[nirvana]

My success and failures in life have had nothing to do with luck. I've been both lucky and unlucky at various times, but none of them have determined my level of success over the short or long term to any significant degree.

At the same time I've had periods where I worked hard and was focused and passionate about what I was doing, and periods where I was not passionate, unmotivated by a crushingly poorly run organization and did not work very hard.

The periods where I was focused, passionate and working hard were the more successful ones, and successful enough to carry me thru the down times as well.

Luck may have put Michael Lewis at Goldman Sachs, but luck didn't determine his level of success. After all, his success comes from writing books, not being a goldman boy. Sure he wrote his first book about that period, but that book took a large amount of focus, passion and effort to create.

That said, I certainly find myself occasionally jealous of people who seemingly lucked into great success. If I'd never applied myself, and thus never had success myself, I'd probably think that luck was the actual determinant of success.

Edit to add: In this post I deliberately talked about my personal experiences. I didn't make a broad sweeping statement that luck doesn't determine success or failure for everybody. However, clearly people object to the political incorrectness of not supporting the ideology that argues "luck determines success, therefore the rich should be taxed to pay us! we just weren't lucky!" Note that I did not address that argument, I just talked about my experience. But because my experience is inconsistent with the distorted view of the world, it is "politically incorrect" and thus should be kept from the eyes of others, lest they be influenced, my post has been made visually unreadable. I find this anti-intellectualism distasteful.

[Smudge]

The point of the speech wasn't that you shouldn't apply yourself.

Your hard work, passion, and focus likely correlate with your successes. But that doesn't mean you weren't also extremely lucky to be in a position where those factors (things that you have more control over) were so able to tip your chances.

Edit: Firstly, we should all be able to voice unpopular opinions without getting silenced by the crowd. I may have disagreed with your analysis, but I voted up your response nonetheless.

Secondly, to respond to your edit. I think you are not quite correct in stating that your down-votes are due to the fact that "people object to the political incorrectness of not supporting the ideology that argues 'luck determines success, therefore the rich should be taxed to pay us! we just weren't lucky!'"

There is a difference between those who do not apply themselves and believe success is entirely down to luck, and those who work hard and dedicate their lives to the pursuit of something more, never to achieve the kind of successes that others take for granted. It is the latter group that you are failing to acknowledge, which is perhaps why you are seeing so many down-votes. I wouldn't simply attribute it to "anti-intellectualism."

[nirvana]

>It is the latter group that you are failing to acknowledge, which is perhaps why you are seeing so many down-votes. I wouldn't simply attribute it to "anti-intellectualism."

That group, if it really even exists, is completely irrelevant to my point and thus there is no reason I should need to acknowledge it, other than political correctness. Remember, my comments were about my experience and to a lesser extent, Lewises.

Downvoting my comment-- which was on topic and well written-- because I failed to endorse a politically correct point of view (e.g.: the existence of that group, or its significance) is the very essence of the anti-intellectualism I was describing.

So, I agree with you that this is likely a probable cause of the votes, but we disagree as to their meaning.

You know what the sad thing is? I actually crafted this post carefully to only talk about myself, and Mr. Lewis, specifically to avoid being down voted for being politically incorrect. But the intolerance on Hacker News for anything that isn't ideologically leftist is very strong. Obviously my self-censorship instinct was not strong enough.

Meanwhile, of course, people can make snotty comments about other political ideologies and they get way up voted, even when their comment adds nothing to the discussion. (not to mention the thinly veiled name calling, and disingenuous attacks that are also common here.)

This is nothing you can change, and I'm not really attempting to pursuade you of something here. I'm just lamenting that anti-intellectualism is so prevalent in society and so common on this site. I know it was not always that way. But the reddit.com/r/politics crowd has invaded and like there they are eager to silence anyone who thinks different.

[snth]

I downvoted you for reasons having nothing to do with political ideologies. You are far too quick to call people "intolerant" and "leftist".

I downvoted you for saying "My success and failures in life have had nothing to do with luck," which is certainly false. Using one of the examples from the HN comments, you didn't die as a child, and that has certainly contributed to your success.

[Smudge]

Yes, we seem to disagree about whether there exists a category of people who a) work hard and b) are not "successful" and, if so, are even relevant to the discussion.

This world-view may boil down to left vs. right, or populist vs. libertarianist, or what have you, but to claim to know why you saw so many downvotes seems a bit presumptuous when there might be plenty of other explanations.

For all I know, people were turned-away by a perceived arrogance in your opening statement, which has less to do with politics and more to do with tact.

