3 ms·

And right back at you. To think otherwise is arrogant and self-aggrandizing.

chucksmash 4y ago
Or perhaps it's not quite as binary as "either you believe success is all luck or you're arrogant." There's a lovely book, "The Drunkard's Walk - How Randomness Rules Our Lives" that has a good take on this. I don't have time to find the passage right now, but the idea is essentially this: even if you work in an endeavour where success is overwhelmingly driven by luck, success still requires: taking a chance to have the opportunity to become lucky, an open mind and preparation to recognize the good luck that has occurred, and the skill to exploit the opportunity that luckiness has brought. One must make chances for luck to occur, and one must have a prepared mind to take advantage of luck when it does occur. I wouldn't necessarily read the replier as saying they have succeeded and luck had nothing to do with it (i.e. the binary view). The problem with a view point of "it's all luck," IMO is this will lead you down the path of learned helplessness and even if you do get lucky you won't be in a position to capitalize because if you thought it came down to a roll of the dice, why would you bother skilling up in the first place?
- ryeights 4y ago
  Nobody is claiming that success is 100% attributable to luck. The claim is that becoming rich and famous is mostly luck-driven (see the quote in OP's comment), which I think is absolutely true. Believing otherwise leads the rich and famous to think that they are better than everyone else, and the less successful to think that they are inherently inferior, when in reality there is a wide overlap in effort, dedication, and strategy between the two groups. One group was just in the right place at the right time while applying those skills, and the other wasn't. In other words, not becoming rich and famous is not a personal failing. Sometimes you can try anyone's best and simply not succeed.

Or perhaps it's not quite as binary as "either you believe success is all luck or you're arrogant." There's a lovely book, "The Drunkard's Walk - How Randomness Rules Our Lives" that has a good take on this. I don't have time to find the passage right now, but the idea is essentially this: even if you work in an endeavour where success is overwhelmingly driven by luck, success still requires: taking a chance to have the opportunity to become lucky, an open mind and preparation to recognize the good luck that has occurred, and the skill to exploit the opportunity that luckiness has brought. One must make chances for luck to occur, and one must have a prepared mind to take advantage of luck when it does occur. I wouldn't necessarily read the replier as saying they have succeeded and luck had nothing to do with it (i.e. the binary view). The problem with a view point of "it's all luck," IMO is this will lead you down the path of learned helplessness and even if you do get lucky you won't be in a position to capitalize because if you thought it came down to a roll of the dice, why would you bother skilling up in the first place?

ryeights 4y ago
Nobody is claiming that success is 100% attributable to luck. The claim is that becoming rich and famous is mostly luck-driven (see the quote in OP's comment), which I think is absolutely true. Believing otherwise leads the rich and famous to think that they are better than everyone else, and the less successful to think that they are inherently inferior, when in reality there is a wide overlap in effort, dedication, and strategy between the two groups. One group was just in the right place at the right time while applying those skills, and the other wasn't. In other words, not becoming rich and famous is not a personal failing. Sometimes you can try anyone's best and simply not succeed.