Hacker News Reader

Comment by Joe-Z | Hacker News Reader

The kind that doesn't try to undermine every successful person born in a developed country ever?

I do believe that luck plays a huge role[0], but I get GP's point and I think it's fair.

[0] I think what really drives it home for me is not knowing successful people, but knowing people for who it didn't work out, despite them seemingly making all the right moves.

View on HN

It's not about developed/undeveloped. It's about the possibility of your talents being utilised in the place where you were born.

Let's say you have the potential to be a great cricketer, but you're born in a country where cricket is not even played.

You're SOL.

Or you (the great cricketer) could be born in India and be a millionaire by 20.

Great point! When typing my reply I actually wasn't sure about using 'developed countries' as the term, but it was the one that came to me fastest. In a discussion further down the thread I just called it 'country of origin', maybe using something like that would have been more fitting.

> The kind that doesn't try to undermine every successful person born in a developed country ever?

Ok, so let's hear it?

Well, I guess you could always define it as the events outside of the agent’s control that unfolded after she’s decided on and taken the first step towards her goal

This way a casino player would still be lucky if she wins (but not in the ‚oh my gosh, how lucky are you that there exists a casino in the first place!‘-sense) and a successful person could still have her achievements honored even though there happened a lot of stuff before she entered the stage (like, ‚how „lucky“ was Newton that he didn‘t have to start from scratch, right?!‘)

Thanks for the answer. Honestly, that definition feels contrived to me.

I think the premise is simply not correct - that involvement of luck undermines personal achievement. Especially when many people get to be in the same lucky conditions, but only some of them achieve success.

I understand that instinctual reaction of many will be to significantly downplay others' personal achievements based on perceived involvement of their lucky circumstances. We see that sentiment often here on HN. But it should be countered by asserting that it is a silly way to look at things, not by defining "luck" in a weird way.

But what about the distinction between luck and privilege?

Aren‘t circumstances like country of origin, financial situation of one‘s parents or genetic disposition more commonly referred to as privilege?

> Aren‘t circumstances like country of origin, financial situation of one‘s parents or genetic disposition more commonly referred to as privilege?

Perhaps they are in the US, but not where I live, so I'm not used to making that distinction. And even if common, I'm not sure it is a useful distinction.

If I were feeling cynical, I would say that privilege seems to be the kind of luck you're supposed to feel bad for having. Maybe that is useful for rising awareness of certain societal problems, but I'm not yet convinced.

I guess the little less cynical interpretation would be that privilege is the kind of luck that you should be thankful for having :)

This was an interesting discussion. Thank you and have a nice weekend!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com