Hacker News Reader

Comment by pron | Hacker News Reader

For the purpose of this discussion, the precise definition of luck doesn't matter, and can be taken to be anything that isn't talent.

View on HN

So where would you put what we call "determination?" When someone has 9 businesses/jobs/experiments/etc fail and gets "lucky" with the 10th one, it seems like there is another aspect other than luck and talent.

"determination" as a trait is likely genetic. Most personality traits appear to be.

At the very list there's the issue of having enough resources to fail 9 times and not end up homeless. Most people can afford to fail maybe once.

I would call that having health insurance and a place to stay when things go south 9 times in a row.

There is no such thing as talent either.

No one is born with a natural skill to do something unnatural. Genetic traits are not talents, they are traits. To be born with a talent would be to be able to do whatever it is you do from the moment you are born, if you had the physical capacity for it. Otherwise, any “talent” you display later is really just the result of effective learning and practice, but that is just what you would call a skill, there is no need to build it up with all the mythology of “talent”. Just another form of ladder kicking to discourage others from thinking they could achieve that same level of skill.

So if neither definition matters, then in essence this discussion is about nothing.

The paper is not concerned with philosophical definitions. It picks a certain mathematical model, and describes the effect of two concepts which it calls "talent" and "luck". The question is whether or not the model captures reality sufficiently accurately, not about whether the two quantities match a specific definition nor about the philosophy of that definition.

Luck is anything the individual cannot control. You don't get to choose your parents, for example. I don't see what your point is.

@matte_black

There's a big component in American culture at least, that assumes that the success in life is due to talent. It provides an excuse for inequitable distributions of resources, for example, by justifying the distribution as a natural consequence of individual talent, skill, and hard work.

This study shows that this cultural assumption is not true, that talent or hard-work alone are not enough to achieve success, and much of success is down to random events.

I think talent and hard-work along with ambition better prepare an individual to take advantage of these random events but without fortuitous providence, they aren't enough to provide success.

Well, as an American, I can say that it isn't an assumption that success in life is solely due to talent. However, there is a belief that one can be successful with an entrepreneurial, hard-working attitude. Everyone knows that ultimate level of success is influenced by things out of one's control, but the American work ethic is more about making the most of what one has. People choose to control what they can, which is effort and attitude, and not worry about that which they can't.

The problem is people mix personal motto with social policy. Social policy isn't about personal comfort with the concept, it's about what actually works, and if luck matters to social policy, then it needs to be taken into account, regardless of how much you pay attention to luck on a personal level.

> People choose to control what they can

Don't worry, everyone already does that. The difference is do you look down on other people (or even yourself) who are not doing as well?

If that is all luck is, then is there ever a point to these discussions? No one is going to leave with an understanding of how they can “be more lucky”. You just either are, or you aren’t and that’s all you’ll ever be. Either that or it becomes a contest for who is the most or least lucky.

Yes there is, as neoliberal culture holds that luck has no effect on outcomes. If you believe this you believe that welfare, for example, is not needed as the poor are just lazy.

I read an interesting book which suggested that what we call luck was a learnable skill in and of itself. It suggested that luck is no more than effective noticing, and a "lucky" person is simply more likely to notice something that would be construed as lucky by a neutral third party.

The book also noted that lucky people didn't win more than statistics suggested they should (they were no more likely to win the lottery), but they opened themselves to situations which allowed a win to happen, and so had more chances to win than someone who closed off their options.

In case you're interested, the book is "The Luck Factor", by Richard Wiseman.

This is an interesting statement. Because how much you can and can not control is already defined by your past luck :)

Luck certainly compounds.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com