What Lucky People Do Different | Hacker News Reader

What Lucky People Do Different

jonathanfields.com

191 pointsglenstansberry43 comments

I loved his disclosure at the end.

"You should always assume that pretty much every link on this blog is an affiliate link and that if you click it, find something you like and buy it, I'm gonna make some serious money. Now, understand this, I'm not talking chump change, I'm talking huge windfall in commissions, bling up the wazoo and all sorts of other free stuff. I may even be given a mansion and a yacht, though honestly I'd settle most of the time for some organic dark chocolate and clean socks. Oh, and if I mention a book or some other product, just assume I got a review copy of it gratis and that me getting it has completely biased everything I say. Because, books are like a drug to me, put one in my hand and you own my ass. Ethics be damned! K, you've been warned. Huggies and butterflies."

"Of course it was impossible to connect the dots looking forward when I was in college. But it was very, very clear looking backwards ten years later."

I've found this particularly true. As long as you're working on something interesting and difficult, you're probably not wasting your time, even if you can't see yet where it leads. It will be an ingredient in something.

Yeah, this is true. However - it is important to not confuse this with the idea of destiny or faith. The dots would probably connect just as well with completely different choices(dots). This could have resulted in a completely different life, but not necessarily any less true/right than where the dots have taken you so far.

I'm just 20 years old and still have a lot of dots to "do" - connecting them will come later in life when I can see where my choices/dots have brought me. This is both exhilarating and frustrating.

I've not made big enough choices to steer me down a certain path yet so I can spend my life doing anything imaginable (from chopping trees in Alaska to founding a F500 company to living on the street). However, not matter what I want to do/archive in life, I can't see the perfect path there. I can't predict the future, I can only look back at the past and connect the dots from there. No matter how correct I do things I'll probably end up in a different situation that what I imagined when I started the journey.

I'm beginning to understand that the planned destination in my life is not the important thing, the journey is. As long as I do my best and work hard on something I enjoy, I'll probably end up in a good situation. It might be completely different from what I dream about now, but I'm confident that it will be a good destination nevertheless.

"The best way to predict the future is to invent it."

Although the same might be true for solving Sudoku-puzzles. Or taking pleasure in solving challenging problems that have already been solved.

I think the key ingredient is inspiration. I find it not always clear where to look for it. On Hacker News? When traveling? What makes one think "This is something I want to work on." and makes one stick with it long enough? It seems like there's a certain ingredient to personalities that some people have more of while some have less.

The problem with the cliche "look in the mirror and ask yourself if you are happy doing what you are doing today knowing you could die tomorrow", is that for any day I'm not spending the entire time with family & friends, the answer is NO. You can be sure if I was dieing tomorrow I'd not go to work and spend the whole day lieing on the beach. Unfortunately you can't do what you'd do on your last day on earth, because it doesn't pay the bills. And it is kind of a trivializing question for those who are facing their last day on earth, which I might be somewhat sensitive to because one of the engineers in my company lost his fight with cancer this morning.

So far better to ask the question: "is what I'm doing today getting me closer to my career goals?", becuase the conclusion to that (less melodramatic) question might actually yield actionable results.

He's proposing this as a test, not as a recipe. He's not saying "do what you'd do if this day was your last," but rather "consider what you're about to do, and measure how close it is to what you'd do if this day were your last."

Perhaps you are misunderstanding the question. What if instead it was rephrased:

"If tomorrow you died, and someone in the afterlife[1] asked you: 'Are you happy[2] with what you did yesterday?' could you truthfully respond 'Yes.'?".

In that case I would suggest that doing good work, but not to the point of neglecting friends and family, is a good thing to do. It doesn't ignore the reality of the situation but also doesn't lose the forest for the trees.

[1] Ignore here any and all disingenuous BS about the (non)existence of an afterlife, since in this case it does exist strictly as a rhetorical tool. Sadly I must include this disclaimer to prevent random strawmanning from the peanut gallery.

[2] Happy is a pretty nebulous word. Lets say it means roughly: content, satisfied, and generally pleased.

I think you're very much missing the point: if you want to spend all your time with family and friends then find a way to do that - start up a family business, go live in the woods, live on benefits. I suspect the reality is that you want to do more than simply spend time with family and friends.

Whenever I see these kind of articles, two words run through my mind: survivor bias.

I'm also unconvinced by the John Galt argument that if Steve Jobs had not taken calligraphy courses, we would not have nice typefaces on computers today. After all, typography predates the Mac and it would have been only a matter of time before someone else figured it out. If you don't believe this, look at practically every major discovery / invention in the past few centuries -- in almost every case more than one researcher / scientist / dilletante was working on something similar. The lucky one was the one who got there first.

