Over the course of an entire lifetime, the random good vs bad luck tend to wash out and people usually end their lives financially roughly in line with their capabilities. - my personal opinion and experience.
Demonstrably false considering massive wealth inequality and poverty. It's incredibly harmful and uneducated to hold such a callous opinion. It also goes against the plentiful studies showing that socieconomic status (SES) is more significant predictor of success than almost any other attribute.
Simple scenarios:
- immigrants/refugees moving to a different country
- getting visas in what is largely a lottery system
- injury luck with respect to athleticism
- access to equipment and instruments with respect to musical talent
- slavery and generational poverty
The idea that _capability_ is anywhere close to as important as luck fails so many simple tests (let alone empirical studies) that your statement offends me a little bit.
Back when I applied for an H1B visa, the chances that I'd be outright rejected was 30%. The next few years I believe it climbed to 60%. Just the fact that I found a company willing to apply to my visa involved a lot of luck. Even me being on the US before the H1B involved a lot of luck. Then luck to get the visa. So much of my career was based on luck. Sure, I seized some opportunities when they flew by, but it's not like I was steering super hard to make them happen. Some people will make success happen because they're super smart and relentless, but for a lot of people like me, I believe there's an incredible amount of luck involved.
It kind of grinds my gears when some people give lessons on how to be successful and don't acknowledge that luck was a part of it.
Cohorts that graduate into a recession earn less over the course of their lifetimes than cohorts that graduate into normal times. It can take a decade or more to catch back up to their earning potential, meanwhile those who graduated a year earlier or later able to earn compounding interest on their additional income.
I find it hard to believe that birth year is strongly correlated with capabilities.
I would agree, with the caveat of "all else being equal". There is a danger in ignoring vast socioeconomic divides that can put people at a disadvantage that can make things more difficult for certain demographics.
Looking at life as a massive state machine, I think it’s clear that some parts of the state machine are much more beneficial than others. Luck often pushes people into a bad area or good area, and it can be quite difficult to transition out of that area of the state machine, for better or worse.
Competency and hard work are obviously very important, but luck is an enormous factor as well. And luck, along with its compounding effects, is not uniformly distributed across all individuals.
Well, "luck" is a phenomenon of perception, not reality. Since it's people who perceive, being anthropocentric makes sense. On the other hand, that also makes it subjective, hence describing it may reveal more about the describer than the effect.
“Luck is probability taken personally.” – Chip Denman
I’m amazed at how many comments piled up insisting that luck is a major or possibly the most significant factor. Even if true, what a self-defeating outlook. Every accusation is a confession.
Perhaps consider that some people are talking about luck as a way of reasoning about how we should organize society (if luck is a factor that may imply stronger safety nets) while others (like you, I'd gather) are talking about how to approach one's own life? That's how I've been reasoning about the discussion and it helps clarify things.
What you wrote is insightful as to the underlying thinking, but I’m not sure I buy the premise. If luck is the dominating factor, how is the outcome of any election legitimate? Aren’t the winners merely the luckiest? Where’s the safety net for the unfortunate also-rans? Who are the rightful representatives to do the organizing? The questions are interesting because the ancient Athenians would reject what we call democracy due to our reliance on popular elections, which they viewed with suspicion as a tool of oligarchy. Although some posts were elected, they largely preferred sortition or luck of the draw.
Current and former gifted students are likely overrepresented on HN. Underachievement (whether real or perceived) is a source of stress or depression for this population[0], and defense mechanisms[1] are a common coping strategy. In [1], the authors define quadrants based on high or low success orientation and fear of failure.
1. Optimists - high success orientation, low fear of failure: low sense of helplessness
2. Overstrivers - high success orientation, high fear of failure: risk of burnout, tend to have high “defensive pessimism”
3. Acceptors - low success orientation, low fear of failure: tend to have low self esteem and high helplessness
4. Self-protectors - low success orientation, high fear of failure: tend to have high defensive pessimism and self-handicapping
They define defensive pessimism as “artificially lowering expectations of performance when a performance will be evaluated in order to lessen the hurt of failure and turn success into an unexpected surprise” and self-handicapping as “generating conditions that will produce an excuse for failure through actions such as procrastination, task avoidance, withholding effort, and other strategies.” They label both harmful.[0]
To this optimist, assigning everything to luck looks like all of helplessness, defensive pessimism, and self-handicapping: “I’m smarter than that bum, so his success must be due to dumb luck.”
> If luck is the dominating factor, how is the outcome of any election legitimate? Aren’t the winners merely the luckiest?
On the one hand, I think this may be conflating different senses of luck. On the other hand, yes, luck played a big role in the winner of the election ending up in that position, but not because the election itself was akin to a coin flip (hyperbole), but because luck has a small impact innumerable times in the goings on of that individual's life leading up to that point.
> Where’s the safety net for the unfortunate also-rans?
Thinking about this, it's actually a good question. If the goal of an election is to select the person most able to perform the role of the elected position most satisfactorily, then providing a mechanism by which those without access to traditional campaigning resources and capital to participate could allow more qualified individuals to participate in the election who otherwise wouldn't have been able to.
And this is, I think, precisely the point of saying that luck is a bigger factor than people acknowledge because in order to be elected today, you need to have the connections and capital necessary to execute a successful campaign while continuing to fulfill any other obligations you have during the time leading up to the election, and you need to have something in place to deal with not being elected, something to fall back on. That's a whole bunch of moving parts that need to align before it makes sense to participate in an election.
Our capabilities are also luck: genetics, access to education and compounding that the rich will enjoy more often. The homeless person from a broken home trying to stay alive is less capable of writing distributed software. On average. Yes there will be rags to riches stories that make great reads, and set the standard of the “insert country” dream.