[dan-k]

Just because something takes focus, passion, and effort doesn't mean there's not luck involved. Basically every major success story comes out of the intersection of those qualities; either one, on its own, typically just gives moderate "success" (e.g. comfortable middle class life), which is really not worth discussing in this context since it's more just the norm in life (at least in the modern western world).

It's really even deeper than that, though. Even having the chance to apply yourself involves a lot of luck. Many people simply don't have the mental capacity to go to Princeton, through nothing they ever did except being born to parents with certain genetics. Many others are born with outstanding abilities that no one ever knows about because they had the misfortune to be born in sub-Saharan Africa.

By all means, be proud of the work you put in to your success. But acting like the rest of the world had nothing to do with it won't make you many friends.

[jeremyarussell]

Basically every major success story comes out of the intersection of those qualities;

I just wanted to let you know, I'm going to quote that, poorly though since it's out of context as it is.

"Every major success story comes out of the intersection of luck and ability." - dan-k

Has a nice ring to it.

[RockyMcNuts]

Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity - Lucius Annaeus Seneca

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/l/lucius_annaeus_s...

[vannevar]

If I'd never applied myself, and thus never had success myself...

You're discounting the possibility of applying yourself and still not having success, which is really the whole point. Your argument is that those who fail will be more likely to blame luck, while Lewis' point is that those like you who succeed are more likely to overly credit their own effort. You're probably both right to some extent, but given that human physiological traits have a Gaussian distribution and wealth is distributed according to a power law, it would seem Lewis' view is closer to the truth.

[Cushman]

If you're trying to avoid anti-intellectualism, I'd avoid using the term "politically [in]correct"; in the discourse of modern American politics, these words are little more than a red herring used by conservatives to snidely insinuate that a progressive opponent cares more about controlling language than about real-world oppression and bigotry.

People don't downvote you because what you're saying is "politically incorrect", whatever you take that to mean, they do it because they disagree with what you're saying[0]. Don't confuse those.

[0] Which is a practice I don't support, for the record.

[taybin]

This is exactly the blindness he talked about.

[larrys]

I'm always fascinated by downvoting on HN. I'm guessing you expressed what you felt "my success and failure in life had nothing to do with luck" and people are saying by downvoting that you are wrong!!! Why? You didn't say "people's success or failure" you said "my success or failure". In this case the downvoters are being parental and telling you to grow up and have a better understanding of the way the world works.

Or maybe it was this which they saw as factually incorrect: "Luck may have put Michael Lewis at Goldman Sachs, but luck didn't determine his level of success." but didn't want to take the time to correct you so others not as informed could learn.

Anyway, you said this: "I certainly find myself occasionally jealous of people who seemingly lucked into great success."

People normally refer to jealousy in a negative way. Personally I think it's a powerful motivator.

[tedunangst]

I'd say he's being downvoted for responding to the title, but not the content of the speech. Maybe the first reference to Goldman was a typo, but then repeating and insisting on that mistake? (Why not go back and check?) Calling the speech an article. People will conclude nirvana at best skimmed it. If you haven't read and understood the material, don't comment on it.

[larrys]

"then repeating and insisting on that mistake"

As they say in medicine, would it change management? Lewis worked for an investment bank and that is what was in his head when he made even the repeat mistake. Nobody is relying on that info to make a decision. Even Lewis is willing to write a parody (which was skimmed by people who would believe he worked for Goldman). To me, yes, it is a mistake but not a reason to down vote. Look everyone draws the line at a different point and for different reasons. Had he written "when Gates started Apple with Ballmer" that of course would be different.

"Calling the speech an article. "

Same with this. Ok it was a speech and not an article. But does that really matter that much?

[nirvana]

I read the speech. I also read Liars Poker. I knew Lewis had worked at Soloman Brothers, but somehow in the years since I read the book "Goldman" replaced "Soloman" in my head. So this is a typo.

Of course that I named a different firm (equally hated) than the correct one doesn't change the content of my article.

It is a post hoc, ergo proctor hoc argument to evade the obvious reason. The actual reason has been presented as an argument by the majority of the respondents so, anti-intellectualism.

[RockyMcNuts]

s/b Salomon Brothers

You may now resume proving Lewis's point, that "People really don’t like to hear success explained away as luck."

[twoodfin]

So just how much more "lucky" is Warren Buffet than a thousand other capitalists? If you took away every penny he owns and made him 25 again, do you really doubt he would be able to earn it all back?

[intended]

Warren Buffet is a known anomaly.

His value investing and stock picking ability is pretty much unparalleled.

At the same time, he IS lucky to have done what he did, at the time he did.

Even if one single person like him existed before or at the same time as him, he would have had trouble finding deals to invest in.

