4 ms·

In a tech world with dozens of "amazing leaders", is it possible that some of them just got lucky? They took some shots in the dark, some got lucky, some got un

In a tech world with dozens of "amazing leaders", is it possible that some of them just got lucky? They took some shots in the dark, some got lucky, some got unlucky: can it be that simple? If Steve Jobs was coming up today, could he have owned leetcode and tech interviews, would he have gotten a CS degree, could he have succeeded in a start-up today? Could many of us here in tech now have done what he did? My point is: Maybe we don't have to fetishize individual people so much. Maybe the conditions around them, the timing of their career, the timing of their personal viewpoint, was simply a set of lucky circumstances. Maybe there exist a few hundred individuals in any given time with the potential, and it takes that last bit of random chance to make them the famous one over the others.

deutschew 5y ago
Poker tournament is often called the microcosm of our own capitalistic "democratic" world and as I learn how to play it more and more I realize how true this is. As you've said luck is a very very important factor. As you get lucky, you tend to continue getting lucky because the more chips (capital) the cost of failure or unlucky runs is a lot lower than somebody about to be knocked out of the tournament. Playing tight (risk averse) or loose (risk tolerant) or mania (risk indifferent) can yield very different outcomes and often professionals adjust their appetite for risk throughout the tournament. Similarily, yes Steve Jobs got lucky and because he kept getting lucky he was in a position to make other bets without really suffering vs someone who bootstraps their business and exposed to the fluctuations of the market is going to have a tough time. Nassim Taleb explains this better but to me the biggest shock when I started playing poker was, how much of an impact it's made no my perception of randomness and risk.
- mason55 5y ago
  The other important major lesson that poker teaches you is that you can make the right decision and still lose, along with the corollaries (winning/losing doesn’t mean you made the right/wrong decision).
  - deutschew 5y ago
    and survivor ship bias and entrepreneur pron really diminishes this. it really made me feel how out of control the world really is and as Charlie Munger said it the best, it is envy that drives capitalism.
  - JohnBooty 5y ago
    Yeah, hugest lesson in life. Just because something worked out, doesn't mean you made the right call. You can cross the street with your eyes closed and (depending on the street) survive most of the time. Doesn't mean it was the right call.
newaccount74 5y ago
I really don't think Steve Jobs was taking shots in the dark. He had remarkable foresight and an uncanny ability to see where the puck was going. Not all of his ideas worked out. But he had a very high success rate. Doing leetcode and tech interviews is not what a young Steve Jobs would be working on today; a young Steve Jobs today would be working on something that most of us wouldn't bother with because we don't see the potential.
- beeboop 5y ago
  >I really don't think Steve Jobs was taking shots in the dark. He had remarkable foresight and an uncanny ability to see where the puck was going. I think it's impossible to say this confidently. Like many successful people, he simply could have made a series of fortunate decisions that mostly boiled down to luck and timing.
- WhompingWindows 5y ago
  Well, he certainly had a ton of help from other people to ensure he wasn't taking shots in the dark most of the time. He copied most of his best ideas from other sources, and point-blank refused to acknowledge Woz and Apple 2, publicly denigrating their work when it would've been SO easy to just give them a quick shout-out. I'd consider this, at best, waiting by the goal for the puck to be passed so he can flick it in behind the goalie, and then being good at raising his arms in triumph. Did Gretzky wait for the assist, or was his brilliance that he himself could make tremendous opportunities and then flick it in as well? At least "visionaries" like Elon and Bill Gates coded up solutions themselves when they needed to.
visarga 5y ago
> In a tech world with dozens of "amazing leaders", is it possible that some of them just got lucky? They took some shots in the dark, some got lucky, some got unlucky: can it be that simple? The path to success is deceptive, if you directly follow your objective you don't get there except for easy problems. Exploration and seemingly useless ideas are stepping stones to success, but you can only tell in hindsight. For example, neural nets go directly to the target, they follow the gradient to the desired outcome - that's their main limitation. Evolution on the other hand can sidestep these hard problems, but the price is much trial and error. I think Steve was one of these explorers who in hindsight were right.
JohnBooty 5y ago
If Steve Jobs was coming up today, could he have owned leetcode and tech interviews, would he have gotten a CS degree, could he have succeeded in a start-up today? I don't think I understand this hypothetical. He didn't go through traditional engineer channels back then, and I doubt he'd have the mindset to care to do it now. The main difference between then and now is that the tech landscape is so much more mature. "Two guys in a garage" can potentially shape a brand new industry (like microcomputers in the 1970s) but would not disrupt a zillion dollar industry today. However, broadly speaking, their approach works in general. The pairing of a "visionary and showman" (Jobs) and "genius-level engineer" (Woz) can be really effective. I think most successful small partnerships work this way. Not all of them change the world like Apple, because world-changing revolutions just don't come along that often. Jobs+Woz were a great partnership who happened to catch a really great wave.
psyc 5y ago
If anything, I find this forum - perhaps by way of overcompensation - fetishizes luck and privilege (very fashionable concept) to an alarming degree. Name a biography of a notable person, whose primary theme is how lucky that person was and how they just lucked into everything. Forrest Gump doesn't count (and would still be a bad example - if I had his tenacity and stamina I'd be rich too). I get that biographies are narratives. So are luck and privilege. Everything is a narrative these days. Might as well pick one that gives you more agency.

