I’m conflicted on calling him “lucky”, and I don’t think you mean to discredit him, but yeah he’s had genetic and societal gifts but I’m sure his work ethic is what makes him exceptional
> I’m conflicted on calling him “lucky”, and I don’t think you mean to discredit him,
I don't think saying he was "lucky" is discrediting him - simply because there's many people who got 'lucky' but didn't push themselves to fully capitalize on it the way he did.
Basically he's both "lucky" but also extremely driven and uses it to his fullest potential.
For a measured response - yes I agree, it's a combo of luck and effort, but the effort can't compensate for the luck.
For my true response that probably isn't as popular - he may have an amazing work ethic but that's also just coming from how he was raised, so it's still luck, the same person born in a different environment wouldn't have done the same things - both nature and nurture are external forces
It matters where you set the achievement bar. Sure, if the goal is "internationally recognized expert," perhaps luck is a stronger factor.
But if the goal is, "strong enough programmer to write a spell-check algorithm from first principles," then work-effort might very well compensate for a lack of advantages in upbringing or other "luck-factors."
I don't think his work ethic comes from his upbringing - our parents didn't push us that hard and my work ethic is average. It may come from the fact that he found what he loves to do early in his career, it may come from my Dad's genes (his work ethic was pretty good), or a combo of both
IMHO the proliferation of "lucky" does more harm than good. It's factually correct but bad policy to emphasize it if you want the most people to avoid learned helplessness.
Some might be motivated knowing the only thing that separates them from greatness is luck, but more often I saw students feel defeated.
You make an interesting point, and I think which side of it is correct depends what the end goal is. It definitely doesn't help people, particularly children, to tell them they're "lucky" or "gifted" in a particular ability. Early in life it means that they can downplay the effort needed to develop that ability, and later in life when they hit the actually difficult bits it can result in them assuming they must just not be as good at it as everyone says, rather than applying themselves to understanding.
There is also value in people understanding that not everything is down to innate ability and application though. That road leads to people looking down on impoverished people because they should have just put more effort in. Get a better job, learn a skill, regardless of the fact their situation means they're already working 3 jobs just to make enough money to ensure their kids can eat tonight.
As with so many things people have polarised. You're either in Camp Skill & Dedication or Camp Luck & Circumstance. In reality it's always a bit of both, with luck giving some people an advantage when it comes to having the time and space to dedicate themselves to developing their skills.
You can be lucky and hardworking, and have both of these factors be individually necessary but insufficient contributors to your success.
People get weirdly defensive about luck being a major factor in their success, but it always is. It doesn't mean you didn't work hard, it doesn't mean that your decisions didn't contribute to your success. It means that, if you were born a little bit less smart, you would have achieved less. And if you were born in North Korea or medieval Europe in the peasant underclass, you would probably have achieved nothing of note and may have died of the plague before reaching adulthood.
I'd estimate that just the sheer luck to be born in a wealthy, free country without debilitating handicaps in the late 20th century or early 21st century already puts you in something like the top 1% lucky people in human history.
You can argue that being hardworking is a talent, and as such luck. Not everyone has the force of will to be hardworking some people are naturally lazy and some can put hard work without it feeling like hardwork and others can feel the hard work, but have the will to overcome it, etc.
I say that success is 100% luck and of that 100% of luck, some of it can be composed of hardwork, as the ability to perform hard work is in itself, a part of luck.
everything in your sentence can be traced back to luck in some way. Genetic gifts I'm sure contribute to work ethic, but also the families, societies, you're born into. The teacher you met in 1st grade that encouraged you to keep trying etc. Luck is in everything IMO
While of course the choice to apply effort and enact effort exists, but being able to successfully do so, and to have he psychological directive to do so effectively, is largely based on personality, which is largely established by age six. (Conscientiousness - OCEAN)
Inherent motivational energy is a roll of the genetic/environment die just as much as every other trait like height or engineering intelligence capacity.
Perhaps his epic work ethic is partially the result of a genetic trait and/or the influence of good parenting at an early age… which would be pretty lucky for him.
Luck is like 5% of any equation. He had the gift and he was disciplined enough to execute on it.
That 5% luck probably got him an extra 10-20% further than anyone else. However, in a room with equally disciplined individuals you wouldn't be able to discern the lucky from the hard working.
thewataccount|3 years ago
I don't think saying he was "lucky" is discrediting him - simply because there's many people who got 'lucky' but didn't push themselves to fully capitalize on it the way he did.
Basically he's both "lucky" but also extremely driven and uses it to his fullest potential.
tejohnso|3 years ago
Pretty typical for people who are at that level in their field. Terrence Tao and Michael Jordan both immediately come to mind.
e_i_pi_2|3 years ago
For my true response that probably isn't as popular - he may have an amazing work ethic but that's also just coming from how he was raised, so it's still luck, the same person born in a different environment wouldn't have done the same things - both nature and nurture are external forces
WalterBright|3 years ago
At what point should people stop making excuses and claiming to be a victim?
jacobr1|3 years ago
But if the goal is, "strong enough programmer to write a spell-check algorithm from first principles," then work-effort might very well compensate for a lack of advantages in upbringing or other "luck-factors."
LoRaBlood|3 years ago
navane|3 years ago
jvanderbot|3 years ago
Some might be motivated knowing the only thing that separates them from greatness is luck, but more often I saw students feel defeated.
sdenton4|3 years ago
jon-wood|3 years ago
There is also value in people understanding that not everything is down to innate ability and application though. That road leads to people looking down on impoverished people because they should have just put more effort in. Get a better job, learn a skill, regardless of the fact their situation means they're already working 3 jobs just to make enough money to ensure their kids can eat tonight.
As with so many things people have polarised. You're either in Camp Skill & Dedication or Camp Luck & Circumstance. In reality it's always a bit of both, with luck giving some people an advantage when it comes to having the time and space to dedicate themselves to developing their skills.
pasquinelli|3 years ago
i'll keep that in mind next time i'm making "policy."
i'm not clear how, in this conversation, policy came up.
ookdatnog|3 years ago
People get weirdly defensive about luck being a major factor in their success, but it always is. It doesn't mean you didn't work hard, it doesn't mean that your decisions didn't contribute to your success. It means that, if you were born a little bit less smart, you would have achieved less. And if you were born in North Korea or medieval Europe in the peasant underclass, you would probably have achieved nothing of note and may have died of the plague before reaching adulthood.
I'd estimate that just the sheer luck to be born in a wealthy, free country without debilitating handicaps in the late 20th century or early 21st century already puts you in something like the top 1% lucky people in human history.
red1reaper|3 years ago
I say that success is 100% luck and of that 100% of luck, some of it can be composed of hardwork, as the ability to perform hard work is in itself, a part of luck.
oangemangut|3 years ago
bloqs|3 years ago
flangola7|3 years ago
cainxinth|3 years ago
richardlblair|3 years ago
That 5% luck probably got him an extra 10-20% further than anyone else. However, in a room with equally disciplined individuals you wouldn't be able to discern the lucky from the hard working.
ClumsyPilot|3 years ago
What if your excecute in the wrong proffeshion, like you become a stock trader but you could have been a world-class developer?
How does one even find out, most peoppe in the world neverbtry programming.
Maybe you have a gilf for something that younneverbhad a chance to discover.
anthonypasq|3 years ago
pasquinelli|3 years ago
why?