Live data from Hacker News

Don’t Tell Your Friends They’re Lucky

nautil.us

271–280 of 303 posts

Re: Don’t Tell Your Friends They’re Lucky

#271
> Then at the end students got a bonus for their participation experiment and they were told that they could donate some or all, any fraction of their bonus, to one of three charities, their pick, just by saying so to the experimenter. What she found was that people who had listed external causes of the good thing happening donated about 25 percent more of their bonus to a charity than the people who had listed things they had done to cause the good things to happen. The control group was somewhere roughly in the middle of those two.

> There have been many experiments that have shown if you prime people to feel the emotion of gratitude, they become much more generous toward others, much more willing to pay forward to the common good.

> If you want people to think about the fact that they’ve been lucky, don’t tell them that they’ve been lucky. Ask them if they can think of any examples of times when they might have been lucky along their path to the top.

That's the gist of the article. People get defensive when you say "you're lucky", because they interpret this as "you don't deserve your success". By reframing the message and asking people questions about times where they were lucky, then this can make them feel more generous.

Very practical advice for anyone who is delivering a speech at a fundraiser.

Re: Don’t Tell Your Friends They’re Lucky

#272
post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bill Gates is a good example for OP's lot and luck point: "In 1980, [Mary Maxwell Gates] discussed her son's company with John Opel, a fellow committee member and the chairman of International Business Machines Corporation (IBM). Opel, by some accounts, mentioned Mrs. Gates to other IBM executives. A few weeks later, IBM took a chance by hiring Microsoft, then a small software firm, to develop an operating system for…

I would have liked to see what would Gate would have managed to do if he was born in the slums of India not in Seattle, a lawyer as a father and a person in the board of directors of a bank holding as a mother.

The chance that he would accomplish anything is vanishingly small. But I found this story on Google: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/kolkata/18-year-old-...

Re: Don’t Tell Your Friends They’re Lucky

#273
post #266
post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A single-payer healthcare system is your government mitigating the effects of your bad luck. Giving you a tax break for gains on certain kinds of investments is your government rewarding your work. (That's not traditional "hard work" in the sense of expending physical energy, but deciding what investments to make is certainly work.)

Well, I guess if "simultaneous" means that different parts of the government with different programs can have opposite effects, okay. But I'm talking about a program that mitigates the effects of luck while (in the same program, with the same methods) rewarding effort. They're mostly opposite effects and there's no way to reliably distinguish hard work from luck. That's why there's so much debate on the subject.

When I said "simultaneous" I mean to apply it to a government, not a particular program.

In any case though, any government program that gives equal resources to everyone and isn't means-tested to hell can do both. For example, an UBI both mitigates luck (by giving everyone a set amount of resources) and rewards hard work (because better workers will get far better returns with the income they've been given).

Re: Don’t Tell Your Friends They’re Lucky

#274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've seen lots of examples of luck. This is not to suggest that tenacious people wouldn't succeed in some way or another but only that their current positions would be different. Some good examples: Ed Catmull in his own book mentioned all the luck he had becoming Pixar. Pixar was a computer hardware division at ILM. ILM wanted to get rid if them. They almost got sold to a computer company (lucky they didnt). They go…

It's more probability than luck. Anyone with moderate intelligence and who is willing to make a commitment to building wealth can say, make 5 or 10 million in life. It might not be easy nor quick, but from what I've seen, it's definitely achievable (i'm not there yet). You do however need to build up a specific skillset. At least 90% of the population is either 1) not interested in acquiring wealth, or 2) not willing…

> Anyone with moderate intelligence and who is willing to make a commitment to building wealth can say, make 5 or 10 million in life.

This definitely isn't true for "anyone born in the world", and doesn't ring true to me for "anyone born in the US" either. Maybe it's true for "anyone born into the middle class in the US". (But that middle class is rapidly shrinking.)

Unfortunately, starting conditions still matter a lot.

Re: Don’t Tell Your Friends They’re Lucky

#275
post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This can be very hard to nail down though at the large scale. For instance Trump managed to secure the largest tax break in New York history in the 80s by convincing the government that his buildings for the Uber rich would be very valuable to the city.

That's a direct example where government power rewarded a crony. Reward for value creation is something that the free market does every day in trillions of transactions.

It also tends to over-reward those who create value by having a strong negotiating position (usually due to coming to the table with lots of capital) and under-reward those who create value through labor. This is better than crony-ism, but it's not at all a panacea.

Re: Don’t Tell Your Friends They’re Lucky

#276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is kinda a weird thing to call "luck" though. "You" could also have been born a duck, a 1000 years ago, in the future or in another universe (maybe). But then "you" would have been somebody else and hence, not "you" at all. In other words, "you" had 100% chance of being you . No luck involved.

I definitely agree. The universe being almost certainly deterministic, there is also a 100% chance of everything that has ever happened happening. It's still useful to think as if different people could have been born in different circumstances. You could think of it as a mental shorthand for the idea that differences between human beings are arbitrary, and it makes no sense to argue that a human inherently deserves…

I still think you're making a categorical error. "being human" isn't a privileged class that inherently deserves something. That way of thinking becomes really messy fast in terms of drawing concrete rules.

It also seems a bit homo-centric coming from a human.

BTW, I think we do have genuine subjective probability, even though the universe is deterministic.

