The cost of appliances was much higher in the "good ol' days".

For comparison.

Without doubt. I remember the first VCR we ever had. It cost $800 (I don't even want to think about what today's equivalent would be) about 40 years ago. But over the years I have bought probably ten different VCR players and all of them have been thrown away. about 20 years ago I gave my parents a new one and they gave me that old one; I still have it and it still works fine. But it has no neat features, such as a remote or a pause (while displaying the frame). It's also a big, heavy behemoth and can only provide an NTSC signal on either channel 3 or channel 4. Hence why I've bought others.

Frankly, I'd be more than willing to pay $800 or perhaps even a bit more for a DVD/BD player that I had confidence would continue to work properly for at least 10 years. It would be a lot cheaper over the long run than paying $150 for ones that have never made it more than a year without developing problems and have often not made it a month before failing completely. But I simply have no idea which brand, if any, I can expect to get good quality and reasonably long life from.

My first player that I bought, in 1995, was a Sony and it lasted just shy of ten years. As I was focused on paying my house off at the time I bought a cheap unit that I only needed to have work for a couple years. It didn't even make it all the way through the first DVD. So I went without anything until I had the house paid off. I bought a Sony player (and also a receiver and sound system). The receiver had problems right out of the box but I could live with them and the player lasted about a year. Bought another Sony to maintain compatibility and it lasted about as long. The one we have currently is a replacement for one that lasted a week. This one went less than three months before developing the habit of simply shutting down at random and losing all of its memory so that you have to start the disk from scratch including all the warning information. Sometimes it will go a week without doing it and other times it will do it six or more times over the course of a single movie. But we've been living with it because we are trying to pay off this house and because I don't know that I can expect any better experience from anything else I get to replace it.

 

Talent vs Luck: the role of randomness in success and failure

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1802.07068.pdf

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/...rent-you-rich-turns-out-its-just-chance/?set=

The distribution of wealth follows a well-known pattern sometimes called an 80:20 rule: 80 percent of the wealth is owned by 20 percent of the people. Indeed, a report last year concluded that just eight men had a total wealth equivalent to that of the world’s poorest 3.8 billion people.

This seems to occur in all societies at all scales. It is a well-studied pattern called a power law that crops up in a wide range of social phenomena. But the distribution of wealth is among the most controversial because of the issues it raises about fairness and merit. Why should so few people have so much wealth?

 

Talent vs Luck: the role of randomness in success and failure

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1802.07068.pdf

Yeah, I've always known that luck is a determining factor in one's success... something that successful people are normally very reluctant to admit...

 

Yeah, I've always known that luck is a determining factor in one's success... something that successful people are normally very reluctant to admit...

What IS luck?

 

What IS luck?

Something you can't control but hopefully can take advantage of if it happens to you by recognizing what it means and how to exploit it.

 

What IS luck?

Something you can't control but hopefully can take advantage of if it happens to you by recognizing what it means and how to exploit it.

ditto ...

 

Something you can't control but hopefully can take advantage of if it happens to you by recognizing what it means and how to exploit it.

So if someone recognizes that people might like a way of holding onto their smart phone or tablet securely with one hand and then researches the market and determines that no such product currently exists or that they have an idea of a better one and then they design a product and spend countless hours while working an unrelated full time job to determine the feasibility and economics of producing the product and then they spend the time and money to go to trade shows and show their product to hundreds of potential customers and finally they start getting orders from enough people to justify taking the risk to set up production facilities and the product takes off and they start generating a nice revenue stream from it, that's all because of "luck" since they couldn't control that people might like a way of holding onto their smart phone or tablet securely with one hand?

So, what ISN'T luck?

 

So if someone recognizes that people might like a way of holding onto their smart phone or tablet securely with one hand and then researches the market and determines that no such product currently exists or that they have an idea of a better one and then they design a product and spend countless hours while working an unrelated full time job to determine the feasibility and economics of producing the product and then they spend the time and money to go to trade shows and show their product to hundreds of potential customers and finally they start getting orders from enough people to justify taking the risk to set up production facilities and the product takes off and they start generating a nice revenue stream from it, that's all because of "luck" since they couldn't control that people might like a way of holding onto their smart phone or tablet securely with one hand?

So, what ISN'T luck?

