[gatormax]

If the data is valid, I think the article establishes rather well that people who call themselves "lucky" are indeed measurably different from people who call themselves "unlucky." The latter group blew the photo-counting test, for instance.

It is at that point where I would inject your perspective. What other measurable differences are there? Are "lucky" people wealthier? Healthier? Laid more? Etc.

Then there's the matter of training people for greater "luck." I agree, the article is sketchy here, and I'm not sure of a reliable way to measure an increase in "luck" (unless we assume that the "unlucky" can be expected to flunk the photo count indefinitely).

In essence, I think the article is 1/3 of the way there. True, "lucky" people differ from "unlucky" people. So let's figure out if they differ in ways that we care about, and if we can make "unlucky" people become "lucky." Then we'll have something.