|
| Thread: The role of luck in success |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 · «PREV |
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
posted April 22, 2011 05:54 AM |
|
|
Let me avoid addressing anything you wrote, Salamandre, and pose another question of my own.
Is everyone talented at something?
Hmm.
How do you measure talent? Certainly not through accomplishment, because by your own admission you can be talented without development. Then, what?
Is it merely luck that determines whether you get to develop or find what talents you have? Or does that take work?
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted April 22, 2011 07:06 AM |
|
|
Some have special abilities. They may easy handle with mathematics, with painting, physics, music and so on. That means they can achieve better and faster results than some others. Are those results always exceptional without long and hard work? We have no examples about some genius which was watching TV all day (or mass posting in HC  ) and and became famous because his talent.
Those abilities are set up at birth, from where and how, we don't know, but for sure they are.
What we call luck is merely a mixture of social conditions, access to free information, wealth, and for a small part but capital, genetics. What are the chances that a guy living Ghana becomes a famous physician? Close to zero, it takes him hours every day to bring water home, hunt, feed family and such. But even with optimal conditions, we can see that real talent is very rare, while many people work very hard.
Talent can not be measured, because we can't definite it for sure. For example, in my job, a 5 year kid which can reproduce by ear and correctly a melody played, we tell about that he may be gifted for music. The one who can't, we advice him another activity, quite simple. Much harder to predict when we talk about intellectual activities, which will require attention much later, when the brain is fully developed. It is confusing to compare artistic talent to scientific talent, as the first one does not require exceptional intelligence, while the second does. We have one single example when the intelligence was at same level as the artistic talent, and this was Leonardo Da Vinci.
back on topic: success is a "modern world" concept and always related to the coins you have in pocket. Almost all great scientists or artists of the past lived and died miserably, poor and forgotten by their century. Mozart for example, was buried with beggars, while Socrate's nick name was "the beggar", living without shoes and clothes because he could not afford it.
|
|
Warmonger
Promising
Legendary Hero
fallen artist
|
|
posted April 22, 2011 08:37 AM |
|
|
I do believe that a simple lumberjack may feel more happy than theoretical physicist. Unless you claim that success implies power?
____________
The future of Heroes 3 is here!
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 22, 2011 09:42 AM |
|
|
It's certainly true, that if you really start digging you will touch the free will versus determinism issue, and I already made a note on thet in an earlier post. I suppose you did read that as well.
Anyway, Quote:
Quote:
:
When are you fortunate? Fortunate - when used in the luck area of mwaning - will used to describe situations when the odds aren't clear, but things turn out well.
I have no truck with that at all. In fact, you highlight the important phrase yourself: when odds are not clear. That's just alternate language to describe what I've already noted: luck is a matter of perception....
I don't think, I agree with the direction you take this into. "The odds being not clear" hasn't got anything to do with perception of luck, the WHAT, but the WHY. The causation. WHY has it become a fortunate marriage? Why is everyone they do and try and go at successful? If there is no ready explanation, you tend to use the word fortunate.
But let's come to your main point: Quote:
But what's important is the general trend. More work tends to yield more rewards. Note that these dots are always shifting and changing position, and I, at least, believe that you have some control over which way your dot will go. Work hard, and you might push it up and to the right. Work less and you might push it down and to the left. Do nothing and you might push it up and to the left, but if you want to go up, statistics favors work.
I don't think, that is right, Corribus, because this model of yours is purely based on QUANTITY and is linear. Therefore it has a lot of general flaws, so much so, that you can say that it's plainly wrong. You might say that that this is true only in the UNSUCCESSFUL part of the scale - deep down: if you are paid simple money for simple work: $x for harvesting y lbs of fruit or vegetables, for example. The more you work, the more you get - but that's EXACTLY what you are paid for: the QUANTITY or sheer amount of your work.
However, there is no definition of success that would depend on QUANTITY. In fact, even for this kind of work - not to mention others - it is possible to work "too much", resulting in efficiency drop, errors and plain accidents due to being worn out. In fact, the linear model is the antithesis of success: you know how the little Euler did find the sum formula S(m...n) = [(m+n)/2]*(n+1-m). The teacher told them to add the numbers from 1 to 50, and while this SEEMS to be a question of how much (dull and repetitive) work you put into it, to be successful, THAT definition of success is quite doubtful. Successful was Euler who found a way to AVOID dull and mind-numbing work to present a solution by superior use of his brain. So more ofteh than not SUCCESS is measured in the amount of work you AVOID.
