I'm now convinced survivor bias needs to be taught in kindergarden and every year thereafter.
I've actually studied acting for years. I've seen a lot of terrible actors and people who are good and struggle to get parts.
On observation. One of the biggest things to being a good actor or at least not a terrible actor is to learn that acting is much more about reacting. Learning to listen. Stop reciting lines, and instead LISTEN to the other people on stage and their needs and desires. Then react to those. A good actor could forget all their lines and still get through a scene because they can just react in character to what's going on around them.
James, as you can imagine from this article, was awesome at just listening. He didn't start out as a great actor but this quality definitely helped get him there.
On taking chances. I know some good actors who are baristas right now when not acting. When James needed money as a starting actor he was helping other actors recite lines, cleaning actors dressing rooms, even washing their cars. Which do you think will get you more possibilities for "luck", making coffee for random Joes, or helping Marlon Brando with lines?
But I agree with you that there are a lot of people trying and they'll never be as successful as James. But I also know a lot of people who won't ever as successful as they want because they do so little to find new opportunities. Also, the article wasn't titled, how to be as successful as James Garner, but was meant to point out some things Wiseman has found "lucky" people (not necessary James Garners) doing that "unlucky" people aren't.
If you were asked on the spot to name the names of a few acquaintances(not people you know, only people you know of), you'd probably name those who pepper your life most often. Now if those people made it known that they're fisherman or actors or really into painting or programming or etc. Then the next time someone asks "Hey you know of any good programmers? You know of anyone interested in painting? You know...etc"; you'll be able to say yeah I know a guy, he washes my car every other week. It works out for you(because you recommended a person) and it works out for the other person because they get a shot at doing something they love.
James Garner allowed himself to seep into the consciousness of as many people as he could so they'd associated him with what he loved; smart move.
A corollary may be that the more people that know what you love, the more you become a person who loves that thing; both personally(mentally associating yourself as an actor/writer/programmer/etc) and professionally("Yeah, James he's an actor. Ben wants to be a painter. Sheila is trying to be a cartoonist").
There's this TED talk on "manufactured happiness", where they talk about people who experienced devastating opportunity losses and considered themselves happier because of it. It then talks about the concept of the hedonic treadmill, how no matter what happens good or bad in a person's life (barring traumatic experiences that cause mental disorders), a person will, over time, return to a baseline happiness level. This is shown to be the case with people that have won the lottery, and with amputees.
The article shows how people that consider themselves lucky are empirically more observant, more focused, and more grateful. The article also explores the possibility that people considering themselves lucky could cause those individuals to be given more opportunities. For me, the answer is an obvious yes: The Secret is bullshit, but exuding a positive, loving, grateful vibe to those around you, even in the face of personal hardship, causes more good things to come your way, simply because people notice you more and want to be around you.
"Wiseman also found lucky people go out of there way to try new things and meet new people."
You need to factor in looks as well. No doubt a good looking man or woman has an easier time getting people to like them (both men and women). And that helps a great deal with luck. Not insurmountable by any means. But a big plus. I'm not talking about looks landing you a job (or an agent approaching you) but just looks being a way to make more people want to hang with you or help you or invite you to a party where you meet others (could say the same thing about being funny or any number of qualities that people differ on).
Example: I helped a woman with some business things that I met in a Starbucks. She was attractive. I didn't do it to "score" with her (she was married and much younger not saying I wouldn't have wanted to of course) but simply because she was pleasant to look at and seemed approachable. And it made me feel good to be around her. I can't say that I would have been so nice if she were not as attractive as she was. Or older.
I guess the point is that looking at the .01% of successful people and ignoring all others who didn't succeed will give you a very biased view of what's necessary to succeed.
No one lives in a bubble.
NPR has this segment where they say there were only about 1000 people in the world who were in a position to start Microsoft like Gates was. He's very lucky in be in that 1000. But of those 1000 only 2 founded Microsoft. The rest didn't want or bother or care or see it.
Almost in the same way that I would imagine teenage girls are obsessed with why some girls are popular and they aren't.
Vacuous rhetoric is a waste of everyone's time.
If you don't examine the failures then you can't determine if this is the case, and you might fall foul to the logical error of survivorship bias, as has already been mentioned.
edit: changed "an important role" to "a role", given that lack of a "clean" distinction could be of any magnitude.