The Xerox Star had desktop publishing with multiple proportional typefaces in 1981. It seems likely that this feature would have been imitated by someone regardless of calligraphic experience.

http://www.digibarn.com/collections/screenshots/xerox-star-8...

In fact, I'm certain the Mac would've had multiple fonts, because it was based on () the Xerox Star, and the Star had fonts:
http://toastytech.com/guis/star2.html

() "Based on" might be too strong...or too weak...but we all know the Mac engineers saw a demo of the Star.

I think you're missing the point. Steve Jobs had a choice of 1000 things to focus on when making a computer and OS. You can't focus on everything, due to time and (brain) memory restraints.

So, because he took those classes, he was convinced to focus on typography as an important element to the OS. If he hadn't, it isn't as likely he'd have been illuminated to the benefits of good typography.

That is, unless you believe in some sort of determinism, where he was bound to fall in love with typography at some point.

Its only a matter of time before everything is figured out.

There have been major discoveries and inventions where more than one person or team were trying to solve a known problem. But is there proof that it is the case "practically every" time?

The book What Technology Wants by Kevin Kelly (I've got about 40 pages left in it) makes a compelling argument that it is (though it falls short of "proof," which may be impossible in this case).

Yeah, I think you'd have to track every innovation there ever was. And that could take a whole weekend.

"The harder I work, the luckier I seem to be." - Thomas Edison

From this, I take "hard work" to mean working mindfully, not "counting photographs" as in the article. To work and live mindfully is to do each thing as if you did nothing else: you are fully present in each moment, drinking in your surroundings without judgment or abstraction. A hundred trees are not a hundred trees--each one is a new experience, with different patterns in its bark and different rustling in its leaves. To use the article's example, a party is not a "party". To the "lucky" person, to the mindful person, they are not "at a party"; they are simply talking, laughing, connecting.

I strive for this kind of mindset, and grasp it sometimes. Like zen, the harder you try to hold on to it, the quicker it slips away. At least, I can always look at the trappings of my privileged middle-class life and know that, for these things, I am lucky, and that helps me stay mindful.

Ok, this one is a bit funny, but I swear, one of the movies I think everybody should watch and take to heart is "Yes Man".

I know, I know, you are thinking WTF, Jim Carrey is the messiah? (no that's Bruce Almighty)

But it illustrates an important point, a point that I think software engineers are far too likely get trapped into because of our particular makeups. Which is that risk, spontaneity, just going for it, is what life is all about. And the crazy situations those experiences put you in will make you a richer person, both figuratively and literally.

The quote from the article about the party pretty much nails it. Just go with it, say yes to most everything, stop over thinking and go for it.

The usefulness of this kind of advice depends on the context. Someone who is in a rich environment for new experiences and opportunities, like college, would benefit from not over thinking. On the other hand, someone who is trying to get into college needs to be very discriminating in order to avoid the pitfalls of bad information(from parents, counselors, advocates for various for profit schools, etc) or short term temptations.

Also, I have to nitpick the party example:

“Unlucky people miss chance opportunities because they are too focused on looking for something else. They go to parties intent on finding their perfect partner, and so miss opportunities to make good friends. They look through the newspaper determined to find certain job advertisements and, as a result, miss other types of jobs. Lucky people are more relaxed and open, and therefore see what is there, rather than just what they are looking for.”

What about the people who go into something knowing what they want, and end up getting it? Too often the final judgement of a decision is made after the situation is resolved, with the benefit of perfect information, and not the limited information the person actually had.

I like the movie very much. In other words, be more open and spontaneous and it can help you break out of a rut and have fun in the process.

I've been living heavily by the mantra "Luck is when opportunity meets preparedness," and it has been serving me very well. Anytime anyone brings up luck, I tend to point out how that person was ready for that phase in life.

This is one of the key things that I teach to my son (and the fact that talent can be interpreted as a deep understanding of a subject) so that he'll see that he has some since of control over his path in life and everything isn't decided by some outside, unknown force. I'd feel like I would have failed as a parent if I ever hear him utter "Man that guy is so lucky, wish it were me."

I think that this article illustrates those two points very well, just look at every "lucky" occurrence and you'll see an opportunity with someone that is prepared to take advantage of it (even lottery winners :).

I find that the people that attribute success to "luck" aren't willing to through the sacrifice and hard work to make it happen.

One of my favorite quotes is this:

"Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." -- Seneca

Seneca and Stoicism might be interesting to the HN crowd:

“There is nothing the busy man is less busied with than living; there is nothing harder to learn.” -Seneca

" Emotions like anxiety and fear have their roots in uncertainty and rarely in experience. Anyone who has made a big bet on themselves knows how much energy both states can consume. The solution is to do something about that ignorance. Make yourself familiar with the things, the worst-case scenarios, that you’re afraid of.

