3 ms·

Thanks for the answer. Honestly, that definition feels contrived to me. I think the premise is simply not correct - that involvement of luck undermines persona

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!