So, are you saying that only variables that are non-random are the keys to success in this hypothetical case? Is there a deterministic formula for eliminating luck, serendipity, etc .. from talent and hard work when the feedback's from all factors are a vitally important random effect? I ask this because there are thousands of products, inventions, songs yearly with huge amounts of market research from well financed companies that might be just as 'useful' as that product that fail because of reasons beyond our best controls. I see scams for success algorithms everywhere, just do this, do that and boom. I might be conservative but I'm also realistic about how fickle and non-deterministic life is.

 

there are thousands of products, inventions, songs yearly with huge amounts of market research from well financed companies that might be just as 'useful' as that product that fail

Adding to that, let's not forget that there are also many inventions and discoveries out there that are the product of a fortunate series of random events ... aka: luck

 

Adding to that, let's not forget that there are also many inventions and discoveries out there that are the product of a fortunate series of random events ... aka: luck

I know, look at the discovery of LSD-25.

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/09/the-accidental-discovery-of-lsd/379564/

In a sense Hofmann was playing God, combining lysergic acid with various other organic molecules just to see what happened. He created 24 of these lysergic acid combinations. Then he created the 25th, reacting lysergic acid with diethylamine, a derivative of ammonia. The compound was abbreviated as LSD-25 for the purposes of laboratory testing.

He had hoped for something that could stimulate circulation and respiration. But his hopes were dashed, though the research report noted in passing that the experimental animals became highly excited during testing. “The new substance, however, aroused no special interest in our pharmacologists and physicians; testing was therefore discontinued.”

But just 40 minutes after that initial dose, he wrote the one and only entry in his lab journal:

17:00: Beginning dizziness, feeling of anxiety, visual distortions, symptoms of paralysis, desire to laugh.
...
By the time his wife arrived home, Hofmann was able to speak coherently about what happened to him. The next morning he wrote:

Everything glistened and sparkled in a fresh light. The world was as if newly created. All my senses vibrated in a condition of highest sensitivity, which persisted for the entire day.

Serendipity for sure.

 

I know, look at the discovery of LSD-25.

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/09/the-accidental-discovery-of-lsd/379564/

To further clarify. My point is: of course it's not only luck. A positive fortuitous event has to be accompanied by someone who is prepared to recognize the opportunity being presented. And likewise, even the most prepared of professionals can take a huge throw-back due to circumstances beyond his control, and miss a huge chance at success.

 

Talent vs Luck: the role of randomness in success and failure

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1802.07068.pdf

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/...rent-you-rich-turns-out-its-just-chance/?set=

I highly recommend the book Fooled by Randomness, if you are interested in this topic. I also recommend The Black Swan by the same author although that one can be a little tedious at times.

 

So, are you saying that only variables that are non-random are the keys to success in this hypothetical case? Is there a deterministic formula for eliminating luck, serendipity, etc .. from talent and hard work when the feedback's from all factors are a vitally important random effect? I ask this because there are thousands of products, inventions, songs yearly with huge amounts of market research from well financed companies that might be just as 'useful' as that product that fail because of reasons beyond our best controls. I see scams for success algorithms everywhere, just do this, do that and boom. I might be conservative but I'm also realistic about how fickle and non-deterministic life is.

I'm talking in the context of the quote used to spur this part of the discussion -- basically that success isn't due to talent nearly as much as it is about being "lucky", and so why should people that are "lucky" have wealth and people that aren't wealthy be punished just because they didn't happen to be "lucky"?

It's just the same old pretext for justifying wealth redistribution.

 

So if someone recognizes that people might like a way of holding onto their smart phone or tablet securely with one hand and then researches the market and determines that no such product currently exists or that they have an idea of a better one and then they design a product and spend countless hours while working an unrelated full time job to determine the feasibility and economics of producing the product and then they spend the time and money to go to trade shows and show their product to hundreds of potential customers and finally they start getting orders from enough people to justify taking the risk to set up production facilities and the product takes off and they start generating a nice revenue stream from it, that's all because of "luck" since they couldn't control that people might like a way of holding onto their smart phone or tablet securely with one hand?

So, what ISN'T luck?

I have thought a great deal about this issue.

“Luck” is the subjective value (positive or negative) assigned to a particular outcome that has occurred when multiple possible outcomes were believed to be possible. The subjective valuation can be made by both the actor and the observers.

