When artists or political leaders become household names, are they just lucky? Well, without breaks, coincidences and a lot of luck, none of us would have ever heard of the Beatles.
Everyone needs some luck to succeed, but they also need talent, relentless drive and more hard work than most people are willing to dedicate. There may be some luck in the Beatles' story (or any other band), but not just anyone with that luck on their side could've been the Beatles. We can examine any historic contingency, and say that but for bad or good luck such and such would never have happened. It's a bit pointless.
Everyone successful that I've ever met has usually attributed their current situation in life to luck. They typically leave out the reality. For most, luck is simply hard work + opportunity. There are exceptions, like winning the lottery, but those are pretty rare. If you talk to any number of successful people in life, most will attribute their success to luck in one form or another. The fact is, these people worked hard, which provided opportunities, which enabled them to be in situations, which allowed them to meet the right people or build the right product or whatever it may be. That process, looking back, becomes luck. But its vastly under-valuing their contributing and their dedication that enabled them to "be lucky"
Spot on. I suspect at least two factors are at play, in people crediting luck for their success - 1. Self-deprecation or humility. "I feel worthy, but I don't like to blow my own horn". 2. Cognitive dissonance - "I don't feel worthy of my success, so probably it was outside of my control".
Everyone successful that I've ever met has usually attributed their current situation in life to luck.
really? Literally nobody that I know would say that they owe their success to "luck."
Yeah, but people like a good illusion, or else our world would look very different at first glance. Plus, not everyone is born with the same capacity and quite a bit of that is up to chance too. Yeah, intelligent parents tend to make intelligent children, but not always. We could get into nature vs. nurture, but that's a big ol' sand trap. I think that luck does exist. I think that one reason it exists is that there are so many numbers to crunch, that it would be possible to scientifically prove that luck doesn't exist, but that those numbers are too numerous to bother crunching. I don't get why people have these huge chips on their shoulders over words like "luck" and "fate" and "magic". I could be just as skeptical (or disdainful) of happiness, but that would make me look like an asshole. Another part of it is perspective. Yeah, skill and hard work and opportunity all play roles, but life is a big, mysterious thing and it isn't at all clear how we got here or why we're here and I'd have to say that that's a nice bit of luck. In any case, if successful people feel lucky, then I think they've probably earned the right to feel that way.
This is an interesting read if you want to learn about "persistence" but it has absolutely nothing to do with "luck". How ridiculous to suggest otherwise. All of the opportunities that are mentioned in this piece can be attributed directly to persistence and persuasion. I agree with mk, the word "luck" needs to disappear.
I tend to agree more with ando than with those of you who are luck unbelievers. Could we call you the unlucky? You are mistaking "luck" with "fate." Nothing is fated, but certainly much occurs by chance or coincidence - synonyms for luck. Luck is defined as events occurring by chance rather than by one's own actions. In this matter, I agree with b_b that you need talent, drive, hard work, persistence, and more talent but you can have all that but not be in the right place, not meet the right person, be on the wrong train and so on -- the inexplicable je ne sais quoi -- For example, I can only explain it as luck or fortuitousness or magic to have caused me to stumble upon hubski because I happened to have the right combination of words that brought up tng's song to my attention about two weeks after he posted it. Maybe as veen infers, I'm just taking statistics personally. Statistically I would have eventually found hubski -- but the person who found hubski 872 days ago was the person who needed to find hubski just about then. Arguing against luck seems to be arguing against randomness. Surely you'll agree that randomness exists. When randomness suits you, it's good randomness; when it works against you, less good. Edit: I have a feeling I will lose this argument.