Practice what you fear, whether a simulation in your mind or in real-life.

Then you, your company, and your employees will have little left to keep you from thinking and acting big."

The downside is almost always reversible or transient.

http://www.fourhourworkweek.com/blog/2009/04/13/stoicism-101...

Good read, thanks for posting. Best post on this before was by Paul Buchheit "Serendipity finds you" - http://paulbuchheit.blogspot.com/2010/10/serendipity-finds-y...

I agree completely with this article. Every year that goes by, I'm absolutely staggered at the ridiculous luck, serendipity, whatever you want to call it, that I have experienced in all aspects of my life. And I definitely attribute it to having an open and light-hearted (yet focused) approach to life: I have just always believed that if you do your part, the right thing will present itself. You just have to recognize it when it happens.

I guess you could say, then, that I've always followed a sort of hybrid Panglosian/Yodan approach to life: i.e., be positive, everything really is for the best, and be focused in the present, while keeping an open mind and "letting go" towards the future.

Indeed, when I look back on what I had once perceived to be the worst, "darkest hours" of my life, I see now that they turned out to be the very best things that could have happened to me.

Your comments confuse me. I have experienced both phases of life - lucky and unlucky as in the article. My darkest hours were during the "unlucky" mindset and I indeed consider them the best days, but I don't see what you're trying to say.

If you claim the best hours were the darkest, are you saying you were in the lucky mindset during those?

Dude. Talk about over-analysis fail. I wasn't really saying anything complicated. All I was trying to explain was that, because I've always approached life so positively and with an open mind, even those times that seemed "darkest" -- in quotes, no less! -- I simply pushed on, positively, and assumed they would be for the best.

And they were. Hence, I was lucky. As always.

-ly. DifferentLY.

Glad you guys picked up on this, I used "different," not "differently" in the headline as a nod to Jobs' original Think Different campaign. So, yup, it was intentional.

At first glance I thought this was going to be a Libya domain name comment instead of a correct language usage comment.

Agreed. I guess some people (and companies) just like to "Think Different.™" :)

Yes, but that's a clever double-entendre in which they encourage thinking differentLY, as well as encourage you to think about their product, which is (supposedly) different. Aaaaand now that I've killed the joy in this, exit... stage left! poof

I find that analyzing and explaining a joke, phrase, or idiom increases the joy I derive from it. I only wish everyone else agreed.

I read something by Richard Branson that said--and I'm paraphrasing--that everyone is given about the same amount of luck. It's all about what we do with the luck when it falls in our lap.

Fantastic article.

What else would you expect a very lucky person to believe? For any successful person it's much more gratifying to think you got where you are by being awesome than by being lucky.

I'm having conflicting reactions to this article on a few levels. I notice that the entire content of it is simply the cross product of two articles that I read months or years ago, and as soon as he started I was already wondering "is he going to bring up the newspaper experiment...".

So sure enough the whole thing reads exactly as I'd expect. But then I wonder, perhaps it is a sign of my advanced information-hoarding instinct that I have hoovered (dysoned?) up so many of these sort of studies and speeches and clever counterintuitive articles. A mind made up of a vast store of useless factoids.

Finally I throw my hands up and resolve that I am glad to see that this article at least will hopefully expose more people to some very good ideas on living well.

Meh, I preferred the old playboy interview with him in 1985, http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:77cJqxW...

Here's the Standford 2005 talk the article mentions http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UF8uR6Z6KLc

I was recently asked "Why did you learn <language X>, especially when there was no scope for its use in your career at the time?". I found out it was an almost impossible to understand concept for the asker.

Most people are so obsessed with counting the pictures, they cannot imagine someone doing something else.

a subtle but important distinction has to be made. the experiment mentioned in the blog shows a correlation between people who claim they are lucky and the fact they found a text snippet. not people who are lucky (if that is even possible). it could very well be caused by the fact that a test subject just told people they were lucky so psychologically they behave differently. if the experiment had been setup with no 'lucky finds' the ones claiming to be lucky could all take longer because they were less focused on the counting.

to then tie the subject of steve jobs who is very successful to this finding and attributing the success to being spontaneous seems to jump quite a bit in logic that is not supported by the experiment.

Yes. They were not actually lucky. Because "lucky" means magic, and magic doesn't exist.

So of course the test was of people with different psychology. That was exactly the point.

I have been looking for the original research done using the newspaper for a while now. I remember reading about it before and I always wanted to refer back to it but never found it. Glad to read this again.

I've been reading the ebook of Wiseman's book, _The Luck Factor_. It's quite interesting, and Wiseman includes a few exercises where the reader can fall into the same trap (hopefully I haven't spoiled anything by mentioning them).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com