To illustrate that: who is more successful: the guy who works 9/5, bringing home, say, $1500 a week, or the guy who works 6/4, bringing in $1000?
Even better: while there are those who would say that "being successful" is a purpose in itself, that is at least debatable (and I would flatout disagree). Success is supposed to make happy, but it's not the success that makes happy, it's what comes with it. It doesn't do, for example, if you are successful, but for the price of your health, because that will make you unhappy. Or for the price of human relations - that will make you unhappy as well.
It's just that success has some happiness potential, while failure on the other hand is a pretty safe bet for becoming unhappy.
Which means, that we are deep in the land "UNDEFINED" at this point. If we leave the safe place "WEALTH" and move to the less concrete and judgemental "SUCCESS" we move to thin ice, because actually SUCCESS is no general term, it's always coupled with something: SUCCESS in business, in love, with a surgery, in sports or, VERY general - IN LIFE. And while we CAN nail a specific success, the general thing would be difficult. Also, there is always the view of the world and the view of the person: you may come in second place as an outsider, and the whole world may see this as a success - except the outsider who may had a real chance to win and botched it. And it can be the other way round with a certain favorite - everyone may view second place a failure - except the favorite who may have had a handicap no one knew about.
The bottom line here is, Corribus, that I think you didn't put enough work into explaining your view on things. Well, wait, that's not strictly correct.  You DID put a lot of work into it, but I don't think you were successful. 
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted April 22, 2011 09:53 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Anyway, talent without hard work, is a wasted thing, as it is hard work without any talent, when it is required.
With this I agree 100%.
(of course talent+hard work =/= instant success. You can also lack both and still be rich, if wealth is what you perceive as success).
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 22, 2011 12:31 PM |
|
Edited by Fauch at 12:33, 22 Apr 2011.
|
Mozart made me think about something I read about the "absolute ear".
they compared a bunch of americans with a bunch of chinese (all students in music schools). about 10% of the american had it, and about 50% of the chineses. they thought it might because of the specificity of the chinese language, which might be richer, from a "musical" point of view.
in Mozart's case, we might just think that he is born with the talent, because we have absolutely no idea how he developped it?
good to see what Corribus meant by work. from what I see, it is the physical definition of work, where you apply any kind of force to modify a system, right?
at first, I thought we were talking about the common definition of work. you know, the work in "work more to earn more". like going to the factory every day.
doing the same activity at your home for yourself not being considered as a job but as a hobby, because it doesn't generate a profit for the society.
though, you can grow trees and give the fruits to your neighbours, thus generating a profit for the society, but it's usually not considered as work either.
I'm not sure, but whether something is commonly defined as "work" might actually have something to do with how it benefits to the government.
but well, I find it actually good that you use that larger definition of work, kind of annoy me sometimes when people say that you don't work because what you do doesn't enter in their narrow definition of work. for example I make mods for video games. video games = games, games =/= work, thus I'm a slacker, wait, what??
there is something which is a bit unclear, I thought we were talking about work from an individual point of view. but in the example of the diamond falling in someone's hand, you say it required work, because someone else had to extract it.
of course, if you see it that way, I guess everything comes from work, but benefiting from the work of someone else, isn't it something we may sometimes call luck?
moreover, we are talking about success, which makes a lot of sense from an individual point of view, but from a global one?? what could be called a success for the humanity as a whole? managing to perpetuate itself maybe? success implies you had a goal, does humanity has a goal?
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted April 22, 2011 01:29 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Mozart made me think about something I read about the "absolute ear".
they compared a bunch of americans with a bunch of chinese (all students in music schools). about 10% of the american had it, and about 50% of the chineses. they thought it might because of the specificity of the chinese language, which might be richer, from a "musical" point of view.
