By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
richardhutnik on 04 April 2011
Edit Thread
HappySqurriel said:
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 ...

Here is the thing about luck.  With a LOT of attempts, even at low odds, a certain state can be reached.  Actually, the more attempts, the wider range of possibilities.  So yes, throw in hundreds of man-years, by hundreds if not thousands of individuals, you will end up with getting advancement (assuming low probability blow up humanity doesn't happen).  The thing is though, at any single point in time, the odds are low of getting a needed breakthrough, scientific discovery or creative work, that is relevant.  You can't predict this by its nature.  There is no guarantee either.  The right factors may or may not come together to make it happen.  SOME environments make it more likely to happen, but then there is a need also for certain things in place to happen. 

Pretty much here, in any business climate that is a boom, it will by default, produce a certain number of extremely wealthy people.  The thing is that you can't predict who will be that, because of a lack of understanding of all the nuances of what is going on.  But you could end up saying it will.  With the Internet boom, it was bound that there would be a winner in the social network site, like Facebook.  The same goes for Google or others.  And there is no guarantee these entities will exist forever either.  Facebook might get divided up into bits.  Other things replace Google, and the wheels change.  Even when it comes to videogame companies, none seems to stay on top forever.  Things happen.  People do Blue Ocean strategies, and get lucky and change the game.

Then factor in the Black Swan, that isn't even the conditions, that was only seen in the sense that seers of the future tend to be like monkeys at a typewriter that you are bound to get a few correct.  These change everything.  The fortunate who were in the right place at the right time benefit from it, or avoid a disaster.