Re: Don’t Tell Your Friends They’re Lucky

#277
post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would add a third category: fortune . Lot is what you were born with. Luck is when random things do or don't happen regardless of skill. You can manage it to an extent. Bad luck through being careful and various types of insurance, good luck mostly through participating. Buying bitcoin 3 years ago and selling at great profit now is pure luck. Maybe you influenced the market to grow, probably it was pure luck. Fortu…

The Peter Dinklage bit annoys me, as this is precisely the issue - survivorship bias. I happen to have a few actor friends. All talented, harder working than me, and dedicated to their craft. And no-one is interviewing them because they haven't made it.The talent and hard work pays off because you also get the lucky break.

Exactly. Fuck Peter Dinklage. Even Louis CK is at it - he was so humble for so long, and then when he got really big he started with the "I've put in the time" schtick, and feeling like he deserves it (which he does, but he's not successful because he deserves it)

Re: Don’t Tell Your Friends They’re Lucky

#278
post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The idea that success is based on effort is fundamentally... wrong. For every famous singer, there are thousands of other people putting in years of effort who cannot even earn a salary. For every Facebook, there are thousands of other products or companies who have put in heaps of effort but just didn't have the right timing, or that special something, that let Facebook take off. For every well thought out or engine…

Thank you! Hard work is necessary, but not sufficient for success. (Almost) everyone successful is a hard worker. Not every hard worker is successful.

I don't even feel that it is necessary for success - whenever discussions like this come along, people will say things like "you make your own luck" or "luck provides opportunities, hard work takes advantage of them", and I agree - to a point. That point is usually far less than others would say.

Using myself as an example, I don't feel right saying that I'm a hard worker. Sure, I wasn't at the lowest end of possible effort, but I'm far from the high end as well. Figuring out if I'm above/below the 50% mark requires a lot more understanding of what is actually normal than I have, but I believe I'm close to average, probably a bit below.

Despite this, I've had a ton of luck and success. And when I look at people that are more successful (wealthy, at least), some of them have worked harder...and others have had just more luck.

I had a great high school which let me coast through college. Because I didn't have the GPA to get the degree I wanted (restricted admissions), I ended up with a "make-your-own" degree. (Which was good because I had accrued so many electives out of general curiosity that I'd have been in college for years extra to qualify for any other degree). I had a 75% tuition discount, which meant that even though I could afford student loans, I didn't need any.

I fell into a profession just as it was becoming hugely in demand. I don't program because it makes big bucks, I program because I've always wanted to. It just happened that as I entered college the Web went mainstream.

My first job out of college was working on coldfusion (which I didn't know) on an NT environment (which I hated), all because I had fired off an email telling them I could show them how to use Perl on Linux, and they had just switched to Oracle on Linux (unbeknowst to me) and wanted someone with some Linux experience. You could argue that that email was "work" on my part, but really it was just a punch-drunk sarcastic email sent after a couple of hours of putting out legitimate applications. Total luck.

3 months later I got a contracting job for the state at double the salary (3 months post-college experience apparently counts for a lot). It was a 6 week contract that I stayed at for 7 years (at that point I got hired full time and stayed for another 5 years). The job was easy and I learned a ton because they had no real work for me, so I just did what I wanted. Work? Some, but mostly just luck. Certainly a ton more luck than other people that were working harder.

It goes on and on like this. And I'm not as lucky as some: I could have been born into a rich family, where I'd have to work hard NOT to make money. (Heck, we've seen that someone can have multiple failing multi-million dollar enterprises and still roughly match the market).

I'm not saying I didn't do ANY work...I'm saying that my success (and the success of many others) owes far MORE to luck than effort. In fact, I'd go so far as to say the majority of people I know that are successful are so because of luck. Many of them work harder than I do...but not harder than other people that are less successful. I don't think that's because the less successful people have had BAD luck (though some have), I think it's because the successful people have had more luck than the less successful people, by and large.

Yet in discussions like this people always want to emphasize the effort. I don't know if that's because my judgement is wrong, or because people are really uncomfortable facing the prospect that their effort counts for so little in the wider scheme of things.

Re: Don’t Tell Your Friends They’re Lucky

#279
post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a direct example where government power rewarded a crony. Reward for value creation is something that the free market does every day in trillions of transactions.

It also tends to over-reward those who create value by having a strong negotiating position (usually due to coming to the table with lots of capital) and under-reward those who create value through labor. This is better than crony-ism, but it's not at all a panacea.

Over-reward? By what measure? If capital amplifies negotiating power then it means that capital is more important. One who can acquire capital to use in negotiation is using the most leverage to create value.

Labor's value is exactly what someone is willing to pay for it.

Re: Don’t Tell Your Friends They’re Lucky

#280
post #273
post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, I guess if "simultaneous" means that different parts of the government with different programs can have opposite effects, okay. But I'm talking about a program that mitigates the effects of luck while (in the same program, with the same methods) rewarding effort. They're mostly opposite effects and there's no way to reliably distinguish hard work from luck. That's why there's so much debate on the subject.

When I said "simultaneous" I mean to apply it to a government, not a particular program. In any case though, any government program that gives equal resources to everyone and isn't means-tested to hell can do both. For example, an UBI both mitigates luck (by giving everyone a set amount of resources) and rewards hard work (because better workers will get far better returns with the income they've been given).

Sure, UBI doesn't completely negate the value of work, but UBI decreases the value of hard work because everyone gets something without having to do any work.
Post reply on HN