Recently had yet another conversation with a friend who does not believe in luck.
Not win the lottery or miss a flight that crashes into the ocean sort of luck - he ironically believes in that sort of luck - in our conversation we were discussing whether or not luck plays a major role in being successful in a profession or field of endeavor.
Luck, he proclaimed (as have several other friends and acquaintances) has very little to do with a person's level of success in any given profession, and is usually an excuse that people who do not want to put in the time, effort, and energy needed to accomplish something use as a reason they are not able to do what billions of other people have done for millennia to achieve great things.
My counter was similar to my standard counter regarding conversations of this ilk. First off, I clarified that billions of people have not achieved great things throughout the course of human history. It is more likely to be in the thousands - maybe the hundred thousands, tops.
And that number depends completely on how "great things" are defined. IMHO, "great things" has to have a very high bar.
The general consensus as to what constitutes "great things" by an individual, at least according to the WWW, is that of being successful in at an endeavour at a level that less than 10% of those who attempt that same endeavour achieve. I disagree with that assessment, as I believe that the bar for "great things" is more like a level of .0001% of those that attempt the same endeavour.
It's a claim that is fairly easy to back up. Let's use a common indicator of success for a profession such as becoming a best-selling author. There have been millions of books written over the years (Google estimates that by 2010, at least 130 million books had been written) by millions of authors.
The New York Times started keeping track of best sellers on their NYT best sellers list in 1931. Know how many of the millions of books published in the first 50 years of the existence of the list reached number one?
484. That's four hundred and eighty-four. 16 less than 500. Factor in that writers such as Harold Robbins, Agatha Christie, Earle Stanley Gardner, & Irving Wallace had multiple #1 best sellers in those first 50 years, and it readily becomes apparent that achieving the level of greatness as defined by being at the top of the NYT best seller list is an incredibly rare accomplishment.
So why do I think that luck plays any part in a field such as writing books that become NYT best sellers?
Simple. For starters, the authors of every book that reached #1 had the good fortune to be born in a time and place where education was on offer, if not compulsory at least available, and everyone of those authors had the good fortune to have means to take advantage of those educational opportunities, whether they wanted to or not.
Second, the DNA that each of those authors inherited from their ancestors included the genes that formed creative imaginations and the compulsion to tell stories. And not just any stories, stories that grabbed the attention of strangers and compelled them to want to read them, and not just read them, but to buy them, own them as possessions.
That significance cannot be understated. As someone once said, there are a million stories in the big city...however, how many are actually interesting enough to put down on paper and be marketable is a whole 'nother...story.
I'll concede that writing a book can be chalked up to being a diligent student and acquiring a decent education (that includes learning the necessary elements of credible story telling), being able to put one's nose to the grindstone, and avoiding or effectively dealing with the distractions of everyday life, but to be able to do all that and not only get a publisher to want to print up 10,000 copies of that book, market it properly, and find a readership that will pony up the cash to buy it...well, that takes more than just a little luck. It takes a boatload, a large boatload.
I'll also concede that persevering through all the rejection notices and disinterest is a factor in a writers success, but perseverance is something that an individual has to either inherit or be taught.
Is stubbornness a product of nature or nurture? Discuss.
Now, one of the other aspects of my belief that luck is a major factor in success is that in any field of endeavour there is the very real possibility that one can be extraordinarily good at what they are doing, but what they are doing is not only not marketable, it is unnecessary.
For example, I have a friend who was one of the top ten airbrush artists in the commercial art field throughout the '80's and '90's. His talents/abilities were in constant demand. Over the last twenty years though, the need for airbrush artists dried up thanks to graphic imaging programs that can duplicate what he is able to do in 1/10 the time and expense.
Not being willing or able to learn the new way of creating commercial art, he made a career transition in the mid 2000's that allows him to earn a comfortable living (as an autobody repairman specialising in painting repaired cars), but he's nowhere near as successful (or happy) as he was when he was one of the kings of airbrush illustration.
Yeah, it's a stretch to use an accomplished airbrush artist as an example of someone who achieved great things, but it's undeniable in his chosen profession he did - then luck factored in...
There are so many more arguments that could be made that illustrate my point about how luck, good or bad, factors into one's ability to achieve success, especially on the "great things" level, they would (and do) becomes tiresome to the point of moot stultification.
So I will end this little rant with an agreement that it is necessary to work hard, to be dedicated and to persist to be successful...but to achieve "great things" ? That's where a bit of luck, or more likely, a great chunk of luck, is also needed.
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
