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

The most successful people are just the luckiest, a new computer model confirms

technologyreview.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 356 posts

Re: The most successful people are just the luckiest, a new computer model confirms

#41

Post by jayd16 »

dsfyu404ed wrote: post #29
ta1234567890 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

However, 2, 3 and 4 can be reduced to 1. You don't choose your genes or where you are born. Those factors, which are blind luck, determine all of the other lucks for your whole life. In the end, everything is just blind luck, but our egos want to feel like they are in control somehow.

Hustle and preparation are not luck, they're skills you have to hone for them to be useful. You have to actually do something. They aren't something you can be born into (much to the dismay of rich parents with deadbeat kids). By reducing 2 and 3 to luck you're implying that people have no agency. Sure, the person who develops those skills in rural Africa isn't going to go as far as someone who develops those skills…

Lots of people hustle and prep who are not rich. Luck is largest factor and its usually the luck of already being in a position to capitalize on opportunities.

Re: The most successful people are just the luckiest, a new computer model confirms

#42

Post by mikestew »

ta1234567890 wrote: post #13
martinni wrote: post #7

Rich people got "lucky" but they don't define what luck is to begin with. To quote Naval, there are 4 kinds of luck. 1. Blind luck - Where I just got lucky because something completely out of my control happened 2. Luck from hustling - luck that comes through persistence, hard work, hustle, motion. Which is when you’re running around creating lots of opportunities, you’re generating a lot of energy, you’re doing a lo…

However, 2, 3 and 4 can be reduced to 1. You don't choose your genes or where you are born. Those factors, which are blind luck, determine all of the other lucks for your whole life. In the end, everything is just blind luck, but our egos want to feel like they are in control somehow.

Hustle and preparation allow smaller quantities of blind luck to be turned into success. Otherwise it takes a lot more blind luck to overcome a lack of preparation, and large quantities of blind luck are harder to find.

So, yeah, it all boils down to #1. But #s 2-4 determine how much of #1 you need.

Re: The most successful people are just the luckiest, a new computer model confirms

#43

Post by davinic »

dsfyu404ed wrote: post #29
ta1234567890 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

However, 2, 3 and 4 can be reduced to 1. You don't choose your genes or where you are born. Those factors, which are blind luck, determine all of the other lucks for your whole life. In the end, everything is just blind luck, but our egos want to feel like they are in control somehow.

Hustle and preparation are not luck, they're skills you have to hone for them to be useful. You have to actually do something. They aren't something you can be born into (much to the dismay of rich parents with deadbeat kids). By reducing 2 and 3 to luck you're implying that people have no agency. Sure, the person who develops those skills in rural Africa isn't going to go as far as someone who develops those skills…

Of course not, but you still have to either be born as the type of person who would seek out and hone this skill, or have been born into a situation where someone showed you this and you were naturally receptive to it.

Re: The most successful people are just the luckiest, a new computer model confirms

#44

Post by JackRabbitSlim »

aivisol wrote: post #11

> For example, intelligence, as measured by IQ tests, follows this pattern. Average IQ is 100, but nobody has an IQ of 1,000 or 10,000. True, but can IQ be, say 210? If yes, then standard deviation cannot be applied here, right? Because for that you would need someone with opposite IQ, i.e. -10? > The same is true of effort, as measured by hours worked. Some people work more hours than average and some work less, but…

No. Most IQ tests top out around 130/160. IQ score isn't linear, its closer to logarithmic. It's designed specifically to keep 100 as the mean average so that 130 is genius.

Re: The most successful people are just the luckiest, a new computer model confirms

#45

Post by sosuke »

DoreenMichele wrote: post #21

Years ago, a friend of the family said "You're so smart. Everyone thought you would be a millionaire by age thirty. What happened?" I pointed at my kids and said "They happened. And they take all my time." I was a full-time wife and mom. This is not a career known to lead to great wealth. So, for starters, not all interests or career paths have equal potential to lead to wealth. Intelligence in no way guarantees that…

Dang, your friend of the family could use a little more tact. I loath those kinds of questions.

