world whatsoever. This might have some meaning in a certain kind of religious thinking which interprets the world as a reflection of a higher spiritual reality, but if we're confining our definitions to tangible things, it's an incomprehensible idea.