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

Michael Lewis: Don't Eat Fortune's Cookie

princeton.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 188 posts

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

#151

Post by confluence »

kamaal wrote: post #150
rudiger wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Other way to look at it is, He had to build a company first. How would Mary Gates be of any help to him if he hadn't built the company? Her influence was a multiplier and not the only reason for his success.

Correct.

But it was the main reason you or I even discuss him right now, which implies that it was one hell of a multiplier.

My problem is that the ratios are very distorted: 1% work vs. 99% luck. Work is necessary but not sufficient is all I'm saying.

Hence how would one optimise the multiplier (whilst obviously working on being just plain good), if that is at all possible.

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

#152

Post by kamaal »

confluence wrote: post #151
kamaal wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Other way to look at it is, He had to build a company first. How would Mary Gates be of any help to him if he hadn't built the company? Her influence was a multiplier and not the only reason for his success.

Correct. But it was the main reason you or I even discuss him right now, which implies that it was one hell of a multiplier. My problem is that the ratios are very distorted: 1% work vs. 99% luck. Work is necessary but not sufficient is all I'm saying. Hence how would one optimise the multiplier (whilst obviously working on being just plain good), if that is at all possible.

I don't deny this at all. There might be a lot of people who are as hardworking and ready with something to give them a multiplier. But they might have somebody like Mary Gates as their mother.

My problem is people taking that as a reason to not do the base work at the first place.

I know of people who hunt 'luck' stories whole day to prove why they being lazy is OK. And not just that, now they expect to get equally 'lucky'. And when they don't they call it 'injustice', 'unfair' and things like that.

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

#153

Post by anon808 »

smsm42 wrote: post #116
nostromo wrote: post #9

I've enjoyed two great books that discuss this: "The Drunkard's Walk: How Randomness Rules Our Lives" ( http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/08/books/review/Johnson-G-t.h... ) and "Fooled by Randomness" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fooled_by_Randomness ) I think people dislike talking about luck's role in our successes (but not failures) because it hints at a deterministic world view where our free will is less important…

Taleb's books were ones of the most thought-provoking I have ever read. Made me think differently about a lot of things that I thought I knew. I think though people don't talk about role of luck also because it's useless to talk about it - you can't say: "my lesson for you, my son, is - always be lucky". People try to find something that they can actually do - even though many of what they end up doing is futile.

It's very difficult to do something for the sake of doing it without focusing on the end, but in reality all we can control is what we do, not the effect of what we do. Reading talebs books completely opened my eyes to our own magnificent limitations. There's real beauty in recognizing how little control we have over outcomes. But we have 100% control over the journey . . . what we learn and create, theres a lot of comfort in that idea.

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

#154

Post by zasz »

sopooneo wrote: post #134
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 intim…

I'd argue a lot, still. Was he born in America, or Somalia?

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

#155

Post by yesbabyyes »

megaman821 wrote: post #146
nostromo wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe, but I'm talking about retrospection here, not prospection. People, even when talking about past successes, are very unlikely to admit their good fortune. In other words you're more likely to hear, "I worked very hard" than "I worked very hard and was very lucky." There are notable exceptions. Warren Buffet has openly talked about the role of luck in his success.

Of course luck plays a role, but we are not talking lottery style luck here. If success was mostly luck then it would be a pure numbers game. China and India would hold most of the world's successful people due to their massive populations.

Do they hold the most lottery winners? Do they hold the biggest lottery winners?

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

#156

Post by kinleyd »

smsm42 wrote: post #116
nostromo wrote: post #9

I've enjoyed two great books that discuss this: "The Drunkard's Walk: How Randomness Rules Our Lives" ( http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/08/books/review/Johnson-G-t.h... ) and "Fooled by Randomness" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fooled_by_Randomness ) I think people dislike talking about luck's role in our successes (but not failures) because it hints at a deterministic world view where our free will is less important…

Taleb's books were ones of the most thought-provoking I have ever read. Made me think differently about a lot of things that I thought I knew. I think though people don't talk about role of luck also because it's useless to talk about it - you can't say: "my lesson for you, my son, is - always be lucky". People try to find something that they can actually do - even though many of what they end up doing is futile.

Taleb's books made a huge difference for me too. He basically removed a number of layers off the prism I used to see life through. Thoroughly practical too.

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

#157

Post by speleding »

nostromo wrote: post #9

I've enjoyed two great books that discuss this: "The Drunkard's Walk: How Randomness Rules Our Lives" ( http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/08/books/review/Johnson-G-t.h... ) and "Fooled by Randomness" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fooled_by_Randomness ) I think people dislike talking about luck's role in our successes (but not failures) because it hints at a deterministic world view where our free will is less important…

You cannot help luck (p) but you can help the number of times you put yourself in a position to be lucky (n). The expected value is n x p, so you clearly have a big influence in your success.

For example, going to Princeton gives you a much bigger chance to be seated next to an important Lehman person, and having the right parents gives you a much higher chance to go to Princeton. Some people have such high "n" they are bound to end up "lucky".

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

#158

Post by sambeau »

kamaal wrote: post #140
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)

>>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…

Samuel Goldwyn should have gone with:

  "The luckier I got, the luckier I get"

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

#159

Post by ralfd »

zasz wrote: post #154
sopooneo wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 intim…

I'd argue a lot, still. Was he born in America, or Somalia?

Perhaps his innate drive and passion would have made him a mighty pirate? Arrr.
Post reply on HN