Hacker News Reader

Comment by erentz | Hacker News Reader

Wow I am astounded that all the comments so far are trying to tear down this person and what he is saying, and very transparently because there seems to be something threatening about this idea that he got where he has through luck. Why do people find this idea so threatening?

I got where I am today due to luck. I did work hard. But I know other people who work hard too. Who are just as capable. They just didn't get assigned to the class with the really awesome, motivating teacher. Or randomly picked out of the pile by a recruiter for a call. Or happen to wind up working somewhere where they made friends with a guy who was well connected. Etc.

To discount luck's role in how people get successful is a huge blind spot.

View on HN

>To discount luck's role in how people get successful is a huge blind spot.

That's the fantasy of meritocracy, fulfilling itself. When someone thinks that gold coins spray from their asshole every time they update a Git repo, they can comfortably presume their role is paramount in the value created. Of course, every library linked, every bit of infrastructure required, every calorie of energy delivered, every man-year of education needed by users - this all disappears in a cloud of self-regard.

> Why do people find this idea so threatening?

Because a lot of people want to believe they "earned" what they have and they weren't extremely lucky.

> something threatening about this idea that he got where he has through luck. Why do people find this idea so threatening?

Ego, mostly.

And being "capable" in the first place is largely due to luck also. What is being "capable?" Intelligence, education, discipline, motivation? Intelligence is largely genetics and your socioeconomic status as a child. Education? Intelligence plus socioeconomic status as a child and young adult. And a fair bit of luck too (i.e., admissions, etc.). Discipline? Parent's socioeconomic status and probably some genetic/psych/environmental influences. Point being, just being capable of being "capable" has much to do with things outside of your control. Most are unaware or dismissive of this. Goes back to the old adage of being born on third base and congratulating yourself for hitting a home run.

Because outside of winning the lottery it isn't 100% luck that results in haves vs have-nots. There is a degree of luck involved, but there is also preparation and opportunism (aka making your own luck). True universal basic income completely ignores this aspect, as does absolutist critiques of the rentier system we have today. Is it fucked up that a line arbitrarily drawn in the sand resulted in the division into piss-poor and uber-wealthy? Yes, but that's a ridiculous over simplification and it's not obvious that the solution is to socialize the distribution of wealth. That is communism by another name and I don't recall that working out very well for anybody in the 20th century.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com