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

71–80 of 188 posts

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

#71

Post by Tichy »

arnoldwh wrote: post #30

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…

Effort, but on what? Simply expending effort won't get you anywhere. As the moneyball example shows, you can help luck on it's way with maths and data.

Although I suppose if efficient market hypothesis is true, then even where you direct your effort must be luck.

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

#72

Post by brown9-2 »

larrys wrote: post #51
tedunangst wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

"parody detector is broken" No it's not. See from my above comment: "Or maybe it was this which they saw as factually incorrect: "Luck may have put Michael Lewis at Goldman Sachs, but luck didn't determine his level of success."

The Bloomberg article you linked to as evidence was satire.

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

#73

Post by randomdata »

ternaryoperator wrote: post #2

His point is essentially the one developed at length by Malcolm Gladwell in "Outliers." Namely, that great successes are almost always dependent on a uniquely fortunate set of events that the person is able to exploit well, rather than their success being the result of genius.

If two random people were given equally fortunate sets of events in their lives, would they both exploit those events to reach the same level of success? Or could it be said that genius is recognizing those fortunate events when they come your way?

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

#74

Post by larrys »

tedunangst wrote: post #65
larrys wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm always fascinated by downvoting on HN. I'm guessing you expressed what you felt "my success and failure in life had nothing to do with luck" and people are saying by downvoting that you are wrong!!! Why? You didn't say "people's success or failure" you said "my success or failure". In this case the downvoters are being parental and telling you to grow up and have a better understanding of the way the world works.…

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.

"then repeating and insisting on that mistake"

As they say in medicine, would it change management? Lewis worked for an investment bank and that is what was in his head when he made even the repeat mistake. Nobody is relying on that info to make a decision. Even Lewis is willing to write a parody (which was skimmed by people who would believe he worked for Goldman). To me, yes, it is a mistake but not a reason to down vote. Look everyone draws the line at a different point and for different reasons. Had he written "when Gates started Apple with Ballmer" that of course would be different.

"Calling the speech an article. "

Same with this. Ok it was a speech and not an article. But does that really matter that much?

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

#75

Post by twelvechairs »

LargeWu wrote: post #47
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.

"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)

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

#76

Post by RockyMcNuts »

RockyMcNuts wrote: post #53

The power of fortune is confessed only by the miserable, for the happy impute all their success to prudence or merit. - Jonathan Swift

Tangentially related, Joseph Heller -

Destiny is a good thing to accept when it's going your way. When it isn't, don't call it destiny; call it injustice, treachery, or simple bad luck.

...

He was a self-made man who owed his lack of success to nobody.

...

Some men are born mediocre, some men achieve mediocrity, and some men have mediocrity thrust upon them. With Major Major it had been all three. Even among men lacking all distinction he inevitably stood out as a man lacking more distinction than all the rest, and people who met him were always impressed by how unimpressive he was.

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

#77

Post by unreal37 »

naturalist wrote: post #6

Does anyone have a link to the experiment mentioned in this speech?

The study, "Power and the Consumption of Resources", by Ward and Keltner, is an unpublished manuscript. There's no link I can find to the actual study online, but everyone talking about social power quotes from it.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/sap/2011/01/05/the-poison-of-pow...

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

#78

Post by ivv »

naturalist wrote: post #6

Does anyone have a link to the experiment mentioned in this speech?

There were five cookies, not four. The fifth cookie was left untouched, just as the norms dictate. It's the fourth cookie that the "leaders" went for. The study was done in 1998 and the original paper hasn't been published, but the researchers describe it in a later paper (2000, pdf): http://gsbapps.stanford.edu/researchpapers/library/rp1669.pd...

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

#79

Post by efsavage »

nostromo wrote: post #25
sliverstorm wrote: post #13

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.

Its not so much an exception as a predictable response. Admitting something is luck is a display of weakness (in pretty much any culture, I'd imagine). You're far more likely to encounter such displays by those who can withstand it. Buffet has nothing to fear, he's proven more than anyone that he's among the best ever in his field, even if it's luck that he's #1 vs #100 on the wealthiest list. Every supermodel seems to claim that they were ugly or a tomboy in high school and they were just lucky that some photographer noticed them. Rookies talk about how hard they've worked to get to the pros, while retiring athletes talk about how lucky they've been.

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

#80

Post by CUR10US »

RobAtticus wrote: post #64
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…

Re: making it longer. I think it was pretty much spot on in terms of length. This is a speech at graduation/commencement, nobody wants to hear someone yammer on and on and on. He had a point, which he illustrated with 3 concise examples (Liar's Poker, Moneyball, the Berkeley study). He could elaborate, certainly, but I don't think this was the forum for it. Maybe he'll find a venue in which to elaborate at some other…

You are right, of course. Perhaps I momentarily forgot the context. I am reading his words on HN, not listening to them at a commencement. Big difference.

I confess I have not read Moneyball. I mistook it as the work of a baseball fan and not a metaphor for something more than an appreciation for baseball. My mistake.

It's time for me to read it.

Post reply on HN