Sometimes the term is used when evaluating the outcome that occurs in a random choice situation: Drawing to an inside straight or hitting the lottery.

Many times it is used as some kind of rationale for the impact of the outcome only. It was just luck that he was in the right place at the right time.

Serendipity is not well defined either. Some definitions are essentially synonymous with luck. In science, the definition stresses that something was found, when not looking specifically for it: the phenomenon of finding valuable or agreeable things not sought for.

I think it is often nonsensical to assign “luck” to a truly random outcome. To illustrate: the definition of a completely random outcome is that each possible outcome had an equal chance of occurrence. It is nonsensical, therefore, to make the attribution that the random process was somehow influenced by a nonrandom process.

A synthetic chemist systematically investigating compounds and unintentionally exposing himself is not luck, that the exposure resulted in a particular finding is serendipitous – he had not intended to expose himself.

The unscrupulous chemist who first made and unleashed MPTP on drug abusers was not a matter of luck. It is serendipity because he was not trying to create a neurotoxin relatively specific to dopamine in a way that strikingly mimics Parkinsonism.

I'm sure you have heard the saying that given enough monkeys banging away on enough typewriters, one will eventually write the works of Shakespeare? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem
I would not call that monkey lucky (or a writer).

Sometimes we decide that someone was just “lucky” in an attempt to minimize an accomplishment (or maybe just an outcome that is called an accomplishment). The appropriate comeback is: “The harder I work, the luckier I get”.

I think that it is human nature to try and maintain the idea of an ordered universe. Causation is a requirement for the development of a species. We are wired to see causation and that is a very important and valuable characteristic. We need to believe that things happen for a reason. Learning is based on that principle. We learn to “behave” because we believe that behavior has consequences that are linked to the behavior.

Maybe there is always causation, but our recognition skills in that regard are very limited. When we can’t see the causation, or we don’t want to see it, we look elsewhere.

Truth is I really do not have much use for the word “luck”.

 

I highly recommend the book Fooled by Randomness, if you are interested in this topic. I also recommend The Black Swan by the same author although that one can be a little tedious at times.

Thanks. People often like to think they were in control of complex events after the fact but the truth is the most of the time we are subconsciously winging it just a little bit ahead of events even with the best laid plans. The ability to make sometimes intelligent choices from streams of ambiguous, chaotic and at times totally random information is both the strength and weakness of being human.

 

Thanks. People often like to think they were in control of complex events after the fact but the truth is the most of the time we are subconsciously winging it just a little bit ahead of events even with the best laid plans.

What's more, we sometimes treat such individuals as Geniuses. Somebody calls a big stock market move in a newsletter and it happens. Now he is a stock market genius. Nobody goes around tracking the performance and actually evaluating the accuracy.

Somebody's brackets are going to hit in a few weeks. They are not necessarily geniuses.

This happens everywhere and all the time. I used to call it the Jeanne Dixon effect.

If you look at simple foraging experiments in animals. They set up a number of locations where food is available with various probabilities. Animals are very good at figuring it out and their behavior shows that.

We are good at figure it out also, but we seem to have a cognitive override that engages all to easily.

I think simple, basic probability should be taught in elementary school - and from there on.

 

I'm talking in the context of the quote used to spur this part of the discussion -- basically that success isn't due to talent nearly as much as it is about being "lucky", and so why should people that are "lucky" have wealth and people that aren't wealthy be punished just because they didn't happen to be "lucky"?

It's just the same old pretext for justifying wealth redistribution.

Sure, some will try to use it as a foolish justification for wealth redistribution that will never work but to deny that 'luck' doesn't have a significant part in the high end of success in any field leads to a misguided history of how they got there.

 

It's just the same old pretext for justifying wealth redistribution.

Actually, I was thinking more in terms of disadvantages due to innate disabilities ... like down syndrome, and cerebral palsy ... I think luckier people have an obligation of helping others that were not so blessed ... other than that, to each his own...

 

...punished just because they didn't happen to be "lucky"?

I would like my casino losses distributed amongst the winners.

 

I would like my casino losses distributed amongst the winners.

I just want my money back from last time. I'm heading to Vegas on April fools day on a comped trip. "I Should Be So Lucky", right?