8 ms·

Moral of the story: extreme wealth is a function of luck, assuming otherwise will only make you look foolish. Masayoshi Son has tried to prove otherwise and lar

Moral of the story: extreme wealth is a function of luck, assuming otherwise will only make you look foolish. Masayoshi Son has tried to prove otherwise and largely failed. Appreciate your luck, not your ego, you won't make as many stupid decisions that way.

Medicalidiot 7y ago
I haven't been impressed with Masayoshi Son. Although I think that the majority of successful people put hard work into their idea, a significant reason of why they got to the level that they're at is because of luck.
- imtringued 7y ago
  Hard work is the price of the lottery ticket. You still have to win to get the jackpot.
graeme 7y ago
This is not a good moral. You’re generalizing from one example. Warren Buffett has made many successful investments for example, over a damned long period. There’s clearly skill in his story. Skill that Masa didn’t have.
- toomuchtodo 7y ago
  https://www.technologyreview.com/2018/03/01/144958/if-youre-so-smart-why-arent-you-rich-turns-out-its-just-chance/ https://www.technologyreview.com/2018/03/01/144958/if-youre-... (MIT Review: If you’re so smart, why aren’t you rich? Turns out it’s just chance)
  - graeme 7y ago
    This is a computer model. > So some people are more talented than average and some are less so, but nobody is orders of magnitude more talented than anybody else. It seems likely that in some domains, some people are orders of magnitude more talented. Assuming this is false begs the question.
    - toomuchtodo 7y ago
      Talent is important, but luck more so. Without opportunity, talent is worthless.
      - graeme 7y ago
        That’s different than what your article claimed. It said it was all luck. I have no trouble believing that there is someone theoretically more talented than Warren Buffett who a less lucky life. I have great difficulty believing Buffett is untalented.
        toomuchtodo 7y ago
        Any of his investments could've gone bad through no fault of his own. You can be the smartest person in the room and still get punched in the face, metaphorically, when an unknown unknown presents itself. Buffett himself bet $1 million that index funds were superior to active management (and won) [1]. [1] http://longbets.org/362/ http://longbets.org/362/
        graeme 7y ago
        Buffett did make that bet. And he believed it to be true for most investors. But he also notably believes some investors can do better than the market. See this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Superinvestors_of_Graham-and-Doddsville https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Superinvestors_of_Graham-a... Buffett did have losses! And made mistakes. And you’re missing the point. I’m not arguing Buffett himself didn’t have luck. He himself has written extensively about this. But he also had skill. Luck + skill. Why some believe it must be one or the other and not both baffles me.
        deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
        viklove 7y ago
        He had luck + skill, but he would not be successful if he did not start with wealth, from his rich father.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- freddie_mercury 7y ago
  The irony of complaining about someone else generalizing from one example and trying to disprove it by...generalizing from one example.
  - ericjang 7y ago
    It was a proof by contradiction, I think. One example is sufficient to make the point that success is not impossible.
    - graeme 7y ago
      Precisely. The person I replied to said that it was always luck. A single datapoint can't prove a general claim. But a single counterpoint can disprove a claim.
      - waddlesworth 7y ago
        Appreciate your luck, not your ego, you won't make as many stupid decisions that way. It could be argued that Warren Buffet does exactly this.
whymauri 7y ago
Son is a stellar example of failing upwards.
- mbesto 7y ago
  His investment history would like a word with you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SoftBank_Group https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SoftBank_Group I don't think I've ever heard of someone "failing upwards" who's history starts with this: SoftBank was founded in September 1981 as a SOFTBANK Corp. by then-24-year-old Masayoshi Son, originally as a software distributor. They went into the publishing business in May 1982 with the launches of the Oh! PC and Oh! MZ magazines, about NEC and Sharp computers respectively.[19] Oh!PC had a circulation of 140,000 copies by 1989.[20] It would go on to become Japan's largest publisher of computer and technology magazines and of trade shows. In 1994 the company went public and was valued at $3 billion.[20] SoftBank agreed in September 1995 to purchase U.S.-based Ziff Davis publishing for $2.1 billion.[21]
achillesheels 7y ago
Acquiring luck is a skill on its own, please see my meditation: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B06XKPJ9ZY https://www.amazon.com/dp/B06XKPJ9ZY
vsareto 7y ago
I bet I could get a better return by simply running a boot camp for financial analysts.
splintercell 7y ago
The problem with "luck not skill" people is that they are defining all the elements of skill as a matter of luck. Bill Gates made Windows which was used by millions of people all over the world, well he got lucky because he was born at the right place in the right time (a point made by Malcolm Gladwell). Elon Musk/Thiel made billions, well they happen to be at the right place at the right time with Paypal. Once you make billions, then making more billions is super easy, that's not luck, but a function of wealth. Cope - That's the only explanation for people attributing the success of other people as luck. If it's luck then you're not a failure, just unlucky, but if it's skill then you have to be responsible for your actions and failure.
- quickthrower2 7y ago
  I don't think there are two camps "luck not skill" and "skill not luck". Most smart people realise it takes both. To become Bill Gates level of success you need luck. You could argue that middle class to millionaire path could be described as mostly skill and focus, with the luck of not getting wiped out by a disease, jail, lack of motivation or whatever.
- nickik 7y ago
  > Elon Musk/Thiel made billions, well they happen to be at the right place at the right time with Paypal. Once you make billions, then making more billions is super easy, that's not luck, but a function of wealth. If anybody thinks building a Space and a Car company is 'easy' is just delusional. Space in particular has messed up many billionair investors.
- Traster 7y ago
  The reason to attribute these successes to luck is its fundamental to a lot of industries and particularly to software that success is self-fulfilling. It's not luck that a company became the dominant operating system company in the 90s - it was inevitable, economies of scale and the advantages of a software ecosystem built on top of one common operating system are enormous. It was luck that that operating system happened to be MS DOS/Windows and not one of the dozens of other basically interchangeable operating systems - hell, a different CP/M clone would've ended up on the IBM PC. You can say it's some sort of coping mechanism, but actually I believe that most of my own success is luck. I would say I'm successful, I'm good at what I do and I'm rewarded very well for it. Skill and hard work are a prerequisite of my success but the success itself is largely down to luck. Skill and hard work are table stakes. To put the equally uncharitable interpretation of your view of the world: The fact is that most success is significantly down to luck, but people don't like that because everyone wants to be the hero in their own story rather than just someone who got lucky.
dzonga 7y ago
warren buffet wasn't making foolish decisions like Son. anyone with the vision fund, could've had a positive return by investing in sound businesses. you won't even need to be smart like Buffet
anm89 7y ago
Moral of the story: you have a very poor grasp of statistics

