Prove that possessing extreme wealth or being famous isn't mostly luck?

[Kasz216]

richardhutnik said:

Kasz216 said:

richardhutnik said:

Kasz216 said:

 

A) Amanda Black didn't go out of her way to be a failure

B) Amanda Black hasn't seen a dime from friday

C) Ark Music Factory, whose set up a buisness to fill the niche of "Rich white girls who want to be pop stars" did make a lot of money however, a WHOLE lot of money by setting up a youtube video and putting the song on Itunes.

D) It being a lot easier to make bad choices then good choices is proof it isn't luck.

E) Factors being out of your control =/= luck.  If you invent something nobody wants, that's out of your control,  It's not bad luck that nobody wanted it though.

How are factors not in your control not luck?  For a lack of something better, let's go to Wikipedia again:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luck

Luck or fortuity is good or bad fortune in life caused by accident or chance, and attributed by some to reasons of faith or superstition, which happens beyond a person's control.

Then consider randomness, which is what you might be thinking of:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randomness

Having no definite aim or purpose; not sent or guided in a particular direction; made, done, occurring, etc., without method or conscious choice; haphazard.

I could argue that both are true with the case of extreme wealth, but more likely to be the former, where extreme wealth is largely due to factors not in the control of the person.  Would say that being totally random would be more likely to insure you DON'T end up with extreme wealth, to a place where it is statistically zero.  For my initial point to be valid, has to be shown that over 50% of the reasons why someone is or isn't extremely wealthy, is due to factors not in their control.  If it is, then my initial point is valid.  Same would go with fame today, by how fame works.  One can say that, in the past, fame was the benchmark of attributes someone had and deeds they did.  Now it is merely a matter of something going viral, and desired as an end result.

I think in bolding that part, you forgot to read the part before it.

is good or bad fortune in life caused by accident or chance,

That nobody wants a machine that turns beer luke warm is not due to accident or chance.

It's due to people not liking warm beer... which itself isn't due to accident or chance.

 

If 12 people try and win the lottery, one MAY win via luck.

If 12 people try hard to get an invention to succeed that nobody wants....

they will all fail.  Because nobody wants it.

Everything your talking about is perceviable.  It's just not preceivable by everybody, because everbody doesn't try and perceive it.

Luck only occurs in situations that can not be perceived.

Your argument that the extremely wealth get that way, not mostly by chance, is that one can guarantee failure, and that one may win a lottery, which is agreed to be luck, wins it?  You are arguing that how one ends up being a total failure and extremely wealthy are one and the same in regards to what people do.  The only thing you MIGHT be able to argue is that failing is something that can be assured.  That is all.  Success, isn't.

I will, at this point, give you another example why what you argue isn't valid.  This is by someone who happened to end up being a comic book artist.  His observation about the industry was that, once someone found a loophole to break in, it was like they closed it.  In cases where an industry that is monsterously competitive, and screens out loopholes to get past gatekeepers, then you can't even replicate what someone did in the past.  The means by which someone succeeded won't work again.  The rules change, and people aren't even sure what they are.  Similar happeens in markets, and even looking at Blue Ocean Strategy.  To pile into an area ends up making it more competitive for everyone, and descreases the chances of the latercomers to be successful.

And your last sentence is pretty close to nonsense.  Luck is all over the place, in games with cards and dice, and casinos.  In situations that are luck, what may not be able to be perceived is forces working behind the scenes to manipulate things.

Your statement is so inane, i'm not even sure where to begin...

Dice and such are luck, because very specifically there are odds.  It's a fixed system, in which success of failure isn't based on anything but pure luck.

Card Games actually rarely come down to luck (at least competitivly).  As 90% of proffesional Poker players, and they will tell you, luck isn't a majority of their chances... and they are specifically playing a game with a luck element!

Your comic book story, shows absolutely zero luck in it.  Because rules change doesn't mean luck.  You seem to have a GIANT failing when it comes to what luck is, and seem to see luck as "If I don't know something, it must be luck!"

Which is stupid.