[nostromo]

Maybe, but I'm talking about retrospection here, not prospection. People, even when talking about past successes, are very unlikely to admit their good fortune.

In other words you're more likely to hear, "I worked very hard" than "I worked very hard and was very lucky."

There are notable exceptions. Warren Buffet has openly talked about the role of luck in his success.

[_delirium]

I don't know whether it's statistically more likely, but I do think I find the latter sentiment more often among scientists. Plenty of famous people in science will also refuse to admit luck had much to do with their success, of course, but many others will do so. A total guess as to why is that there's a recognition that "good science" is something you can control, but "science that gets famous" has much more of a sociological and good-timing component that's hard to control. Sometimes people know they're on the verge of a big breakthrough, but other times it's quite hard to know whether this interesting problem you're working on will turn out to be a solid but niche contribution, or a future 1000-citation paper. Sometimes you even have to wait 10 or 20 years to find out that what seemed like a minor contribution at the time was actually made retroactively important by a different advance.

[Dn_Ab]

I've read a bit on discovery. There are 3 main theories discussed on scientific discovery - the great genius, the cultural zeitgeist and just chance. The great genius without who history would be greatly changed was discounted on the commonality of multiple inventions and the existence of many sufficiently intelligent people at any given time. The cultural zeitgeist holds that there are many ideas in the air and one only has to look to pick it, that it is the intellectual backdrop that determines when and what gets discovered. That multiple inventions are often separated in time and not all discoverable items are found when they could be runs counter to this. The chance model suggests not all discoveries are found and scientific discovery is random as to who gets it and that it follows a Poisson distribution. In one article [1] , an example of a tree with 1000 ripe apples and 1000 apple pickers was given, how many apples are picked?How many people pick the same two or three?

A refinement of the stochastic model considers that geniuses exist but they are able to see and synthesize more than others not that they can see what others can't. They benefit from the cultural backdrop and do not innovate as islands. Their discoveries would eventually be replicated by a large number of individuals making blind turns with individual portions. In sum, not all ideas that are discoverable within a cultural zeitgeist are found, it is essentially random who discovers what but there are a few lucky individuals that tend to be over-represented [2].

How lucky? In numerous ways. In addition to having the right set of genes, epigenetic developments and beneficial stochastic fluctuations in neural development they also need the right set of skills and experiences, and then to not just pick a solvable problem but to pick one solvable by their particular mindset. Solving problems is not a deterministic process but more a sampling of a large combinatorial construction of possibilities acquired only through expertise. So there is an element of chance in fixing the right permutation of ideas. So run history twice and Einstein might not have found General Relativity. In getting recognized luck also plays a role in setting up a Matthew Effect. The only part in which luck is only partial is in being enthusiastic on a subject, the time and effort spent to gain expertise on it (base level of intelligence luck determined, 1 sigma sufficient) and the obsession to be able to think all the time on a subject.

If you are interested in this sort of thing I strongly suggest anything by Simonton (as an aside one of his papers argues that it is not what age you start that matters but how many years into your career that determines the drop off, so late starters get the same burst and drop just shifted in time).

[1] http://www.garfield.library.upenn.edu/essays/v4p660y1979-80....

[2] A small group of highly productive individuals is most likely to participate in multiples, including independent rediscoveries. These same persons are also unusually intimate with the "technoscientific" zeitgeist and perhaps equally gifted with an inordinate amount of good luck.

Not free: http://www.deepdyve.com/lp/psycarticles-reg/multiple-discove...

[wpietri]

That's really interesting.

One other factor is that I think science encourages a certain humility and honesty. When you're trying novel things and checking against real data, you inevitably get your ass handed to you from time to time. I think that makes it harder to treat "because I am awesome" as a 100% reliable explanation.

[roopeshv]

because science focuses on repeatability and control. personal successes do not. Any thing that passes as science has been proven to a degree of certainity, by definition. Any science is good science because it's been proven, and then there is science that got famous.

[efsavage]

Its not so much an exception as a predictable response. Admitting something is luck is a display of weakness (in pretty much any culture, I'd imagine). You're far more likely to encounter such displays by those who can withstand it. Buffet has nothing to fear, he's proven more than anyone that he's among the best ever in his field, even if it's luck that he's #1 vs #100 on the wealthiest list. Every supermodel seems to claim that they were ugly or a tomboy in high school and they were just lucky that some photographer noticed them. Rookies talk about how hard they've worked to get to the pros, while retiring athletes talk about how lucky they've been.