EDIT: not to mention the things he did wouldn't have been possible at many other junctions in time. His skill set - value investing, would have been impossible if he wasn't born in the era he was.

[RockyMcNuts]

Warren Buffett admits he was lucky. I don't doubt he would do very well. I have doubt he would do as well, his performance would revert closer to the mean.

[intended]

I think you changed the framework of the discussion.

While within your framework you are of course, correct; at the same time, its framework is at odds with what everyone else in this thread are discussing. As a result you are being downvoted.

Not because of anti intellectualism.

[Dn_Ab]

I can give a very simple explanation of how luck is a part of the equation of success for anyone who has ever been born. The distribution of opportunity is clustered in certain locations. It is not even.

To be born in a country with equal opportunity, libraries, free education, water, electricity, non dictators. That is lucky.

Wealth arguably follows a log normal distribution. This means all the benefits combine multiplicatively, so that even seemingly small differences in the positive will combine to give a substantial advantage.

[MartinCron]

the downvoters are being parental and telling you to grow up and have a better understanding of the way the world works

Anyone who insists that luck has no role whatsoever in their short or long term success or failure either needs to grow up, or share their secret for how they chose the circumstances of their birth.

[vannevar]

Downvoting should be reserved for comments that violate site guidelines, but many people prefer to censor opinions they disagree with rather than address them. If you disagree with a post, write a response or upvote an existing response that already articulates your argument.

[RockyMcNuts]

Perhaps you were lucky to be in a situation where you had the opportunity to work hard and it could make a difference.

A lot of people are born with very limited opportunities. If you were born a healthy male in France in 1895, you were probably dead or maimed at 23, regardless of how hard you or your parents worked.

[damoncali]

Where were you born?

[scubaguy]

.. All of you have been faced with the extra cookie. All of you will be faced with many more of them. In time you will find it easy to assume that you deserve the extra cookie. For all I know, you may. But you'll be happier, and the world will be better off, if you at least pretend that you don't.

[tedunangst]

Lewis didn't work at Goldman...

[larrys]

Oh?

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2009-07-27/bashing-goldman-sac...

[tedunangst]

Your parody detector is broken. Michael Lewis didn't go to Yale, either...

Seriously, did you read the commencement speech? Makes it pretty clear which school he attended and which bank he worked at.

[larrys]

"parody detector is broken"

No it's not.

See from my above comment:

"Or maybe it was this which they saw as factually incorrect: "Luck may have put Michael Lewis at Goldman Sachs, but luck didn't determine his level of success."

[brown9-2]

The Bloomberg article you linked to as evidence was satire.

[silverlake]

that was satire. he only worked at Salomon.

[apu]

Isn't it so disappointing that on all of your comments on HN, you are consistently discriminated against and censored? I mean, it's obviously done because of the politically correct anti-intellectual crowd on HN, whose only recourse is to write ad hominem attacks on your character. Since you're obviously always correct and you have a perfect grasp of the world and the way it works, isn't it annoying to deal with all these stupid morons who have different -- and therefore obviously idiotic -- views of the world?

[CUR10US]

Did Lewis work at Goldman? Have you read Liar's Poker? How are you qualified to comment on his career?

[nirvana]

Did you read the article? He talks about how he got his goldman job as a result of a series of events that started with him happening to be sat next to the wife of a goldman employee.

Yes, I did read Liars Poker. I think its kinda funny that you question whether I am qualified to comment on his career, but a little bit of research shows he worked at goldman for awhile, wrote the book and has been a writer ever since. In other words, his success is clearly in writing.

[tptacek]

It's really hard to avoid the perception that you haven't read the article, or the book, or done the little bit of research you're referring to, since Michael Lewis never worked at Goldman; not only did he never work at Goldman, but the whole last part of Liar's Poker is about the famous and epic collapse of the firm he did work for, and about him leaving finance after the collapse occurred.

[nirvana]

Its really hard to comment on Hacker News without getting a reply from you where dishonestly exaggerate what I have said to try and impunge me. (which is, frankly, ad hominem)

The fact of the matter is that "Goldman" had replaced "Soloman" in my head in the intervening years and so I typed the wrong thing.

I think its hilarious that you guys are trying to shut me up and attack me because it is such a plain admission that you cannot actually make a counter argument, and thus you must evade and engage in the standard issue ad hominem and censorship approach. Hilarious and sad.

[tptacek]

It's a really great book, is all.

[sigstop]

You seem to be consistently confusing Goldman Sachs and Salomon Brothers.

[CUR10US]

Can you quote the portion of the article where it says he sat next to the wife of a Goldman employee?

[tedunangst]

Say what? The word goldman doesn't appear anywhere in the speech.

[dman]

You mean Salomon Brothers?