4 ms·

Well, I guess you could always define it as the events outside of the agent’s control that unfolded after she’s decided on and taken the first step towards her

by Joe-Z 7y ago

Well, I guess you could always define it as the events outside of the agent’s control that unfolded after she’s decided on and taken the first step towards her goal This way a casino player would still be lucky if she wins (but not in the ‚oh my gosh, how lucky are you that there exists a casino in the first place!‘-sense) and a successful person could still have her achievements honored even though there happened a lot of stuff before she entered the stage (like, ‚how „lucky“ was Newton that he didn‘t have to start from scratch, right?!‘)

balfirevic 7y ago
Thanks for the answer. Honestly, that definition feels contrived to me. I think the premise is simply not correct - that involvement of luck undermines personal achievement. Especially when many people get to be in the same lucky conditions, but only some of them achieve success. I understand that instinctual reaction of many will be to significantly downplay others' personal achievements based on perceived involvement of their lucky circumstances. We see that sentiment often here on HN. But it should be countered by asserting that it is a silly way to look at things, not by defining "luck" in a weird way.
- Joe-Z 7y ago
  But what about the distinction between luck and privilege? Aren‘t circumstances like country of origin, financial situation of one‘s parents or genetic disposition more commonly referred to as privilege?
  - balfirevic 7y ago
    > Aren‘t circumstances like country of origin, financial situation of one‘s parents or genetic disposition more commonly referred to as privilege? Perhaps they are in the US, but not where I live, so I'm not used to making that distinction. And even if common, I'm not sure it is a useful distinction. If I were feeling cynical, I would say that privilege seems to be the kind of luck you're supposed to feel bad for having. Maybe that is useful for rising awareness of certain societal problems, but I'm not yet convinced.
    - Joe-Z 7y ago
      I guess the little less cynical interpretation would be that privilege is the kind of luck that you should be thankful for having :) This was an interesting discussion. Thank you and have a nice weekend!

by Joe-Z 7y ago

balfirevic 7y ago

Thanks for the answer. Honestly, that definition feels contrived to me. I think the premise is simply not correct - that involvement of luck undermines personal achievement. Especially when many people get to be in the same lucky conditions, but only some of them achieve success. I understand that instinctual reaction of many will be to significantly downplay others' personal achievements based on perceived involvement of their lucky circumstances. We see that sentiment often here on HN. But it should be countered by asserting that it is a silly way to look at things, not by defining "luck" in a weird way.

Joe-Z 7y ago
But what about the distinction between luck and privilege? Aren‘t circumstances like country of origin, financial situation of one‘s parents or genetic disposition more commonly referred to as privilege?
- balfirevic 7y ago
  > Aren‘t circumstances like country of origin, financial situation of one‘s parents or genetic disposition more commonly referred to as privilege? Perhaps they are in the US, but not where I live, so I'm not used to making that distinction. And even if common, I'm not sure it is a useful distinction. If I were feeling cynical, I would say that privilege seems to be the kind of luck you're supposed to feel bad for having. Maybe that is useful for rising awareness of certain societal problems, but I'm not yet convinced.
  - Joe-Z 7y ago
    I guess the little less cynical interpretation would be that privilege is the kind of luck that you should be thankful for having :) This was an interesting discussion. Thank you and have a nice weekend!