Medicalidiot 7y ago

I haven't been impressed with Masayoshi Son. Although I think that the majority of successful people put hard work into their idea, a significant reason of why they got to the level that they're at is because of luck.

imtringued 7y ago
Hard work is the price of the lottery ticket. You still have to win to get the jackpot.

graeme 7y ago

This is not a good moral. You’re generalizing from one example. Warren Buffett has made many successful investments for example, over a damned long period. There’s clearly skill in his story. Skill that Masa didn’t have.

toomuchtodo 7y ago
https://www.technologyreview.com/2018/03/01/144958/if-youre-so-smart-why-arent-you-rich-turns-out-its-just-chance/ https://www.technologyreview.com/2018/03/01/144958/if-youre-... (MIT Review: If you’re so smart, why aren’t you rich? Turns out it’s just chance)
- graeme 7y ago
  This is a computer model. > So some people are more talented than average and some are less so, but nobody is orders of magnitude more talented than anybody else. It seems likely that in some domains, some people are orders of magnitude more talented. Assuming this is false begs the question.
  - toomuchtodo 7y ago
    Talent is important, but luck more so. Without opportunity, talent is worthless.
    - graeme 7y ago
      That’s different than what your article claimed. It said it was all luck. I have no trouble believing that there is someone theoretically more talented than Warren Buffett who a less lucky life. I have great difficulty believing Buffett is untalented.
      - toomuchtodo 7y ago
        Any of his investments could've gone bad through no fault of his own. You can be the smartest person in the room and still get punched in the face, metaphorically, when an unknown unknown presents itself. Buffett himself bet $1 million that index funds were superior to active management (and won) [1]. [1] http://longbets.org/362/ http://longbets.org/362/
        graeme 7y ago
        Buffett did make that bet. And he believed it to be true for most investors. But he also notably believes some investors can do better than the market. See this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Superinvestors_of_Graham-and-Doddsville https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Superinvestors_of_Graham-a... Buffett did have losses! And made mistakes. And you’re missing the point. I’m not arguing Buffett himself didn’t have luck. He himself has written extensively about this. But he also had skill. Luck + skill. Why some believe it must be one or the other and not both baffles me.
        deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
        viklove 7y ago
        He had luck + skill, but he would not be successful if he did not start with wealth, from his rich father.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
freddie_mercury 7y ago
The irony of complaining about someone else generalizing from one example and trying to disprove it by...generalizing from one example.
- ericjang 7y ago
  It was a proof by contradiction, I think. One example is sufficient to make the point that success is not impossible.
  - graeme 7y ago
    Precisely. The person I replied to said that it was always luck. A single datapoint can't prove a general claim. But a single counterpoint can disprove a claim.
    - waddlesworth 7y ago
      Appreciate your luck, not your ego, you won't make as many stupid decisions that way. It could be argued that Warren Buffet does exactly this.

