Be more lucky
newsletter.pnote.eu
newsletter.pnote.eu
The only true thing here is: people who analyze the data more and reason based on this, can draw better outcome. It is not luck, but yes, might look like one.
Cheers!
That seems to be the key here.
Working harder/smarter than someone else at something for which each try increases your capability to influence the next try should give you an edge in a competition but now it's not about luck.
> I wonder if those who believe they are lucky work harder and take more chances than those who don’t.
Now, if anything, you can also postulate that people who believe they are lucky don't work harder and take less chances (hey, they are lucky, they don't need to try as much as others).
So the question would be: why do some people who think they are lucky try their luck more than some who don't think they are lucky and why do some people who think they are lucky try their luck less than some who don't think they are lucky ? It's two opposite behaviour but they have the same belief. Why ?
Are you equating luck with random chance? Because it totally is luck, even if it's not random chance
The rule is there is no rule. Life is fluid he says. You've got to pickup the little clues, use your intuition and your gut feelings.
This perfectly matches my experience of life. When you arrives in a situation with a premade plan and execute blindly, it often fails dramatically, even if on paper you did exactly what you were supposed to. Especially with people of course. You've got to go with the "flow", read the room, feel the air. Sometimes it almost feels magical. Even the light a particular day will be different and somehow, things are different - the people in the street, the mood of your boss, everything.
The great leaders are masters at that. I often think about the current China leader for example. It's just an example.
Do you picture what a person must pull off to get that seat? It's unimaginable. You've got to smell the "bullets" coming miles away before they're even shot, from a shooter you dont even know. Just on a hunch because that day, the light was different.
On the other hand there is a seat that must be filled and hence there will be somebody taking that place. It's a zero sum game: if you win I lose.
I would rate proving Poincare conjecture and that kind of thing much higher because its _not_ zero-sum and is a pure advancement.
More and more for practical purposes I tend to believe that - sit tight - everybody is solving or capable of solving the Poincaré conjecture. Let me explain.
Granted some people are simple, but most are actually very gifted at what they do ; it's just that the type of engineering they do is different than yours (or mine, whatever). Besos says "there is a million types of inteligence".
Some are good at making dramas for example - and they'd beat you at that game every single day. Some others are good at, I dont know, working out.
Many people are very very good at playing dumb is actually my very point. And they love that. If you are observant, you'll see little clues that they are geniuses in some ways. It's just that they dont care about advancement. In itself it's a form of dumbness but beside that, they freaking good.
You can easily do x2 on your percieved intelligence and engineering capabilities of people. They way way better at what they do than meet the eye. Especially nowdays as they are educated.
It's very practical to think that way Ive found.
- blind luck (which is what people usually mean by "luck")
- stirring the pot (if you apply to 100 jobs you might get more "luck" than if you applied for just 10)
- domain expertise (the more knowledge you have, the more opportunities you can spot that others might miss)
- reputation (if you're the world's best painter then when people want a painting they'll immediately think of you)
2 and 3 are definitely not luck, because it's affected by your actions. 4 can have partial luck, because people sometimes view you better or worse than you expect, and you can't predict your complete reputational outreach.
1 is the only definite piece of luck here, like being born to the right parents, or a stranger that you held the door for being the CEO that offers you a job.
Aside from that in the stirring the pot scenario you apply to 10 jobs, two of them offer you jobs, one below market rate, one at market rate.
You stir the pot and apply to 100 jobs, 2 of which offer you jobs signficantly above market rate.
Stirring the pot is not strictly luck, but it is precursory to what is often described as luck and as such can often be described as a form of luck that you make yourself by adopting behaviors more likely to lead to lucky outcomes.
on edit: I see akamoonknight had the same thought I did, but didn't take as long to write the comment. Lucky.
After all, when you try something that has a 1% probability of success seventy times, it becomes a coin toss whether you succeed at least once.
I was "lucky" with the apartment I bought because I've become obsessed with checking listings and at one point was doing it several times a day.
Took eight months to find the right property and now when I talk with people looking for a place everyone swears that there's nothing for sale in my area.
The truth is that there is - 3-4 times a year and you have to call the same day, because it gets bought immediately.
What I do know is that most of the apartments I've seen which were offered at a good price went for sale as part of a divorce settlement. My significant other has an uncanny talent in getting such information from people.
This neighbourhood was planned with families in mind and people hold on to their properties here, so I suspect it's mostly divorcees wanting to deal with the matter as soon as possible.
Normally investors scoop it all up, but at the third attempt in this area I managed to get ahead of them.
I dont think this has anything to do with focusing or not, and letting things happen, or what not. Both my wife and my mom are extremely focused. This is something else entirely that’s hard-wired in the brain.
Just as an obvious example, if you were looking for career opportunities to improve the lives of people, and you spent your time volunteering part-time in order to improve your chances of doing so full time, then accepting an opportunity in the space would hardly be opportunist.
A proper opportunist (what the word means) grabs opportunities for the sake of and in spite of being morally obligated to take other things into consideration.
Though a more precise variant that specifically means "lucky" exists (udachlivyi, meaning possessing greater chances), schastlivyi is more often used to describe a person, with the semantic content being that they are both happy and lucky.
For example, the famous Tolstoy quote about unhappy families being different and happy families all looking alike uses schastlivyi.
Where are you getting this info from?
I am a native speaker, and the two words one would typically use for “lucky” in Russian are “везучий” or “удачливый”. I’ve never heard of“счастливый” being used to refer to any kind of luck or even allude to it. If someone asked me to translate that word, it is straight up the exact same as what “happy” is in english, no different/extra connotations or anything.
"счастливый случай" (lucky chance), guy probably meant
That doesn’t mean that “happy” (in english) is synonymous with “lucky” or that it makes sense to apply “happy” the same way outside of that saying in english. Same thing in russian with "счастливый случай". If you use "счастливый” to apply to something outside of that saying, it will mean “happy” 100% of the time. If you try using it in place of “lucky” in russian, I can guarantee that people will be very confused even after you explain your reasoning for doing so.
P.S. “случай” literally means accident/happenstance, it doesn’t mean chance. There is a word for chance in russian that is extremely commonly used, and it is pretty much the same as the english word (“шанс” pronounced as “shahns”).
Most dictionaries will offer both happy and lucky side by side (with "happy" being the first definition, "lucky" the second). See the links for some textual examples.
In other households it could very well be that you use "везучий" or "удачливый" more often, but mine (grant it, very far from Moscow) never has.
1 - https://dictionary.reverso.net/russian-english/счастливый 2 - https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english-russian/...
There's so much hidden in homonyms, it almost feels illegal to mention it.
But leaving aside starting points, etc. I can still think of two specific points in my career that had a pretty much seamless transition that could have gone very badly (and did for a number of co-workers). Yes, I had the network, but they were generally fairly precarious times and things came together very quickly.
Bodybuilding was once mocked. Maybe it needed someone who grew up defying norms to make it popular.
About halfway into the journey the bus engine dies and the bus comes to a halt and can no longer continue.
Half the people storm off the bus complaining. “How could this happen??” “Our vacation is ruined!” “Worst vacation ever!!”
The other half gets off the bus and says, “Let’s explore this area today!”
I consider myself a very lucky person. Being lucky doesn’t mean nothing bad happens. It means when things go wrong, we are like water and easily adjust to the new circumstances.
The way to be lucky is to built these three essential ingredients: Resilience, Optimism and Gratitude.
I would go further and say the key to a great life is Resilience, Optimism and Gratitude.