5 ms·
I'm always fascinated by downvoting on HN. I'm guessing you expressed what you felt "my success and failure in life had nothing to do with luck" and people are
by larrys 14y ago
I'm always fascinated by downvoting on HN. I'm guessing you expressed what you felt "my success and failure in life had nothing to do with luck" and people are saying by downvoting that you are wrong!!! Why? You didn't say "people's success or failure" you said "my success or failure". In this case the downvoters are being parental and telling you to grow up and have a better understanding of the way the world works.
Or maybe it was this which they saw as factually incorrect: "Luck may have put Michael Lewis at Goldman Sachs, but luck didn't determine his level of success." but didn't want to take the time to correct you so others not as informed could learn.
Anyway, you said this: "I certainly find myself occasionally jealous of people who seemingly lucked into great success."
People normally refer to jealousy in a negative way. Personally I think it's a powerful motivator.
- MartinCron 14y agothe downvoters are being parental and telling you to grow up and have a better understanding of the way the world works Anyone who insists that luck has no role whatsoever in their short or long term success or failure either needs to grow up, or share their secret for how they chose the circumstances of their birth.
- vannevar 14y agoDownvoting should be reserved for comments that violate site guidelines, but many people prefer to censor opinions they disagree with rather than address them. If you disagree with a post, write a response or upvote an existing response that already articulates your argument.
- Dn_Ab 14y agoI can give a very simple explanation of how luck is a part of the equation of success for anyone who has ever been born. The distribution of opportunity is clustered in certain locations. It is not even. To be born in a country with equal opportunity, libraries, free education, water, electricity, non dictators. That is lucky. Wealth arguably follows a log normal distribution. This means all the benefits combine multiplicatively, so that even seemingly small differences in the positive will combine to give a substantial advantage.
- tedunangst 14y agoI'd say he's being downvoted for responding to the title, but not the content of the speech. Maybe the first reference to Goldman was a typo, but then repeating and insisting on that mistake? (Why not go back and check?) Calling the speech an article. People will conclude nirvana at best skimmed it. If you haven't read and understood the material, don't comment on it.
- larrys 14y ago"then repeating and insisting on that mistake" As they say in medicine, would it change management? Lewis worked for an investment bank and that is what was in his head when he made even the repeat mistake. Nobody is relying on that info to make a decision. Even Lewis is willing to write a parody (which was skimmed by people who would believe he worked for Goldman). To me, yes, it is a mistake but not a reason to down vote. Look everyone draws the line at a different point and for different reasons. Had he written "when Gates started Apple with Ballmer" that of course would be different. "Calling the speech an article. " Same with this. Ok it was a speech and not an article. But does that really matter that much?
- nirvana 14y agoI read the speech. I also read Liars Poker. I knew Lewis had worked at Soloman Brothers, but somehow in the years since I read the book "Goldman" replaced "Soloman" in my head. So this is a typo. Of course that I named a different firm (equally hated) than the correct one doesn't change the content of my article. It is a post hoc, ergo proctor hoc argument to evade the obvious reason. The actual reason has been presented as an argument by the majority of the respondents so, anti-intellectualism.
- RockyMcNuts 14y agos/b Salomon Brothers You may now resume proving Lewis's point, that "People really don’t like to hear success explained away as luck."
- twoodfin 14y ago