Career Success -- A Lot of Luck?

[lpetrich]

The Role of Luck in Life Success Is Far Greater Than We Realized - Scientific American Blog Network

But is this assumption correct? I have spent my entire career studying the psychological characteristics that predict achievement and creativity. While I have found that a certain number of traits-- including passion, perseverance, imagination, intellectual curiosity, and openness to experience-- do significantly explain differences in success, I am often intrigued by just how much of the variance is often left unexplained.

In recent years, a number of studies and books--including those by risk analyst Nassim Taleb, investment strategist Michael Mauboussin, and economist Robert Frank-- have suggested that luck and opportunity may play a far greater role than we ever realized, across a number of fields, including financial trading, business, sports, art, music, literature, and science. Their argument is not that luck is everything; of course talent matters. Instead, the data suggests that we miss out on a really importance piece of the success picture if we only focus on personal characteristics in attempting to understand the determinants of success.

The article then continued with discussion of some recent research into simulated people with different levels of ability, people who experience a random assortment of lucky and unlucky events. If you’re so smart, why aren’t you rich? Turns out it’s just chance. - MIT Technology Review also discusses that work. After mentioning the notion that our society is some meritocratic utopia,

But there is a problem with this idea: while wealth distribution follows a power law, the distribution of human skills generally follows a normal distribution that is symmetric about an average value. For example, intelligence, as measured by IQ tests, follows this pattern. Average IQ is 100, but nobody has an IQ of 1,000 or 10,000.

The same is true of effort, as measured by hours worked. Some people work more hours than average and some work less, but nobody works a billion times more hours than anybody else.

And yet when it comes to the rewards for this work, some people do have billions of times more wealth than other people. What’s more, numerous studies have shown that the wealthiest people are generally not the most talented by other measures.

The work: [1802.07068] Talent vs Luck: the role of randomness in success and failure

In particular, we show that, if it is true that some degree of talent is necessary to be successful in life, almost never the most talented people reach the highest peaks of success, being overtaken by mediocre but sensibly luckier individuals. As to our knowledge, this counterintuitive result - although implicitly suggested between the lines in a vast literature - is quantified here for the first time.

 

[untermensche]

Anybody with half a brain can clearly see that Trump is not where he is because of superior intelligence.

In top down dictatorial systems being a self-centered asshole can make one very successful.

 

[lpetrich]

Here is a previous paper on this issue: PLoS ONE: Entrepreneurs, Chance, and the Deterministic Concentration of Wealth

In many economies, wealth is strikingly concentrated. Entrepreneurs–individuals with ownership in for-profit enterprises–comprise a large portion of the wealthiest individuals, and their behavior may help explain patterns in the national distribution of wealth. Entrepreneurs are less diversified and more heavily invested in their own companies than is commonly assumed in economic models. We present an intentionally simplified individual-based model of wealth generation among entrepreneurs to assess the role of chance and determinism in the distribution of wealth. We demonstrate that chance alone, combined with the deterministic effects of compounding returns, can lead to unlimited concentration of wealth, such that the percentage of all wealth owned by a few entrepreneurs eventually approaches 100%. Specifically, concentration of wealth results when the rate of return on investment varies by entrepreneur and by time. This result is robust to inclusion of realities such as differing skill among entrepreneurs. The most likely overall growth rate of the economy decreases as businesses become less diverse, suggesting that high concentrations of wealth may adversely affect a country's economic growth. We show that a tax on large inherited fortunes, applied to a small portion of the most fortunate in the population, can efficiently arrest the concentration of wealth at intermediate levels.

This means that both the Left and the Right can both be wrong about the origin of inequality. The Left maintains that it's due to rich people being crooked and/or unusually lucky, while the Right maintains that it's due to rich people being super geniuses and/or super Stakhanovites.

Wealth concentration can come about even if the simulated entrepreneurs are all equal in ability and/or willingness to do the necessary work. It assumes random fluctuations in investment returns, something that's a reasonable approximation of the real world, and it assumes compounding of invested money, also a reasonable approximation. It's the compounding that does it; it produces exponential growth of the wealth of anyone who is relatively lucky. What's more, it does not require unusual amounts of luck.

 

[untermensche]

This means that both the Left and the Right can both be wrong about the origin of inequality.

The left is correct about the causes. If you look at what thinkers on the left say.

They say it is because of man-made structures like the dictatorial power structures within large corporations.

This is what allows a few to get so much more from a corporation than others.

If corporations were run democratically there would be some with rare necessary talents that would get a little more but not hundreds of times more.

That takes absolute power at the top and a lot of delusion within a society.

 

[Treedbear]

If children would simply use better judgement in choosing their parents you would not need luck.

 

[TSwizzle]

It is interesting. I think anyone that has worked in a corporate environment has asked themselves "How the fuck did that incompetent dipshit rise to the top?" There are a lot of things at play in success. Timing (luck?) and cronyism has a lot of bearing. Sucking up to the boss helps for sure.