Re: The most successful people are just the luckiest, a new computer model confirms

#46

Post by zepto »

Keloo wrote: post #40
ta1234567890 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

However, 2, 3 and 4 can be reduced to 1. You don't choose your genes or where you are born. Those factors, which are blind luck, determine all of the other lucks for your whole life. In the end, everything is just blind luck, but our egos want to feel like they are in control somehow.

> You don't choose your genes I agree with this one. > or where you are born Not really agree with this, you can change the country you live in. And it's more important where you live not where you are born. For example lots of people from poor countries go to US or Europe and are quite successful there. > 2,3 can be reduced to 1. Don't agree either. Let's be realistic, what are the chances of success for a person wh…

Changing the country you live in is not possible for most people - it requires luck to have the resources necessary to do so.

And even if you do change the country you live in, it won’t be equivalent to having been born there.

Re: The most successful people are just the luckiest, a new computer model confirms

#47

Post by michaelmrose »

pmoriarty wrote: post #8

"So if not talent, what other factor causes this skewed wealth distribution? "Our simulation clearly shows that such a factor is just pure luck," say Pluchino and co. "The team shows this by ranking individuals according to the number of lucky and unlucky events they experience throughout their 40-year careers. "It is evident that the most successful individuals are also the luckiest ones," they say. "And the less su…

If you were as unmotivated as described and also born poor instead of well off you would have found yourself homeless instead of living off your savings when you burnt out and instead of posting on hn you would probably be rotting in the ground.

Re: The most successful people are just the luckiest, a new computer model confirms

#48

Post by a11yguy »

Keloo wrote: post #40
ta1234567890 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

However, 2, 3 and 4 can be reduced to 1. You don't choose your genes or where you are born. Those factors, which are blind luck, determine all of the other lucks for your whole life. In the end, everything is just blind luck, but our egos want to feel like they are in control somehow.

> You don't choose your genes I agree with this one. > or where you are born Not really agree with this, you can change the country you live in. And it's more important where you live not where you are born. For example lots of people from poor countries go to US or Europe and are quite successful there. > 2,3 can be reduced to 1. Don't agree either. Let's be realistic, what are the chances of success for a person wh…

I wonder how much of someone's genetics determines how likely they are to watch movies over hustle.

Re: The most successful people are just the luckiest, a new computer model confirms

#49

Post by cryptoz »

sosuke wrote: post #45
DoreenMichele wrote: post #21

Years ago, a friend of the family said "You're so smart. Everyone thought you would be a millionaire by age thirty. What happened?" I pointed at my kids and said "They happened. And they take all my time." I was a full-time wife and mom. This is not a career known to lead to great wealth. So, for starters, not all interests or career paths have equal potential to lead to wealth. Intelligence in no way guarantees that…

Dang, your friend of the family could use a little more tact. I loath those kinds of questions.

Microeconomics classes in America teach undergrads that 'rational' people only care about increases in wealth and do not care about non-wealth-increasing activities. It is such a wrong model about human behavior but it gets repeated like gospel every year at most schools in the country. So it's no wonder that people are out there, suggesting that we're all idiots for not focusing exclusively on wealth accumulation through our 20s as they were taught that is what 'rational' people do.

It's a tactless question, sure, but it should also be expected from a society that idolizes wealth the way ours does.

Re: The most successful people are just the luckiest, a new computer model confirms

#50

Post by refurb »

shadowtree wrote: post #35
martinni wrote: post #7

Rich people got "lucky" but they don't define what luck is to begin with. To quote Naval, there are 4 kinds of luck. 1. Blind luck - Where I just got lucky because something completely out of my control happened 2. Luck from hustling - luck that comes through persistence, hard work, hustle, motion. Which is when you’re running around creating lots of opportunities, you’re generating a lot of energy, you’re doing a lo…

2-4 are great examples of survivorship bias. For every success story with those traits are thousands of failures. If Bill Gates had been born and raised in Ruanda, you wouldn't know his name today. Same IQ, same hustler. But no parents with connections, no upbringing devoid of war and violence. It's just like in sports. Usain Bolt is not the fastest man alive. He is the fastest professional runner. Within a sample se…

You’re looking at it way to black and white.

I would bet if Gates had been born in Rwanda, he would have stood a good chance of being successful there, better than average.

Post reply on HN