> Among the few interesting elements in the HBS "study" is the possible role of high-risk gambles in career advancement. That also ultimately points to survivor

> Among the few interesting elements in the HBS "study" is the possible role of high-risk gambles in career advancement. That also ultimately points to survivorship bias (it excludes those who took such gambles and lost), though there's the prospect of multiple-iteration games as well. This is a fundamental problem with dismissing all accounts of success so broadly. Multiple-iteration is not a possibility, it’s a certainty. If you take risk in your career, and you fail, the only way that failure can prevent you from trying again is if you fail so hard that you actually die. Failing to death is a tremendously uncommon occurrence when it comes to taking to taking risks in your career. The survivorship bias argument really only works if you imagine each person has a single opportunity through their entire life to achieve success. The Texas sharpshooter fallacy isn’t exactly relevant here either, because that is about re-defining the conditions of success after you’ve taken your measurements. The idea of success here is clearly pre-defined.