Nothing to do with language, but with selection specificity. The chinese use the same system as russians (and most east countries), if the kid has no absolute ear, he is dismissed from start, so you will have always a higher percentage of absolute ear in east music schools than in west. There are surely more chinese tone-deaf than americains
____________
Era II mods and utilities
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 29, 2011 03:27 AM |
|
|
|
that sounds possible yes. however, it is said 50% of the chineses had it, not all of them, so you don't have to have an absolute ear, which doesn't mean that there is no entrance exam.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted May 06, 2014 05:49 PM |
|
|
What a top notch thread. I've read the whole thing as if it was a magazine and I was on the shore. Too sad almost everything had already been said.
Reading everything at once with an overlook, I had a chance to notice that when the issue becomes more about state politics, welfare, taxation rather than the metaphysical aspect of chance versus determination, Americans are usually in the tradition of seeing the state as something that should only clear away the obstacles on the path to opportunity, while Europeans seem to be supporting at least a minimum level of welfare from the state, pointing out opportunity can not exist in the first place if your chances to qualify for it when it knocks, are so minimal, they are almost none. JJ's poker analogy is a good example in that aspect:
Quote:
I think further, it makes sense to give people, as long as they stick to the rules, at least the minimum ante to play the next round
I am much closer to the European mindset in this regard.
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 06, 2014 06:15 PM |
|
Edited by xerox at 18:24, 06 May 2014.
|
I don't think I believe in luck much at all and my experience is that less successful people (like my father) are much more likely to blame things on "luck". I have personally have had a lot more success being active than reactive, so the whole notion of being "lucky" feels contraproductive and alien to me. Of course, there are a few major things we just can't decide. Like our place of birth. It matters a lot if I happen to be the daugther of an Afghan peasant, or the son of a Swedish waitress. My freedom is greater than the Afghan daughter, so I don't have as many obstacles. But success is also relative. Maybe there's not a huge leap between how far me and the Afghan girl can get in comparison to the averages of society.
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted May 06, 2014 06:33 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 18:46, 06 May 2014.
|
xerox said:
my experience is that less successful people (like my father) are much more likely to blame things on "luck".
While pretty much everyone comes to the consensus that it's not pure luck, neither pure hard-work or dedication, they both play a role; even if it wasn't so and even if it was drastically about hard-work, it would still be quite normal for unlucky people to complain more, while the lucky ones would be more likely to interpret things as their natural prize or simply just happily shut up. Besides, although not as many as people complaining about luck, there are also ones who keep expressing gratitude for their fortune and say things like "I thank God everyday for the life he gave me" etc etc.all the time.
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 06, 2014 06:35 PM |
|
Edited by xerox at 18:57, 06 May 2014.
|
like when he buys something and it turns out to have been a bad deal he claims he was "unlucky"
no, you weren't unlucky
you were stupid
I'm convinced that sort of mentality leads to a less successfull life.
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 06, 2014 07:27 PM |
|
|
It's not a helpful mentality, but that doesn't mean it's not true. Sometimes people are unlucky.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted May 07, 2014 12:07 AM |
|
|
Quote:
no, you weren't unlucky
you were stupid
First one on the shoulders is bad luck, the second one is stupidity.
Youtube
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted May 07, 2014 12:36 AM |
|
|
artu said:
What a top notch thread.
I agree. I haven't read over it in a long time, and I have to say it was a really great discussion.
|
|
markkur
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Once upon a time
|
|
posted May 07, 2014 03:29 PM |
|
|
I remember this discussion. I'd call it an important discussion.
From my experience folks usually use the word "luck" as an excuse for another's success, it's always fed by total greed or envy i.e. "what a lucky bassturd"
sometimes, w/ minor envy but w/o possible merit = "what a lucky duck".
W/o any envy + some merit = "well, thank you're lucky stars"
I'm sure it's been said already, We all encounter "a" luck but is better defined as "an unfolding" when all impacts are considered. "Timing is everything" is another sentiment but that phrase implies control, when little is present.
i.e. I need to lasso my lucky stars and hit the bricks for a job, there will be two interviewed and I'm one of the two. I am not the best qualified but get out of bed and do it. The other guy does the same but on the road he is stopped and arrested because he looks like someone else. I get the job. I was lucky, the other guy was unlucky. My success and his un-success directly resulted from the very same unplanned interference because Fate also entered the contest.
btw, "some" call a lucky fate, "when all the stars aligned." and unlucky fates, products of "Murphy's law." 
Bottom line = Be present...in full armor and battle ready. 
|
| |
|
|