 

[dismal]

It is interesting. I think anyone that has worked in a corporate environment has asked themselves "How the fuck did that incompetent dipshit rise to the top?" There are a lot of things at play in success. Timing (luck?) and cronyism has a lot of bearing. Sucking up to the boss helps for sure.

80% of success is showing up (in the right clothes, and being passable at the office cultural stuff). This will get an average person to at least the VP level.

This assumes you also mastered "showing up" in high school and college.

 

[TSwizzle]

80% of success is showing up (in the right clothes, and being passable at the office cultural stuff). This will get an average person to at least the VP level.

This assumes you also mastered "showing up" in high school and college.

I would also add the ability to bullshit should never be underestimated. I can spot a bullshitter within 10 seconds but it would appear that my boss cannot.

 

[Politesse]

This means that both the Left and the Right can both be wrong about the origin of inequality. The Left maintains that it's due to rich people being crooked and/or unusually lucky, while the Right maintains that it's due to rich people being super geniuses and/or super Stakhanovites.

Is that what the Left thinks? I do not think that way; inherited wealth (and correspondingly, the likelihood of an individual being enabled to engage in entrepreneurial business) plays a major role in how I understand class relations. I have always supported inheritance taxes, and grow tired of being told that simply observing the reality of intergenerational privilege is somehow prejudicial against those so privileged.

Personally, I do not think this problem can be solved by a federal government; children inherit more than money from their parents, and for the very wealthy money itself can be a rather flexible and intangible concept. My "solutions" to the problem tend toward the implausible (Abolish the stock market! Land is a communal right!), so in the more practical sphere I tend to push projects of education and shared knowledge that will at least distribute better the praxis that gives someone a seat at the poker table, and any project that eases the life burden of those who do not have a seat.

 

[dismal]

80% of success is showing up (in the right clothes, and being passable at the office cultural stuff). This will get an average person to at least the VP level.

This assumes you also mastered "showing up" in high school and college.

I would also add the ability to bullshit should never be underestimated. I can spot a bullshitter within 10 seconds but it would appear that my boss cannot.

That's part of the office cultural stuff. Acting like the other people act. Wearing what the other people wear. Basic hygiene. Make more coffee when you get near the bottom.

 

[braces_for_impact]

I think the role of luck is minimized greatly by the right because of their (usually hypocritical) focus on personal responsibility and punishment. If you're rich it's because you deserve it and if you're poor it's because of something you did wrong or at least aren't doing right. They link wealth and ethical success. For many, I think this gives them a sense of control over their lives. If I do the right things and behave the correct way, success will come. The downside to this, of course, is that one tends to excuse or have "valid" reasons why they may need or even are entitled to assistance when others are not because clearly, they are poor due to some moral failing. This is why it seems like every conservative, Fox News watching "entrepreneur" seems to think they're right around the corner from being the next big millionaire, and thus vote as one.

The other dangerous side of this coin is that, like we see with Trump, wealthy people get a pass for doing things that others can not, and often, at least on the right, their motives are assumed to be "pure" from the beginning.

If the magic formula is 80 percent just showing up and schmoozing office politics and doing the same in school, if that TRULY worked, we'd be swimming in millionaires. Plenty of people would be willing to do that to be a millionaire, there are much worse ways to make much less. Beware a simplistic solution to a complex question.

 

[ronburgundy]

It is interesting. I think anyone that has worked in a corporate environment has asked themselves "How the fuck did that incompetent dipshit rise to the top?" There are a lot of things at play in success. Timing (luck?) and cronyism has a lot of bearing. Sucking up to the boss helps for sure.

80% of success is showing up (in the right clothes, and being passable at the office cultural stuff). This will get an average person to at least the VP level.

This assumes you also mastered "showing up" in high school and college.

The majority of people do those things and yet only a tiny minority are VPs. So that is obviously bullshit.

 

[dismal]

If the magic formula is 80 percent just showing up and schmoozing office politics and doing the same in school, if that TRULY worked, we'd be swimming in millionaires. Plenty of people would be willing to do that to be a millionaire, there are much worse ways to make much less. Beware a simplistic solution to a complex question.

I didn't suggest that will make you rich. But I believe it will get you to a six figure job.

And you say "plenty of people would be willing to do that " but I see many young people who don't, won't or can't do it.

Millions of people do it. It would be interesting to see the percentage of people who 1) Attend high school classes 99% of the time, 2) Go to a decent college, 3) major in something a company might demand (like accounting or marketing, not women's studies or russian cinema), 4) graduate college, 5) show up to work and put in a reasonable level of effort, 6) have a decent ability to dress like other people and engage in social situations, that don't end up making $100,000 at some point in their career. I'd be surprised if it's a high number.

 

[ronburgundy]

80% of success is showing up (in the right clothes, and being passable at the office cultural stuff). This will get an average person to at least the VP level.

The majority of people do those things and yet only a tiny minority are VPs. So that is obviously bullshit.

This assumes you also mastered "showing up" in high school and college.

And the ones that don't "show up" in college are mostly those unlucky enough to have been born into less wealth.

