The original model was so abstracted that it was absurd. There is no such thing as “luck”, it is only a name for what we call the intersection of preparation and opportunity. Both can be controlled. People tend to think opportunities are random and based on chance – they aren’t. They are the result of smaller intersections of preparations and opportunities that happened previously.
The Role of Luck in Life Is Still Misunderstood
11–20 of 196 posts
Re: The Role of Luck in Life Is Still Misunderstood
#12Earlier quoted context omitted.
For the purpose of this discussion, the precise definition of luck doesn't matter, and can be taken to be anything that isn't talent.
There is no such thing as talent either. No one is born with a natural skill to do something unnatural. Genetic traits are not talents, they are traits. To be born with a talent would be to be able to do whatever it is you do from the moment you are born, if you had the physical capacity for it. Otherwise, any “talent” you display later is really just the result of effective learning and practice, but that is just wh…
The paper is not concerned with philosophical definitions. It picks a certain mathematical model, and describes the effect of two concepts which it calls "talent" and "luck". The question is whether or not the model captures reality sufficiently accurately, not about whether the two quantities match a specific definition nor about the philosophy of that definition.
Re: The Role of Luck in Life Is Still Misunderstood
#13Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is no such thing as talent either. No one is born with a natural skill to do something unnatural. Genetic traits are not talents, they are traits. To be born with a talent would be to be able to do whatever it is you do from the moment you are born, if you had the physical capacity for it. Otherwise, any “talent” you display later is really just the result of effective learning and practice, but that is just wh…
Luck is anything the individual cannot control. You don't get to choose your parents, for example. I don't see what your point is.
I read an interesting book which suggested that what we call luck was a learnable skill in and of itself. It suggested that luck is no more than effective noticing, and a "lucky" person is simply more likely to notice something that would be construed as lucky by a neutral third party.
The book also noted that lucky people didn't win more than statistics suggested they should (they were no more likely to win the lottery), but they opened themselves to situations which allowed a win to happen, and so had more chances to win than someone who closed off their options.
In case you're interested, the book is "The Luck Factor", by Richard Wiseman.
Re: The Role of Luck in Life Is Still Misunderstood
#14But aren't the exceptionally talented(2%) people supposed to win way more than 3%, if we assume talent plays a larger role. It is not a bad output, but not good enough either considering they are exceptional. The paper probably indicates that talent stops becoming the limiting factor somewhere pretty close to average talent, and environmental influences/luck take precedence.
We could argue as to what constitutes luck but I think the core of the paper suggests that talent's importance in success is overestimated, which is rather believable (MY ANECDOTAL OPINION).
Haven't read the paper, just assuming from the articles.
Re: The Role of Luck in Life Is Still Misunderstood
#15The original model was so abstracted that it was absurd. There is no such thing as “luck”, it is only a name for what we call the intersection of preparation and opportunity. Both can be controlled. People tend to think opportunities are random and based on chance – they aren’t. They are the result of smaller intersections of preparations and opportunities that happened previously.
Call it circumstances you can't control if you want.
People don't choose which country they are born into. They don't choose the quality of their primary education, whether or not their parents vaccinate them before they catch one of those sorts of diseases. They don't choose any disease (cancer, genetic defects, etc) for that matter.
There is a whole range of things most people don't choose. To be a violence victim or in a car accident, for example. Most people can't choose whether or not they will be eligible for an inheritance that makes them better off financially - nor do they choose an inheritance filled with financial obligations.
Sure, some opportunities are the sort that one can do things to make them more likely and choose to take them, but a great number are quite random to the individual and completely outside of their control. Just because they have cause doesn't mean they aren't what most folks consider "luck".
Re: The Role of Luck in Life Is Still Misunderstood
#16Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is no such thing as talent either. No one is born with a natural skill to do something unnatural. Genetic traits are not talents, they are traits. To be born with a talent would be to be able to do whatever it is you do from the moment you are born, if you had the physical capacity for it. Otherwise, any “talent” you display later is really just the result of effective learning and practice, but that is just wh…
Luck is anything the individual cannot control. You don't get to choose your parents, for example. I don't see what your point is.
@matte_black
There's a big component in American culture at least, that assumes that the success in life is due to talent. It provides an excuse for inequitable distributions of resources, for example, by justifying the distribution as a natural consequence of individual talent, skill, and hard work.
This study shows that this cultural assumption is not true, that talent or hard-work alone are not enough to achieve success, and much of success is down to random events.
I think talent and hard-work along with ambition better prepare an individual to take advantage of these random events but without fortuitous providence, they aren't enough to provide success.
Re: The Role of Luck in Life Is Still Misunderstood
#17> It could be that the results were built into the model’s design. Every true mathematical proposition is a tautology. I don't find this point particularly convincing. As long as the model's predictions match reality in interesting ways, it can lend possible insights on why reality might have certain characteristics. > Like getting an improbable series of heads when flipping a coin long enough, improbable clusters of…
I completely agree with everything you've said. I think that an interesting way to gauge the accuracy of the model without doing major empirical research is to create models where talent is the decisive factor, and then compare which model's assumptions better capture what we know about the world. My guess is that for a variable to be a decisive factor, it must correspond to excessive control over others, thus not matching our colloquial definition of talent, but rather of power.
Re: The Role of Luck in Life Is Still Misunderstood
#18The original model was so abstracted that it was absurd. There is no such thing as “luck”, it is only a name for what we call the intersection of preparation and opportunity. Both can be controlled. People tend to think opportunities are random and based on chance – they aren’t. They are the result of smaller intersections of preparations and opportunities that happened previously.
I'm pretty proud of the careful preparation I did that led me to be born in the Netherlands.
Re: The Role of Luck in Life Is Still Misunderstood
#19I still think the focus on wealth/income inequality rather than on absolute poverty is irrational. I've seen people justify it to me on the grounds that people care about relative poverty, which to me reads "people are jealous". But then the result is: 1) A focus on inequality is irrational. 2) People focus on inequality for irrational reasons. This means that if policy-makers and intellectuals fully give in to the p…
The reason we care so much about inequality has nothing to do with jealousy and everything to do with power[1]. As resources are a major source of power (and often vice-versa), and because power is relative, inequality of resources means inequality of power. And as power means influence (and so the ability to reduce another's freedom), inequality reduces overall freedom.
As freedom can never be total[2], the question is do we prefer to reduce the freedom of the powerful few (whose freedom is already large) in order to increase that of the many, or vice-versa?
So while absolute income is certainly very important, ignoring inequality is simply irrational for someone who values freedom.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_(social_and_political)
[2]: One person can be totally free; two cannot. X would either be free to infringe on Y's freedom or not -- in either case, freedom is no longer total.
Re: The Role of Luck in Life Is Still Misunderstood
#20Earlier quoted context omitted.
Luck is anything the individual cannot control. You don't get to choose your parents, for example. I don't see what your point is.
If that is all luck is, then is there ever a point to these discussions? No one is going to leave with an understanding of how they can “be more lucky”. You just either are, or you aren’t and that’s all you’ll ever be. Either that or it becomes a contest for who is the most or least lucky.
Yes there is, as neoliberal culture holds that luck has no effect on outcomes. If you believe this you believe that welfare, for example, is not needed as the poor are just lazy.