Michael Lewis: Don't Eat Fortune's Cookie • Hacker News Board

Re: Michael Lewis: Don't Eat Fortune's Cookie

#131

Post by confluence » Tue, Jun 05, 2012, 2:01 AM UTC

rudiger wrote: post #127

confluence wrote: post #101

Michael Lewis meet Quora; Quora meet Michael Lewis: http://www.quora.com/Wealthy-People-and-Families/Why-dont-so... The question I want answered is: How do you optimise for luck? I've come to the conclusion that one most work very hard on something with a scalable market value for a long period of time. You continue to do this (repeatedly if need be), until you either, in order of likelihood: a) Quit b) Die c) Get lu…

Mary Gates, Bill Gates' mother, was on the same board as John Opel, the president, chairman and CEO of I.B.M. They discussed her son's company and Mr. Opel mentioned Mrs. Gates to other I.B.M. executives. A few weeks later, I.B.M. took a chance by hiring Microsoft, then a small software company, to develop an operating system for its first personal computer. So a discussion Mary Gates had with John Opel while they we…

So that's a no then :D.

Reminds me how ludicrous the development of intelligent life was (evolution is the Bill Gates of science theories - mostly luck, lots of time, and a bit of skill haha!).

You need the right planet, with the right sun, lots of water, an atmosphere, a moon, a stable surface, an iron core, plate tectonics, snow ball earth -> oxygen/ozone, organic molecules from the oort cloud, and that meteor that killed the dinosaurs (with no subsequent extinction events since).

Sounds like the beginning of a bad sci-fi series!

I'm sure I missed things out, but it was a series of ridiculously unlikely events. Reminds me of a Simpson's episode on time travel - kill a mosquito, end the world :D.

Que sera, sera!

Re: Michael Lewis: Don't Eat Fortune's Cookie

#132

Post by jcrites » Tue, Jun 05, 2012, 2:03 AM UTC

paulhauggis wrote: post #98

hjkl wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The argument isn't that success is due entirely to luck. It's that you'll never know how much of that success is due to luck. It may be a lot or it may be a little.

But you do. If you make an iphone app and it's an overnight success, you got lucky (the non-luck part is the years of experience that it took to make the app). However, if you slowly build your user base and continue to add new features for years through many failures/successes, beyond the normal 10% or less luck in every-day life, I wouldn't consider it lucky. Again, it seems there is this trend on HN to make it see…

In the case of an app that grows over time: isn't there an element of luck at play every month in the user base? Maybe you just got lucky 12 months in a row, and then you were successful enough to show up on the front page of the app store.

You can tabulate the odds of experiencing random radical growth 12 months in a row. It will happen to some portion of the population. If everybody is flipping coins, then 1 person out of 4000 will flip 12 heads in a row.

I am not arguing that most success is due to luck, or even half of it. I just think the statistical argument is interesting to explore.

Re: Michael Lewis: Don't Eat Fortune's Cookie

#133

Post by sopooneo » Tue, Jun 05, 2012, 2:19 AM UTC

bradleyland wrote: post #67

liber8 wrote: post #33

I think part of the problem with realistically viewing one's life through this prism is the impossibility of determining what percentage of one's success is due to luck. In a sense, literally everyone who is alive today is lucky. They are the product of an unbroken line of genetic material passed down for millions of years. Can you imagine? Not one of their thousands and thousands of ancestors managed to be killed be…

And if you recursively click the first link in Wikipedia articles, you end up at philosophy :) My point is that if you dedicate a lot of time thinking about any particular aspect of life, you end up back at the "Getting to Philosophy" problem. Your luck comes in shades of grey. At some point, the line between black and white is drawn rather arbitrarily. Would I consider myself "lucky" to be born in the US? To be born…

But no one would ever literally contemplate the single fact of their personal luck long enough to degrade their professional potential. It is realistic only that one might spend a few days a year or minutes a day at it. And occasional periods of self-awareness or mediation are almost certainly helpful in achieving life's goals. Instead, I take as Lewis's message that the successful should be and behave humbly. We should help those who live in less comfort or happiness.

Re: Michael Lewis: Don't Eat Fortune's Cookie

#134

Post by sopooneo » Tue, Jun 05, 2012, 2:29 AM UTC

kylebrown wrote: post #63

Its amazing how self-defensive some successful people can become about their socioeconomic status. An implication that luck had any more than a very minor contribution is blasphemous. Some can become outraged at the suggestion that they might own one penny that wasn't earned fair and square. Completely on their own, with no help from anybody. Not even scholarships count as help (they're earned). And for some reason,…

What about someone that fought their way out of endemic poverty? For me, I was fortunate my whole life and while I have worked hard for what I've achieved, it is all largely dependent on the love, encouragement, mindset, and financial help I received from my family. I have a friend, though, that is one of my personal heroes. He came from disadvantage and dysfunction. But, by some spark that frankly I still find intimidating, he started fighting his way out from early childhood. Every challenge available in high school. Ivy League. Finance. Politics. He doesn't like to visit home now, which makes me sad, but I can understand.