Random circumstance is the biggest factor in determining just about all variable outcomes in the natural world, and that includes SES outcomes. Even when it comes to evolution, variable rates of survival within members of a species are more influenced by random chance factors than by genetic fitness. Which is why population level shifts take many generations to have detectable effects.
Belief in a meritocracy is as idiotic and anti-science as young Earth creationism.

 

[dismal]

80% of success is showing up (in the right clothes, and being passable at the office cultural stuff). This will get an average person to at least the VP level.

The majority of people do those things

Cite?

 

[TSwizzle]

The other dangerous side of this coin is that, like we see with Trump, wealthy people get a pass for doing things that others can not, and often, at least on the right, their motives are assumed to be "pure" from the beginning.

Case in point, how the fuck did that asshole ever become wealthy ? He is the epitome of a bullshit merchant but he seems be taken seriously by people that should know better. He's fine as a game show presenter but a business man, a captain of industry ? The guy is a fucking moron. I suppose he got his start from his wealthy father and that gave him a leg up.

 

[Horatio Parker]

The other dangerous side of this coin is that, like we see with Trump, wealthy people get a pass for doing things that others can not, and often, at least on the right, their motives are assumed to be "pure" from the beginning.

Case in point, how the fuck did that asshole ever become wealthy ? He is the epitome of a bullshit merchant but he seems be taken seriously by people that should know better. He's fine as a game show presenter but a business man, a captain of industry ? The guy is a fucking moron. I suppose he got his start from his wealthy father and that gave him a leg up.

His big break came in the wake of NYC's brush with bankruptcy. The emphasis was changed from social services to "business development". Trump, with help from his father's connections, was in the right place at the right time with his Commodore hotel deal. He got a tax abatement worth over $300M. Later, in the casino business, he profited from the NJ Gaming Commissions unwillingness to take a blow to their prestige.

 

[braces_for_impact]

If the magic formula is 80 percent just showing up and schmoozing office politics and doing the same in school, if that TRULY worked, we'd be swimming in millionaires. Plenty of people would be willing to do that to be a millionaire, there are much worse ways to make much less. Beware a simplistic solution to a complex question.

I didn't suggest that will make you rich. But I believe it will get you to a six figure job.

And you say "plenty of people would be willing to do that " but I see many young people who don't, won't or can't do it.

Millions of people do it. It would be interesting to see the percentage of people who 1) Attend high school classes 99% of the time, 2) Go to a decent college, 3) major in something a company might demand (like accounting or marketing, not women's studies or russian cinema), 4) graduate college, 5) show up to work and put in a reasonable level of effort, 6) have a decent ability to dress like other people and engage in social situations, that don't end up making $100,000 at some point in their career. I'd be surprised if it's a high number.

Less than 20 percent of American households break six figures. Almost 40 percent of Americans hold at least a two-year college degree. Stats like these are easy to find. Are you now going to shift goalposts to a four-year degree? That's almost a third of Americans.

Look, I'll be the first to admit that there are many, many jobs out there that simply do not require a college degree, but employers require one nonetheless. But your 80 percent perspiration argument really just came out of your ass.

- - - Updated - - -

 

[braces_for_impact]

The other dangerous side of this coin is that, like we see with Trump, wealthy people get a pass for doing things that others can not, and often, at least on the right, their motives are assumed to be "pure" from the beginning.

Case in point, how the fuck did that asshole ever become wealthy ? He is the epitome of a bullshit merchant but he seems be taken seriously by people that should know better. He's fine as a game show presenter but a business man, a captain of industry ? The guy is a fucking moron. I suppose he got his start from his wealthy father and that gave him a leg up.

By almost all accounts I can find, he has been running his businesses into the ground since day one. He started out will quite a bit, and loans can help you out for awhile, but just when financial ruin was on the horizon, Trump has been mysteriously saved.

- - - Updated - - -

The other dangerous side of this coin is that, like we see with Trump, wealthy people get a pass for doing things that others can not, and often, at least on the right, their motives are assumed to be "pure" from the beginning.

Case in point, how the fuck did that asshole ever become wealthy ? He is the epitome of a bullshit merchant but he seems be taken seriously by people that should know better. He's fine as a game show presenter but a business man, a captain of industry ? The guy is a fucking moron. I suppose he got his start from his wealthy father and that gave him a leg up.

By almost all accounts I can find, he has been running his businesses into the ground since day one. He started out will quite a bit, and loans can help you out for awhile, but just when financial ruin was on the horizon, Trump has been mysteriously saved.

 

[dismal]

Less than 20 percent of American households break six figures. Almost 40 percent of Americans hold at least a two-year college degree. Stats like these are easy to find. Are you now going to shift goalposts to a four-year degree? That's almost a third of Americans.

I'm not "shifting goalposts". If you don't have a decent college degree, you didn't show up. That implies a 4 year degree from a decent school in a major that someone would actually want to hire. If you don't have this you have not "shown up" to be a corporate drone.

Look, I'll be the first to admit that there are many, many jobs out there that simply do not require a college degree, but employers require one nonetheless. But your 80 percent perspiration argument really just came out of your ass.

It's a Woody Allen quote, so not my ass.