3 ms·

Several times? I don't know if Musk's success is down to luck or not, but to answer your implied question of "Do you really think it could be luck to succeed o

Several times? I don't know if Musk's success is down to luck or not, but to answer your implied question of "Do you really think it could be luck to succeed on several different occasions?" the answer is yes. To suggest otherwise would be falling for the old "it's been heads 9 times in a row, it must be tails next" gambler's fallacy. Someone could succeed in building billion dollar companies largely on luck many of times in a row. It's very unlikely, but it's not impossible, at least as far as any company's success is down to the luck of the founders.

coldtea 3y ago
>To suggest otherwise would be falling for the old "it's been heads 9 times in a row, it must be tails next" gambler's fallacy I don't think you understand how this fallacy (and logic ) works. This is only a fallacy because the coin toss events are trivially expected (and assumed) to be independent chance events in the first place. Business success are not supposed to be independent like that, unless you take for granted what you're supposed to prove. And to do that, you'd have to ignore some pretty big factors different to coin tosses, like the continuity of an agent making business decisions, their promotional and organizational skills, their connections, their reputation with VCs and the press, past performance as part of their image, their experience, and several other factors besides, which makes repeated business successes nothing like independent coin tosses.
- onion2k 3y ago
  I don't think you understand how this fallacy (and logic ) works. I don't think you understand how similes work. There's no way to really know what extent luck is involved when a business succeeds, but it's probably not zero. It's entirely reasonable to suggest Musk has been lucky many times over. That doesn't mean he'll be lucky again, nor does it mean the lucky events he's had so far have been trivial. Believing that Musk will (or won't if you're not a fan) be lucky again in his next business because things will fall in Musk's favor again is the gambler's fallacy - the belief that past events influence future events. No doubt the things Musk can influence will go his way, but there will be things outside of his control that he might not be so lucky with. Even big, important things. Nothing about the gambler's fallacy says anything about how trivial or otherwise the lucky events are.
stormfather 3y ago
A coin flip is a single event. How many "coin flips" do you think would need to go your way to start rocket company through sheer luck that lands them in reverse?
- amelius 3y ago
  In business, it works more like: Get one coin flip right => get 10 flips for free.
  - stormfather 3y ago
    You sound like someone who's never tried to start a rocket company.
    - amelius 3y ago
      Did you?
- onion2k 3y ago
  I'm not saying the success of a company is entirely down to luck. That would be stupid. I'm saying that some part of it is. I suspect Musk has been luckier than most, mainly because he's had more success than most. If he hadn't had some of that luck then any of his ventures could have failed.
  - stormfather 3y ago
    I completely agree. Musk reminds me of Eric Hartmann, the most successful fighter pilot ever with 352 kills. Much is made of his skill as a pilot, but what isn't said is that he had to crash land 16 times and each time he came away from it fine and kept going. Tremendously lucky, something like 1/2^16 odds of surviving that. He was, however, also an exceptional pilot, who in particular understood how to tilt the odds in his favor. You could say that he also had the good luck to be the best at what he did.
Mawr 3y ago
It's very unlikely to have been largely luck -> it's likely it wasn't mostly luck -> no reason to bring up luck as an argument. There's no fallacy here either, the implication is he was repeatedly successful due to his business skills, not luck, which he can be reasonably expected to apply to his future ventures. To suggest otherwise would be falling for the old HN 'but technically' fallacy.

coldtea 3y ago

>To suggest otherwise would be falling for the old "it's been heads 9 times in a row, it must be tails next" gambler's fallacy I don't think you understand how this fallacy (and logic ) works. This is only a fallacy because the coin toss events are trivially expected (and assumed) to be independent chance events in the first place. Business success are not supposed to be independent like that, unless you take for granted what you're supposed to prove. And to do that, you'd have to ignore some pretty big factors different to coin tosses, like the continuity of an agent making business decisions, their promotional and organizational skills, their connections, their reputation with VCs and the press, past performance as part of their image, their experience, and several other factors besides, which makes repeated business successes nothing like independent coin tosses.

onion2k 3y ago
I don't think you understand how this fallacy (and logic ) works. I don't think you understand how similes work. There's no way to really know what extent luck is involved when a business succeeds, but it's probably not zero. It's entirely reasonable to suggest Musk has been lucky many times over. That doesn't mean he'll be lucky again, nor does it mean the lucky events he's had so far have been trivial. Believing that Musk will (or won't if you're not a fan) be lucky again in his next business because things will fall in Musk's favor again is the gambler's fallacy - the belief that past events influence future events. No doubt the things Musk can influence will go his way, but there will be things outside of his control that he might not be so lucky with. Even big, important things. Nothing about the gambler's fallacy says anything about how trivial or otherwise the lucky events are.

stormfather 3y ago

A coin flip is a single event. How many "coin flips" do you think would need to go your way to start rocket company through sheer luck that lands them in reverse?

amelius 3y ago
In business, it works more like: Get one coin flip right => get 10 flips for free.
- stormfather 3y ago
  You sound like someone who's never tried to start a rocket company.
  - amelius 3y ago
    Did you?
onion2k 3y ago
I'm not saying the success of a company is entirely down to luck. That would be stupid. I'm saying that some part of it is. I suspect Musk has been luckier than most, mainly because he's had more success than most. If he hadn't had some of that luck then any of his ventures could have failed.
- stormfather 3y ago
  I completely agree. Musk reminds me of Eric Hartmann, the most successful fighter pilot ever with 352 kills. Much is made of his skill as a pilot, but what isn't said is that he had to crash land 16 times and each time he came away from it fine and kept going. Tremendously lucky, something like 1/2^16 odds of surviving that. He was, however, also an exceptional pilot, who in particular understood how to tilt the odds in his favor. You could say that he also had the good luck to be the best at what he did.

Mawr 3y ago

It's very unlikely to have been largely luck -> it's likely it wasn't mostly luck -> no reason to bring up luck as an argument. There's no fallacy here either, the implication is he was repeatedly successful due to his business skills, not luck, which he can be reasonably expected to apply to his future ventures. To suggest otherwise would be falling for the old HN 'but technically' fallacy.