I completely agree with you, based on that definition. But what mk and I were referring to (I think) is the definition of luck as a thing that people possess. The common way of talking about luck. Jack did something good, he must have luck on his side. As if says something about his future, as if he has luck instead of luck happening to him, the definition you describe. It often negates any effort someone did to achieve, with people brushing it off as lucky. That irritates the hell out of me. It took a favor of statistics to find hubski -I happened to scroll all the way to the bottom of a /r/TheoryofReddit post, where someone posted a link here- but I wouldn't call myself lucky. I'm not gonna have a better chance at finding good sites because I found hubski. The opposite is more likely, because of regression towards the mean. When luck helps you out greatly, you are more likely to not experience luck right afterwards because luck as you describe isn't that common. The only common known luck I enjoy is that sung by two French DJ's and Pharrell.Luck is defined as events occurring by chance rather than by one's own actions. In this matter, I agree with b_b that you need talent, drive, hard work, persistence, and more talent but you can have all that but not be in the right place, not meet the right person, be on the wrong train and so on -- the inexplicable je ne sais quoi --
That's what I get for leaving such a ridiculous statement. :) veen basically has it right in that I was referring to the notion that luck is something that only graces some people. Everyday we are faced with common and uncommon circumstance. Personally, I think it is damaging for people to view the world as a place where luck is what makes the difference between success and failure. Everyone encounters rare circumstance, however dynamic people leverage what is available, and non-dynamic people do not. It's probable that before this rare opportunity panned out for the Beatles, they missed many. Even after that point, there are countless rare circumstances that defined the path that they ultimately took. Were the Beatles one of the best bands in the world (not my personal opinion :)), or did they take the path of one? No doubt they didn't finish as the band that began. It was unlikely that you found Hubski when you did; however, Lil's Book of Questions existed, and in that sense, we were lucky to meet you. If Under Odysseus gets anywhere, then I definitely can claim the luck of that situation. :) The thing that bothers me most about using 'luck' this way, is that it can serve as an excuse for some people as to why their life isn't where they'd like it to be. Luck isn't the reason. Everyone experiences uncommon circumstance.
I think luck, or being lucky, can be a perspective. I've posted on here about awful things that I've been through in college but I still consider myself a lucky person. - I got a job in 2009 in the financial sector, a job I had no experience or reason to obtain, a job that let me work from home full time and essentially dick around - No one around me who I'm close with has died - I've never been pulled over or gotten a speeding ticket - in fact, besides a few parking tickets, never had to mess with the police at all - I've leveraged my initial job into a job where I make twice as much as I did intially, and that's within 3 years - I've never broken a bone, never been hospitalized due to major illness, etc - My bone tumor wasn't cancer! Half of this (more) is perspective. I could look at all the shitty things in my life and say I am an unlucky person. You could argue that I'm not attributing enough to myself when I say, for instance, I got a job out of luck. But come on - a job in 2009 in the finance sector when I hadn't even finished getting my degree in English? I was applying for all jobs all over the place then. I was lucky enough to find that job posting. And I felt lucky to get the job. But I like to maintain my belief that some of it is luck. I think I've gotten a lot of great things out of life and I am young and there is more coming. My brother totalled his car in a collision with a house and didn't have airbags, he emerged without a scratch. The police officers were shocked. How is that in some way not luck? So I cling to a belief that my clan has luck, because I feel I have been lucky more times in my life than is accountable. Maybe my regression to the mean is coming up...but I think I also have a sunny disposition and am likely to look on the positive side of things and am likely to be thankful for the opportunities that come my way, and I will call it luck. For me, luck and being lucky is as much about attitude and perspective as what happens to you in life.
Wasn't it you who said that luck was when opportunity meets preparation? But the way I see it, perspective is the framework to look at the past for information about the present. Looking back, I have had an enormous deal of fortune in my life. I happen to be born in one of the best countries in the world on a social, economical and educational level (Netherlands). Of the people born there, I happen to be a part of the minority that goes to university. That does an honorary programme. That has good prospects. Great friends and family. Enough money to live as I want to without a debt accumulating. That has been able to go to Hong Kong, and I'm planning to study in Canada next year. I could go on and on about all the things I'm grateful for. Where I hesitate is to call it lucky. Nearly everything on that list had a lot of factors that had to be right to make it happen. I've beaten the odds multiple times, but is that lucky or is it just improbable? The difference between the two is that luck is endogenous. It happens beyond one's control, whereas something improbable can still happen if you put more effort in it. There is always an edge of randomness, of events occurring at the same time that you just can't control. Sometimes, that randomness becomes an important factor, as in your improbable '09 search for a financial job. But I doubt that you would've found the job you found if you didn't go around asking everywhere, having great interviews, improving your job-finding skills. My perspective is that I've had a lot of optimal conditions for good things to happen. And I've put in effort / preparation for some events. Both contribute to it happening. Some played out well and others don't, often a matter of soulless statistics. Some improbable outcomes were positively impacted by luck (e.g. meeting the right person to get me into an exchange programme) and others negatively. Don't get me wrong, I'm still just as grateful of what has happened to me, it's just that I don't think I have a luck fairy following me and helping me around. Luck is the easy reason. As mk puts more brief,Personally, I think it is damaging for people to view the world as a place where luck is what makes the difference between success and failure. Everyone encounters rare circumstance, however dynamic people leverage what is available, and non-dynamic people do not.