deutschew 5y ago

Poker tournament is often called the microcosm of our own capitalistic "democratic" world and as I learn how to play it more and more I realize how true this is. As you've said luck is a very very important factor. As you get lucky, you tend to continue getting lucky because the more chips (capital) the cost of failure or unlucky runs is a lot lower than somebody about to be knocked out of the tournament. Playing tight (risk averse) or loose (risk tolerant) or mania (risk indifferent) can yield very different outcomes and often professionals adjust their appetite for risk throughout the tournament. Similarily, yes Steve Jobs got lucky and because he kept getting lucky he was in a position to make other bets without really suffering vs someone who bootstraps their business and exposed to the fluctuations of the market is going to have a tough time. Nassim Taleb explains this better but to me the biggest shock when I started playing poker was, how much of an impact it's made no my perception of randomness and risk.

mason55 5y ago
The other important major lesson that poker teaches you is that you can make the right decision and still lose, along with the corollaries (winning/losing doesn’t mean you made the right/wrong decision).
- deutschew 5y ago
  and survivor ship bias and entrepreneur pron really diminishes this. it really made me feel how out of control the world really is and as Charlie Munger said it the best, it is envy that drives capitalism.
- JohnBooty 5y ago
  Yeah, hugest lesson in life. Just because something worked out, doesn't mean you made the right call. You can cross the street with your eyes closed and (depending on the street) survive most of the time. Doesn't mean it was the right call.

newaccount74 5y ago

I really don't think Steve Jobs was taking shots in the dark. He had remarkable foresight and an uncanny ability to see where the puck was going. Not all of his ideas worked out. But he had a very high success rate. Doing leetcode and tech interviews is not what a young Steve Jobs would be working on today; a young Steve Jobs today would be working on something that most of us wouldn't bother with because we don't see the potential.

beeboop 5y ago
>I really don't think Steve Jobs was taking shots in the dark. He had remarkable foresight and an uncanny ability to see where the puck was going. I think it's impossible to say this confidently. Like many successful people, he simply could have made a series of fortunate decisions that mostly boiled down to luck and timing.
WhompingWindows 5y ago
Well, he certainly had a ton of help from other people to ensure he wasn't taking shots in the dark most of the time. He copied most of his best ideas from other sources, and point-blank refused to acknowledge Woz and Apple 2, publicly denigrating their work when it would've been SO easy to just give them a quick shout-out. I'd consider this, at best, waiting by the goal for the puck to be passed so he can flick it in behind the goalie, and then being good at raising his arms in triumph. Did Gretzky wait for the assist, or was his brilliance that he himself could make tremendous opportunities and then flick it in as well? At least "visionaries" like Elon and Bill Gates coded up solutions themselves when they needed to.

visarga 5y ago

> In a tech world with dozens of "amazing leaders", is it possible that some of them just got lucky? They took some shots in the dark, some got lucky, some got unlucky: can it be that simple? The path to success is deceptive, if you directly follow your objective you don't get there except for easy problems. Exploration and seemingly useless ideas are stepping stones to success, but you can only tell in hindsight. For example, neural nets go directly to the target, they follow the gradient to the desired outcome - that's their main limitation. Evolution on the other hand can sidestep these hard problems, but the price is much trial and error. I think Steve was one of these explorers who in hindsight were right.

JohnBooty 5y ago

If Steve Jobs was coming up today, could he have owned leetcode and tech interviews, would he have gotten a CS degree, could he have succeeded in a start-up today? I don't think I understand this hypothetical. He didn't go through traditional engineer channels back then, and I doubt he'd have the mindset to care to do it now. The main difference between then and now is that the tech landscape is so much more mature. "Two guys in a garage" can potentially shape a brand new industry (like microcomputers in the 1970s) but would not disrupt a zillion dollar industry today. However, broadly speaking, their approach works in general. The pairing of a "visionary and showman" (Jobs) and "genius-level engineer" (Woz) can be really effective. I think most successful small partnerships work this way. Not all of them change the world like Apple, because world-changing revolutions just don't come along that often. Jobs+Woz were a great partnership who happened to catch a really great wave.

psyc 5y ago

If anything, I find this forum - perhaps by way of overcompensation - fetishizes luck and privilege (very fashionable concept) to an alarming degree. Name a biography of a notable person, whose primary theme is how lucky that person was and how they just lucked into everything. Forrest Gump doesn't count (and would still be a bad example - if I had his tenacity and stamina I'd be rich too). I get that biographies are narratives. So are luck and privilege. Everything is a narrative these days. Might as well pick one that gives you more agency.