So how much luck with him? We could argue that people like him are lucky for their innate drive and passion, but that's a tricky one.

Re: Michael Lewis: Don't Eat Fortune's Cookie

#135

Post by intellegacy » Tue, Jun 05, 2012, 2:31 AM UTC

timwiseman wrote: post #118

twelvechairs wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Samuel Goldwyn obviously never worked in a sweatshop. More seriously. Lots of people work very 'hard' for (what we would consider) very little compensation. Its more important to work smarter than 'harder' or with more 'effort'. (eg. Sometimes you also need to acknowledge when your efforts are leading nowhere and drop something - this might not be considered 'working hard' - though perhaps it should be)

It seems there are 3 main factors in success (or lack thereof): Luck, working smarter, working harder. Luck is a major factor for everyone, but you can't control it. You can certainly influence working smarter, but it is often a matter of juding in hindsight what was smart rather than determining it before hand. Working harder is much more under our control than the others. It is important to acknowledge luck. This h…

I liked your analysis and agree for the most part. But you can't leave out the talent factor, nor the resources/position one starts with. It is possible to be born into success.

Re: Michael Lewis: Don't Eat Fortune's Cookie

#136

Post by zobzu » Tue, Jun 05, 2012, 2:45 AM UTC

I like that talk. Well written, honest and to the point. It doesn't even involve morality. It doesn't tell you not to take the cookie because, you'll take it anyway (well, most of you anyway).

It just tells you not to fool yourself.

Re: Michael Lewis: Don't Eat Fortune's Cookie

#137

Post by zobzu » Tue, Jun 05, 2012, 2:48 AM UTC

rudiger wrote: post #99

gruseom wrote: post #55

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1621845

Some businessmen feel obligated to "give back." Who says they've taken anything? Paul Graham responds, "They've taken something from chance."

It should be obvious to anyone, that when you have more wealth than 99.5% of the world, you owe the rest of the world.

But not so many understand or realize that.

Next time, they shall be born alone, let's see how many hours they survive.

People feed you. Build stuff for you. Make your life better. And most of them, don't gain much from it. Usually, they just die younger.

Re: Michael Lewis: Don't Eat Fortune's Cookie

#138

Post by FredBrach » Tue, Jun 05, 2012, 3:11 AM UTC

I don't see any luck in the "dinner" refered in the article neither in any of the examples. All those events have been predicted by the people who fight hard for building a society where those kind of events precisely became the default instead of rapes and pillages.

Btw, excelent movie.

Re: Michael Lewis: Don't Eat Fortune's Cookie

#139

Post by intellegacy » Tue, Jun 05, 2012, 3:15 AM UTC

confluence wrote: post #101

Michael Lewis meet Quora; Quora meet Michael Lewis: http://www.quora.com/Wealthy-People-and-Families/Why-dont-so... The question I want answered is: How do you optimise for luck? I've come to the conclusion that one most work very hard on something with a scalable market value for a long period of time. You continue to do this (repeatedly if need be), until you either, in order of likelihood: a) Quit b) Die c) Get lu…

You have some facts about Bill Gates wrong. Not only is he smarter than other smart people but he's also harder working than most other hard-working people. It was generally accepted among his classmates that he was the smartest in his class at Lakeview and one of the smartest at Harvard.

Also, you could say that Bill Gates got lucky with the CP/M OS deal, but he was shrewd enough to give himself the advantage in the majority of the contracts he made with others. Luck did play a huge role in Microsoft's success but their success was multiplied by Bill's intelligence, hard work, cunning, and competitiveness.

Re: Michael Lewis: Don't Eat Fortune's Cookie

#140

Post by kamaal » Tue, Jun 05, 2012, 3:27 AM UTC

twelvechairs wrote: post #75

LargeWu wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The harder I work, the luckier I get" - Samuel Goldwyn

Samuel Goldwyn obviously never worked in a sweatshop. More seriously. Lots of people work very 'hard' for (what we would consider) very little compensation. Its more important to work smarter than 'harder' or with more 'effort'. (eg. Sometimes you also need to acknowledge when your efforts are leading nowhere and drop something - this might not be considered 'working hard' - though perhaps it should be)

>>Samuel Goldwyn obviously never worked in a sweatshop.

And you obviously don't have to be in a sweatshop to work hard. You can work hard as a Janitor, driver, programmer, stock trader, president or whatever.

To be 'lucky' through hard work you've got to be clever enough to pick up the area where you want to work hard.If by any means you can't start where you would have liked, you need to keep moving gradually to the place you would like to go.

My advice: If your hard work doesn't look rewarding in both the long and short term. Iterate quickly, take a quick feedback and play a different game. But whatever game you play work hard while playing it.

EDIT: To all those people who are downvoting. Hard work in the wrong direction doesn't give the results you expect. Is this such a difficult and surprising thing to understand?