This is true, though somebody else said it long before me; I was afraid of sounding repetitive. This is also true, and you could (possibly effectively) argue that attributing the job to luck is just a variant on Imposter Syndrome, i.e., a refusal to take accountability for just how stinkin' awesome I am all the time. I try to avoid [excessive] ego and it is also inconceivable to me that someone who hadn't even finished her undergrad degree and had no experience in the financial sector deserved in any way a job at a level where most people end their career in banking. In my job I was and continue to be surrounded by people who have worked their way up into this position and are my parents' age or even older. My current salary is almost equal to my mother's, and she is capped out in earnings, i.e., she won't make any more at her job, ever. I think it can be damaging for people to think that they are wholly in control of, and also always deserve, what they receive. That's why I'm willing to attribute some of my success to luck, to just happening to apply for that job at the right time, etc. For instance, do you know what made me good at interviewing? Ultimately? Do you know what made me a good candidate? I spoke well, carried myself well, was articulate, was impressive. My parents made me that way. More importantly my background made me that way and it's not pretty but it's true: being a white middle-class American with parents who cared about my grammar helped spring me my first job. Because of the family I was born into I was able to go to college. I was able to present myself well according to social norms, well or even better than average. And what I cannot control, and what no one can control, is what class they are born into, and the bottom of that line is that I feel, and should feel, insanely lucky to have been born into the class and family into which I was born.Wasn't it you who said that luck was when opportunity meets preparation?
But I doubt that you would've found the job you found if you didn't go around asking everywhere, having great interviews, improving your job-finding skills.
Luck is defined as events occurring by chance rather than by one's own actions. In this matter, I agree with b_b that you need talent, drive, hard work, persistence, and more talent but you can have all that but not be in the right place, not meet the right person, be on the wrong train and so on -- the inexplicable je ne sais quoi --
-the Beatles put themselves in "the right place" by getting Epstein on board and by cultivating a following that bought their single. They created then own luck. I agree that luck exists, but even those that win the lotto have to buy a ticket.
then we agree: you have to buy a ticket, but randomness makes the lotto pick your ticket.
Even the article said this The group’s initial break came when Brian Epstein, the 27-year-old manager of a Liverpool record store, happened to come hear them at a lunchtime session at a local club.
"happened to come hear them" -- that's the luck part. As I believe Louis Pasteur said "Chance favours the prepared mind." -- and continue to build COURAGE and CONFIDENCE and COMMITMENT to whatever we love so that we'll notice the random.
I'm guessing we both agree on these things though, but I find that too many people attribute peoples successes to "luck" or "chance." More often than not these things are born of hard work, persistence and talent."happened to come hear them" -- that's the luck part
Yes, but they created that luck by booking the show. Had they not been playing there, had they not sounded good or been charming on stage Epstein wouldn't have cared. There is no "happened to hear them," they put themselves in a position to be heard.
We only "kinda" agree because we like each other and know that the other person is wise. Sure the Beatles put themselves in a position to be heard, of course they booked the show, they practiced, they believed, they wrote songs, they had thoughtful life experiences -- but I bet too, as luck would have it, Epstein was in the right mood, in the right place, in the right time, and was ready to have his mind blown and throw his life into helping the Beatles. If Brian Epstein had promoted the brilliant The New Green, you might have been on Ed Sullivan too or David Letterman or wherever, but he didn't stumble into your concert and things took a different path. Chance or luck or fortuitousness or coincidence or magic (OK, not magic) always helps -- but there's no replacement for DOING THE WORK, and making a life for yourself that does not depend on chance. My current new employers ONLY found me if it hadn't been for a coincidental set of parallel (theirs and mine) events - they didn't even know where to look for me or that it was me they were looking for. So the finding was chance - but the bizarre mix of qualifications that prepared me for the job was my own creation over many years. OK are we in agreement now?
We are in general agreement except for one key fact: Brian Epstein would have had a much more difficult road to tow if he were attempting to get tng on Letterman. The Beatles had far more raw talent. Hope all is well lil!