whymauri 7y ago

Son is a stellar example of failing upwards.

mbesto 7y ago
His investment history would like a word with you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SoftBank_Group https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SoftBank_Group I don't think I've ever heard of someone "failing upwards" who's history starts with this: SoftBank was founded in September 1981 as a SOFTBANK Corp. by then-24-year-old Masayoshi Son, originally as a software distributor. They went into the publishing business in May 1982 with the launches of the Oh! PC and Oh! MZ magazines, about NEC and Sharp computers respectively.[19] Oh!PC had a circulation of 140,000 copies by 1989.[20] It would go on to become Japan's largest publisher of computer and technology magazines and of trade shows. In 1994 the company went public and was valued at $3 billion.[20] SoftBank agreed in September 1995 to purchase U.S.-based Ziff Davis publishing for $2.1 billion.[21]

achillesheels 7y ago

Acquiring luck is a skill on its own, please see my meditation: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B06XKPJ9ZY https://www.amazon.com/dp/B06XKPJ9ZY

vsareto 7y ago

I bet I could get a better return by simply running a boot camp for financial analysts.

splintercell 7y ago

The problem with "luck not skill" people is that they are defining all the elements of skill as a matter of luck. Bill Gates made Windows which was used by millions of people all over the world, well he got lucky because he was born at the right place in the right time (a point made by Malcolm Gladwell). Elon Musk/Thiel made billions, well they happen to be at the right place at the right time with Paypal. Once you make billions, then making more billions is super easy, that's not luck, but a function of wealth. Cope - That's the only explanation for people attributing the success of other people as luck. If it's luck then you're not a failure, just unlucky, but if it's skill then you have to be responsible for your actions and failure.

quickthrower2 7y ago
I don't think there are two camps "luck not skill" and "skill not luck". Most smart people realise it takes both. To become Bill Gates level of success you need luck. You could argue that middle class to millionaire path could be described as mostly skill and focus, with the luck of not getting wiped out by a disease, jail, lack of motivation or whatever.
nickik 7y ago
> Elon Musk/Thiel made billions, well they happen to be at the right place at the right time with Paypal. Once you make billions, then making more billions is super easy, that's not luck, but a function of wealth. If anybody thinks building a Space and a Car company is 'easy' is just delusional. Space in particular has messed up many billionair investors.
Traster 7y ago
The reason to attribute these successes to luck is its fundamental to a lot of industries and particularly to software that success is self-fulfilling. It's not luck that a company became the dominant operating system company in the 90s - it was inevitable, economies of scale and the advantages of a software ecosystem built on top of one common operating system are enormous. It was luck that that operating system happened to be MS DOS/Windows and not one of the dozens of other basically interchangeable operating systems - hell, a different CP/M clone would've ended up on the IBM PC. You can say it's some sort of coping mechanism, but actually I believe that most of my own success is luck. I would say I'm successful, I'm good at what I do and I'm rewarded very well for it. Skill and hard work are a prerequisite of my success but the success itself is largely down to luck. Skill and hard work are table stakes. To put the equally uncharitable interpretation of your view of the world: The fact is that most success is significantly down to luck, but people don't like that because everyone wants to be the hero in their own story rather than just someone who got lucky.

dzonga 7y ago

warren buffet wasn't making foolish decisions like Son. anyone with the vision fund, could've had a positive return by investing in sound businesses. you won't even need to be smart like Buffet

anm89 7y ago

Moral of the story: you have a very poor grasp of statistics