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

161–170 of 188 posts

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

#161

Post by intended »

twoodfin wrote: post #142
RockyMcNuts wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

s/b Salomon Brothers You may now resume proving Lewis's point, that "People really don’t like to hear success explained away as luck."

So just how much more "lucky" is Warren Buffet than a thousand other capitalists? If you took away every penny he owns and made him 25 again, do you really doubt he would be able to earn it all back?

Warren Buffet is a known anomaly.

His value investing and stock picking ability is pretty much unparalleled.

At the same time, he IS lucky to have done what he did, at the time he did.

Even if one single person like him existed before or at the same time as him, he would have had trouble finding deals to invest in.

EDIT: not to mention the things he did wouldn't have been possible at many other junctions in time. His skill set - value investing, would have been impossible if he wasn't born in the era he was.

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

#162

Post by intended »

nirvana wrote: post #105
tedunangst wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd say he's being downvoted for responding to the title, but not the content of the speech. Maybe the first reference to Goldman was a typo, but then repeating and insisting on that mistake? (Why not go back and check?) Calling the speech an article. People will conclude nirvana at best skimmed it. If you haven't read and understood the material, don't comment on it.

I read the speech. I also read Liars Poker. I knew Lewis had worked at Soloman Brothers, but somehow in the years since I read the book "Goldman" replaced "Soloman" in my head. So this is a typo. Of course that I named a different firm (equally hated) than the correct one doesn't change the content of my article. It is a post hoc, ergo proctor hoc argument to evade the obvious reason. The actual reason has been prese…

I think you changed the framework of the discussion.

While within your framework you are of course, correct; at the same time, its framework is at odds with what everyone else in this thread are discussing. As a result you are being downvoted.

Not because of anti intellectualism.

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

#163

Post by megaman821 »

yesbabyyes wrote: post #155
megaman821 wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Doubtful that many play the lottery, but they also lead the world with bad luck too, with the world's most accidental deaths. Source: http://www.rightdiagnosis.com/a/accidental_death/stats-count...

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

#164

Post by kennon »

speleding wrote: post #157
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…

I think you may be contradicting yourself. Using your example, one thing leads to another but it all hinges on an initial lucky roll of the dice: born in the US to the right parents. No one "earns" this head start but almost everyone reading this discussion has it.

Like you, I believe that I've had some say in getting to where I am today, but it's hard to tell how much of that is reality and how much is self-aggrandizement.

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

#165

Post by kgtm »

speleding wrote: post #157
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…

I feel compelled to both upvote and comment on your post, in order to further emphasize the point you are making: you can help the number of times you put yourself in a position to be lucky. This understanding is incredibly important and relevant to every aspect of one's life, however diverse, from business to dating. Check out Luck Surface Area [0], a relevant concept largely based on the above.

Also, most often than not, merely beating inertia and getting to do things, no matter how involved or not they are, can have a tremendous impact on one's success. Simple things really work. You just have to do stuff. Other times you just have to ask. You'd be surprised how often you get exactly what you ask for without being manipulative. Rejection Therapy [1] is a true eye opener, especially when the rejection never comes. The way I see it, it's the most profound realization that at that point luck was just made out of thin air.

And while some things definitely cannot change, like the country one was born in and the socioeconomic status of their parents, there are many, many others that can be hacked.

[0] http://www.codusoperandi.com/posts/increasing-your-luck-surf...

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rejection_Therapy

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

#166

Post by drumdance »

I think this is why a lot of Hollywood actors tend to be liberal on economic issues. They may be rich and famous, but they also got the "big break" that many of their fellow actors did not get. Brad Pitt may be handsome and a good actor, but there are a lot of handsome and good actors. Only one of them got to co-star with Tom Cruise in Interview with the Vampire.

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

#167

Post by pfarrell »

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…

The best band that came from my college was probably one of the best regional acts as well. For 10 years, they were effectively on a non-stop, nation-wide tour. They were a ska act at a time when ska hit. So, they were right place, right time, and put forth incredible effort.

