Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Be lucky - it's an easy skill to learn (2003)

telegraph.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–38 of 38 posts

Re: Be lucky - it's an easy skill to learn (2003)

#31

Post by gmartres »

MrHyde wrote: post #29
carbocation wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Dans les champs de l'observation le hasard ne favorise que les esprits préparés." - Pasteur (Various versions of this are available in English at http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Louis_Pasteur )

My best literal-ish interpretation "In the fields of observation (testing?) chance favors only the prepared spirits." It's interesting to me the explicit "only" construction, as opposed to the implied version in the typical English versions.

I'm not a native English speaker, but isn't "minds" more appropriate than "spirits"?

Re: Be lucky - it's an easy skill to learn (2003)

#32

Post by iBercovich »

Luck is essentially a common interpretation of the stochastic nature of the world. I agree with the author of the article in that people could increase their luck by exposing themselves to random events. I disagree that counting all pictures rather than stopping when the note is found implies a "lucky" personality-- that is more like a rational/logical personality. Luck would be that in fact, the number of pictures was different than the number in the note, and the person's curiosity helped them discover this fact by continuing to count regardless of having seen the note.

I tried to describe this in one of my blog posts, but I am still missing the second part, if interested, take a look at: http://bit.ly/b0SjZq

Re: Be lucky - it's an easy skill to learn (2003)

#33

Post by jstevens85 »

iBercovich wrote: post #32

Luck is essentially a common interpretation of the stochastic nature of the world. I agree with the author of the article in that people could increase their luck by exposing themselves to random events. I disagree that counting all pictures rather than stopping when the note is found implies a "lucky" personality-- that is more like a rational/logical personality. Luck would be that in fact, the number of pictures w…

I don't think the author was implying that stopping when the note is found implies a "lucky" personality. I think Dr. Wiseman was looking for personality traits that are common amongst "unlucky" people. The newspaper test demonstrated that unlucky people are more tense and anxious than normal, and this could explain why they may not spot new opportunities.

Re: Be lucky - it's an easy skill to learn (2003)

#34

Post by sophacles »

thalur wrote: post #23
sophacles wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Luck doesn't exist. It is essentially a magic enchantment that provides its recipient with an ability to gain a positive outcome of chance events at a frequency above those provided by normal probability. Sure, there are some people who will 'beat the odds' on a regular basis, probability provides for this, however more people report being lucky than the probability suggests as well. Further, luck has a social connot…

I'm not sure I quite agree with that. As I see it, the term "luck" is regularly applied to two categories of events. As you've said, there are the chance events (such as winning the lottery or rolling a 6 on a die), and in that I quite agree with you. The other case, which is what I thought the article was about, is more of an "opportunity" type of luck. For example, if you happened to find a £10 note while walking h…

Good point. In fact, I suspect we are saying the same thing, but lack some common language/terminology.

Re: Be lucky - it's an easy skill to learn (2003)

#35

Post by lief79 »

watmough wrote: post #28
emarcotte wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Teela Brown? So lucky that she got to go see and save the Ringworld as her first and last mission.

Actually 'unlucky' if I remember correctly. The 'lucky' ones were unreachable. Didn't Teela end up as the protector?

Based on the first book, lucky is probably right. She needed the experience of danger in order to broaden her horizons and to grow as a person.

Clearly, I haven't read enough of the series to comment on the last statement .... and they could easily alter the perception of the events in the first book.

Re: Be lucky - it's an easy skill to learn (2003)

#36

Post by marilyn »

I like the end of the article where the author offer three easy techniques that can help to maximize good fortune which can be boiled down to:

1. Trust your intuition 2. Seek variety to invite chance and new opportunities 3. Look to the positive side of your situation

Re: Be lucky - it's an easy skill to learn (2003)

#37

Post by iBercovich »

jstevens85 wrote: post #33
iBercovich wrote: post #32

Luck is essentially a common interpretation of the stochastic nature of the world. I agree with the author of the article in that people could increase their luck by exposing themselves to random events. I disagree that counting all pictures rather than stopping when the note is found implies a "lucky" personality-- that is more like a rational/logical personality. Luck would be that in fact, the number of pictures w…

I don't think the author was implying that stopping when the note is found implies a "lucky" personality. I think Dr. Wiseman was looking for personality traits that are common amongst "unlucky" people. The newspaper test demonstrated that unlucky people are more tense and anxious than normal, and this could explain why they may not spot new opportunities.

I agree. But does this actually follow the definition of lucky? A person could deem herself lucky without that actually being the case-- it might just be that she has personality traits that make her successful. Luck, by definition is not dependent of one's actions. I guess the article is saying that we can make ourselves feel lucky by working on certain personality traits-- but does that make us actually lucky? I am just being philosophical here.

Re: Be lucky - it's an easy skill to learn (2003)

#38

Post by MrHyde »

gmartres wrote: post #31
MrHyde wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My best literal-ish interpretation "In the fields of observation (testing?) chance favors only the prepared spirits." It's interesting to me the explicit "only" construction, as opposed to the implied version in the typical English versions.

I'm not a native English speaker, but isn't "minds" more appropriate than "spirits"?

I'm not a native French speaker. It's quite possible that minds would be better here. I don't really know; I think the distinction can frequently be subtle, at least in my conception of the two. Depending on the situation, I might consider either to be a strict subset of the other, which means I'm sometimes equivocating.
Post reply on HN