3 ms·

You are over simplifying the world. You are doing a mental exercise and reducing everything to a single variable: Talent. So if someone success without talent,

You are over simplifying the world. You are doing a mental exercise and reducing everything to a single variable: Talent. So if someone success without talent, you explain it with another monovariable: luck. By the way, for me being talented in something is just another version of luck. So we can say that you believe in just one variable: Luck is everything. The world is way more sophisticated and complicated than a single variable. Because of my work I have met people that are today highly successful. For example I have met motorcycle's world champions when they were children, that now earn tens of millions of dollars. The most interesting thing is that for every world champion I know, I have met way way more incredible talented children that never became world champions and don't earn much or work in other areas. They are human beings that took and take different decisions in their lives. Some of them were very hard workers(and did not success after all the work), some of them were lazy(and succeeded anyway). Some of them loved going to parties, others prefered to play guitar or read. Some were very social, others had few friends. Some were impulsive, some were analytical. Some were perfectionistic, others only care about doing things as fast as possible. Some had impulsive sex, other preferred stable relationships. Some accepted others helping them and listened, others refuse to learn or advice from others. At the end of the day, there are hundreds of variables out there. There are usually some patterns that emerge on successful people on each specific discipline. For example, in motosport you find that most successful people are highly competitive. They are obsessed with winning. I played ping pong with one of the kids and won. He could not stand it and trained and trained until he could win me(a year or so later). This kid is rich and famous now. By the way, Success is different for different people. For me success could be not having a boss, working in front of the beach everyday without stress,and able to support my family. For other people, being successful means earning millions of dollars, even when this means living for work inside a concrete hive watching numbers all day on a computer screen, and not having children until you can pay for a house that you never have time to visit.

netcan 6y ago
The op is not reducing everything to talent, or even implying that talent is especially important. If you are thinking about this statistically (the OP is), than these examples don't matter. The implication is a distribution of outcomes, not definite outcomes. The argument works regardless of the definition of success used.
jonathanstrange 6y ago
Not necessarily in sports, but in other domains success may also often be the outcome of a stochastic process, because there are so many factors involved. This is often overlooked and successful people don't like to hear it, but the fact that they are among the successful whereas others with similar prerequisites aren't can often be attributed to pure chance. There is a lot of survivor bias in the assessment of success. I believe that successful people tend to have a high base level of intelligence, often high social intelligence, are often very persistent, and rich parents and good looks also help a lot. But it's equally important to happen to be at right place at the right time and meeting the right people. Steve Jobs and Bill Gates are good examples in my opinion, had they been born ten years later they might have ended up in only moderately successful software business, or selling printers and go out of business by the early 90s, or creating a failed video game console. They started their businesses at exactly the right time, met the right people, and made good decisions in some early, very dynamic and emerging markets.
anthonypasq 6y ago
When you boil it down, all those other factors are also luck.

netcan 6y ago

The op is not reducing everything to talent, or even implying that talent is especially important. If you are thinking about this statistically (the OP is), than these examples don't matter. The implication is a distribution of outcomes, not definite outcomes. The argument works regardless of the definition of success used.

jonathanstrange 6y ago

Not necessarily in sports, but in other domains success may also often be the outcome of a stochastic process, because there are so many factors involved. This is often overlooked and successful people don't like to hear it, but the fact that they are among the successful whereas others with similar prerequisites aren't can often be attributed to pure chance. There is a lot of survivor bias in the assessment of success. I believe that successful people tend to have a high base level of intelligence, often high social intelligence, are often very persistent, and rich parents and good looks also help a lot. But it's equally important to happen to be at right place at the right time and meeting the right people. Steve Jobs and Bill Gates are good examples in my opinion, had they been born ten years later they might have ended up in only moderately successful software business, or selling printers and go out of business by the early 90s, or creating a failed video game console. They started their businesses at exactly the right time, met the right people, and made good decisions in some early, very dynamic and emerging markets.

anthonypasq 6y ago

When you boil it down, all those other factors are also luck.