In the end, they did not get the big record deal, the band fell apart, and they all went on to different things. I've had a hindsight talk with the leader of the band and he's basically said, we thought all our hard work touring would pay off, but we probably should have been working on other things (like marketing and woo-ing labels, I presume).

Kind of OT, but the big change in my career came when I realized that promotions are not rewards for "hard work", moving up comes from demonstrating you'll be more effective at the new job. As a worker, you think that you get promoted as a reward for what you've done, but as a manager, you promote because of what the worker can do in the future.

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

#168

Post by sp332 »

scott_s wrote: post #20
CUR10US wrote: post #12

"This isn't just false humility. It's false humility with a point." This is why I like Lewis' writing. Liar's Poker had a huge influence on me at an influential age. There's always a sense that he's playing the same game that he's writing about. And not in a George Plimpton sense. But he's often got a message to deliver that other players will not touch. The message always seems worth hearing. I interpret his referen…

If you want people to remember what you have to say, make your point, and get off the stage.

Talks in most TED categories are ranked better when they're longer. http://www.ted.com/talks/lies_damned_lies_and_statistics_abo...

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

#169

Post by snth »

nirvana wrote: post #104
Smudge wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point of the speech wasn't that you shouldn't apply yourself. Your hard work, passion, and focus likely correlate with your successes. But that doesn't mean you weren't also extremely lucky to be in a position where those factors (things that you have more control over) were so able to tip your chances. Edit: Firstly, we should all be able to voice unpopular opinions without getting silenced by the crowd. I may h…

>It is the latter group that you are failing to acknowledge, which is perhaps why you are seeing so many down-votes. I wouldn't simply attribute it to "anti-intellectualism." That group, if it really even exists, is completely irrelevant to my point and thus there is no reason I should need to acknowledge it, other than political correctness. Remember, my comments were about my experience and to a lesser extent, Lewi…

I downvoted you for reasons having nothing to do with political ideologies. You are far too quick to call people "intolerant" and "leftist".

I downvoted you for saying "My success and failures in life have had nothing to do with luck," which is certainly false. Using one of the examples from the HN comments, you didn't die as a child, and that has certainly contributed to your success.

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

#170

Post by rudiger »

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.

Here's what Paul Graham has to say in How to Make Wealth: Millions, Not Billions (http://paulgraham.com/wealth.html):

> If $3 million a year seems high to some people, it will seem low to others. Three million? How do I get to be a billionaire, like Bill Gates?

> So let's get Bill Gates out of the way right now. It's not a good idea to use famous rich people as examples, because the press only write about the very richest, and these tend to be outliers. Bill Gates is a smart, determined, and hardworking man, but you need more than that to make as much money as he has. You also need to be very lucky.

> There is a large random factor in the success of any company. So the guys you end up reading about in the papers are the ones who are very smart, totally dedicated, and win the lottery. Certainly Bill is smart and dedicated, but Microsoft also happens to have been the beneficiary of one of the most spectacular blunders in the history of business: the licensing deal for DOS. No doubt Bill did everything he could to steer IBM into making that blunder, and he has done an excellent job of exploiting it, but if there had been one person with a brain on IBM's side, Microsoft's future would have been very different. Microsoft at that stage had little leverage over IBM. They were effectively a component supplier. If IBM had required an exclusive license, as they should have, Microsoft would still have signed the deal. It would still have meant a lot of money for them, and IBM could easily have gotten an operating system elsewhere.

> Instead IBM ended up using all its power in the market to give Microsoft control of the PC standard. From that point, all Microsoft had to do was execute. They never had to bet the company on a bold decision. All they had to do was play hardball with licensees and copy more innovative products reasonably promptly.

> If IBM hadn't made this mistake, Microsoft would still have been a successful company, but it could not have grown so big so fast. Bill Gates would be rich, but he'd be somewhere near the bottom of the Forbes 400 with the other guys his age.

So "luck" largely took Bill Gates from millions to billions, a 100x to 1000x multiplier.

Post reply on HN