[LargeWu]

"The harder I work, the luckier I get" - Samuel Goldwyn

[twelvechairs]

Samuel Goldwyn obviously never worked in a sweatshop.

More seriously. Lots of people work very 'hard' for (what we would consider) very little compensation. Its more important to work smarter than 'harder' or with more 'effort'. (eg. Sometimes you also need to acknowledge when your efforts are leading nowhere and drop something - this might not be considered 'working hard' - though perhaps it should be)

[kamaal]

>>Samuel Goldwyn obviously never worked in a sweatshop.

And you obviously don't have to be in a sweatshop to work hard. You can work hard as a Janitor, driver, programmer, stock trader, president or whatever.

To be 'lucky' through hard work you've got to be clever enough to pick up the area where you want to work hard.If by any means you can't start where you would have liked, you need to keep moving gradually to the place you would like to go.

My advice: If your hard work doesn't look rewarding in both the long and short term. Iterate quickly, take a quick feedback and play a different game. But whatever game you play work hard while playing it.

EDIT: To all those people who are downvoting. Hard work in the wrong direction doesn't give the results you expect. Is this such a difficult and surprising thing to understand?

[pfarrell]

The best band that came from my college was probably one of the best regional acts as well. For 10 years, they were effectively on a non-stop, nation-wide tour. They were a ska act at a time when ska hit. So, they were right place, right time, and put forth incredible effort.

In the end, they did not get the big record deal, the band fell apart, and they all went on to different things. I've had a hindsight talk with the leader of the band and he's basically said, we thought all our hard work touring would pay off, but we probably should have been working on other things (like marketing and woo-ing labels, I presume).

Kind of OT, but the big change in my career came when I realized that promotions are not rewards for "hard work", moving up comes from demonstrating you'll be more effective at the new job. As a worker, you think that you get promoted as a reward for what you've done, but as a manager, you promote because of what the worker can do in the future.

[sambeau]

Samuel Goldwyn should have gone with:

  "The luckier I got, the luckier I get"

[timwiseman]

It seems there are 3 main factors in success (or lack thereof):

Luck, working smarter, working harder.

Luck is a major factor for everyone, but you can't control it. You can certainly influence working smarter, but it is often a matter of juding in hindsight what was smart rather than determining it before hand. Working harder is much more under our control than the others.

It is important to acknowledge luck. This helps use be humble in our successes, not be too devestated in our failuers, and be compassionate to those less fortunate. It is also just plain true.

It is also important to try to work smart - creating a startup, writing a novel, etc at least has a chance of creating huge rewards and even changing the world...the odds of changing the world from inside the sweatshop you mention are close to nil.

But it is how hard we work that we can mostly control, and there is some truth to Goldwyn's quote...it just isn't all of the truth.

[intellegacy]

I liked your analysis and agree for the most part. But you can't leave out the talent factor, nor the resources/position one starts with. It is possible to be born into success.

[kamaal]

>>It is possible to be born into success.

It definitely is, but it only takes you there. You have carry it from there on.

Most of rich kids feel its their 'right' to be rich, regardless of whether they 'deserve' it or not. I have a lot of friends who inherited crazy fortune from their parents. According to them poor people getting rich due to whatever reason is 'unfair' to them.

Most rich kids just like the status quo to remain unchanged. Their idea of getting rich, is they staying where they are, without much effort and others remaining poor.

[shurane]

Can you expound about "poor people getting rich" being unfair? Where does this sense of entitlement come in for the rich kids?

[timwiseman]

Talent is a fair point. So is the resources/position one starts with, but I had considered that one part of luck.

[darnton]

In "The Luck Factor" Richard Wiseman talks about the personality characteristics that are associated with luck. Agreeableness and conscientiousness are not (contra this saying, which gets attributed to all and sundry) but extroversion, [lack of] neuroticism, and openness are.

[dbieber]

And likewise, "luck is the residue of design" - Branch Rickey

[megaman821]

Of course luck plays a role, but we are not talking lottery style luck here. If success was mostly luck then it would be a pure numbers game. China and India would hold most of the world's successful people due to their massive populations.

[yesbabyyes]

Do they hold the most lottery winners? Do they hold the biggest lottery winners?

[megaman821]

Doubtful that many play the lottery, but they also lead the world with bad luck too, with the world's most accidental deaths. Source: http://www.rightdiagnosis.com/a/accidental_death/stats-count...