Live data from Hacker News

Michael Lewis: Don't Eat Fortune's Cookie

princeton.edu

31–40 of 188 posts

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

#31
post #23
post #4

My success and failures in life have had nothing to do with luck. I've been both lucky and unlucky at various times, but none of them have determined my level of success over the short or long term to any significant degree. At the same time I've had periods where I worked hard and was focused and passionate about what I was doing, and periods where I was not passionate, unmotivated by a crushingly poorly run organiz…

Did Lewis work at Goldman? Have you read Liar's Poker? How are you qualified to comment on his career?

Did you read the article? He talks about how he got his goldman job as a result of a series of events that started with him happening to be sat next to the wife of a goldman employee.

Yes, I did read Liars Poker. I think its kinda funny that you question whether I am qualified to comment on his career, but a little bit of research shows he worked at goldman for awhile, wrote the book and has been a writer ever since. In other words, his success is clearly in writing.

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

#32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Alternate explanation: People know they can't do anything about true luck, so they want to focus on things they might be able to do something about.

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.

I don't know whether it's statistically more likely, but I do think I find the latter sentiment more often among scientists. Plenty of famous people in science will also refuse to admit luck had much to do with their success, of course, but many others will do so. A total guess as to why is that there's a recognition that "good science" is something you can control, but "science that gets famous" has much more of a sociological and good-timing component that's hard to control. Sometimes people know they're on the verge of a big breakthrough, but other times it's quite hard to know whether this interesting problem you're working on will turn out to be a solid but niche contribution, or a future 1000-citation paper. Sometimes you even have to wait 10 or 20 years to find out that what seemed like a minor contribution at the time was actually made retroactively important by a different advance.

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

#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 before procreating!

In another sense, everyone alive today is lucky they weren't stillborn. Lucky they weren't claimed by SIDS or whooping cough, or a cold, or any of the various childhood afflictions we've eradicated. Everyone who wakes up tomorrow is lucky they didn't get cleaned out by a bus crossing the street, or sideswiped by a drunk driver on their way home.

Almost all of the "rich" people in the U.S. did not start out rich. Unquestionably, luck played a role. But how much? Who's to say that, if Michael Lewis skipped that fateful dinner, he wouldn't have gone to a frat party, met a future ballplayer, and then gone on to break the MLB steroid scandal. Or sat next to a White House intern and broken the Clinton sex scandal? or, or or. If any one of these alternate scenarios happened, he would still claim to be "lucky" to be in the right place at the right time. And, in a sense, he'd be right. But that doesn't necessarily mean he was successful because he was luckier than millions of other people around the world.

Obviously someone born today in the U.S. is much "luckier" than someone born in Somalia. Someone born into an upper-class family in Germany is "luckier" than someone born into a nomadic tribe in Algeria. Does that make the "luckier" person's success more attributable to luck? (And, as a corollary, the "less lucky" person's success less attributable to luck?) Maybe, but to what extent?

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

#35
post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lewis didn't work at Goldman...

Oh? http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2009-07-27/bashing-goldman-sac...

Your parody detector is broken. Michael Lewis didn't go to Yale, either...

Seriously, did you read the commencement speech? Makes it pretty clear which school he attended and which bank he worked at.

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

#36

The point I take away is a little bit beyond just realizing that you're lucky. That's important, and the people I've met that I consider truly successful (ones I would consider as role models), generally realize this. However, I think we can take this further...the only variable that we have under our control is effort. Since luck is an outside force, you might as well maximize this one variable that's still under yo…

The old Louis Pasteur quote that sums it up is "Chance favors the prepared."

A lot of what happens to us in life is a matter of chance (called luck if it's in our favor). But if you aren't ready to take advantage of it, it will come to nothing.

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

#37

Would realizing they are lucky benefit the lucky? In the cookie experiment Lewis wrote about, the randomly appointed leader would then not take the cookie so effortlessly.

Indeed, and that might result in better relations with the other members of the group, in turn resulting in more productivity, leading to greater accomplishments and benefits later on. It's been thousands of years since short-term greed was the ideal way to do things, basically since humans organized into real civilizations, but it's hard to get people not to be greedy, so we just design our economy around it instead (i.e. capitalism).

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

#38
post #20
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.

Similarly I've long noticed a connection between brevity and stature. In speech, writing and behavior. With sales by the way it's always important to get your ass out of dodge after getting agreement from the customer, lest they change their mind.

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

#39
post #14

I'm surprised by how defensive people can get about their own success. It seems to me that you can never know if your success was due to your own hard work or some lucky breaks (or, more probably, a combination of both to which you'll never know the balance). It reminds me of the story about thousands of people flipping coins. Out of those thousands of people, some of them are going to flip a long string of heads. Do…

Using this logic, pretty much everything is due to luck. finish your PHD? You were lucky that you were accepted and that you had a good enough education to get into the program.

"It seems to me that you can never know if your success was due to your own hard work or some lucky breaks"

You may have a point. But, I'm really tried of people attributing all success to luck (and using this as an excuse as to why they aren't succeeding). It also discounts all of the hard work that someone does put into something successful.

If I sit here and do absolutely nothing, I won't ever have a successful startup. This is why I know it's not mostly due to luck. Luck implies that it happens to you with no intervention..like winning the lotto.

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

#40
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…

I really liked Drunkard's Walk. That said, I personally prefer the interpretation of probability as addressing uncertainty rather than randomness.
Post reply on HN