| richardhutnik said: How exactly does the comic book story NOT show luck in it? The fact is someone got a break, and acted on it, and happened to break into the business. That break was then removed, so no one else can repeat it. In life, old "rules" people followed do change, and no longer work. That is what is seen in the comic book artist example. In that case, no one else knows what the new rules are, so they engage in a random search strategy in hopes of finding a new way to break in the business. In cases where there is too much supply and not enough demand for talent, then the talent that makes it is the one who was lucky enough to find a new way to break in. Now back to extreme wealth. For that to happen, a large number of choices made and environmental conditions, would have to be the right ones. If it wasn't so, then more people would be extremely wealthy. Given this, also factor in that each situation doesn't have a 100% chance of success of happening. In life, few things are. And let's say that each situation has a .99999 chance (that is 99.999%) of happening. And that, the extreme wealth side is a condition of 1 happening. The .99999 is the guarantee the person has of making it, based on their ability to control successfully and do the right thing. The .00001 is the chance of failure that, if it happened, would end up causing the condition of extreme wealth to happen, well.... http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=.99999 power x = .5 Between between 69000 and 70000 tries, the probability of hitting success breaks right below .5, meaning that the conditions of failure is now greater than the chance to succeed. And this argument is based entirely upon everything a person does, in their control, is what is needed for success, and that which is out of their control, is working against them, a pure condition to measure whether or not extreme wealth is the byproduct of mostly chance or mostly not-chance (luck). |
Being that after Facebook was produced and became popular there was no need to produce another Facebood, does that mean the development of Facebook was 'luck'?
Being that after Twitter was produced and became popular there was no need to produce another Twitter, does that mean the development of Twitter was 'luck'?
Being that after Google was produced and became popular there was no need to produce another Google, does that mean the development of Google was 'luck'?
Being that after Youtube was produced and became popular there was no need to produce another Youtube , does that mean the development of Youtube was 'luck'?
Your definition of "luck" is so broad that it entirely attributes the vision and hundreds of hours of man-years required to create these services to "luck". In fact, all scientific discovery and creative works are "luck" by your definition ...
