"luck"

Suppose Bill Gates had an identical twin brother, Walter.  And suppose that Bill and Walter had identical interests, shared identical experiences.  Suppose they were even identically driven.

Now suppose that one day many years ago, something split the brothers.  Perhaps they were waiting together at a bus stop, and a nearly-full bus pulled up.  Only one brother can get on the bus, and the other must wait for the next bus.

And let's suppose that this moment of separation had occurred at a key point in time, and that as a result it was Walter, instead of Bill, who went on to be the Gates who founded Microsoft.

Jonathan Chait devotes several paragraphs of his Ayn Rand "book report" to the role luck plays in achievement.  If Chait read my supposition about the Gates brothers, he could hold it up as evidence that luck made Bill Gates, and that without luck we would be saying someone else's name -- in this case, Walter's -- when we mention the founder of the world's premier software company.

But Chait's explanation never explores a critical question, one that really leaves his "conclusion" invalid: What would have happened to Bill Gates? 

You see, the issue is not a matter of whether "bad luck" would have stopped Bill Gates from founding Microsoft.  The real question is whether not being fortunate enough to found Microsoft would have stopped Bill Gates.  By Chait's reasoning, not winning the Gates lottery -- failing to be the Gates brother who transformed the world -- would have been the perfect excuse for Bill Gates to go on and become a dissatisfied blue collar union grunt on some assembly line.

And who honestly thinks that would have happened?  Does anyone believe the man who founded Microsoft would have failed to achieve simply because somebody else beat him to that particular task?  Microsoft arguably defeated Apple in the computer market -- does anyone honestly believe Steve Jobs curses Bill Gates for just being "lucky"?

If you want to understand why the left must include luck in their accounting for success, then all that's necessary is to imagine that it had been you, instead of Bill Gates, at any of the critical moments that defined his career.  Perhaps you'd been the person who studied computers as a teenager in the seventies.  Or maybe you'd been one of the other computer whiz-kids with an opportunity to patch together an operating system for IBM's original PC.  Believing that "luck" accounts for Bill Gates' success means believing that if it had simply been you instead, then today you would have built what Bill Gates has built.

And while you may be better than me, I am no Bill Gates.  There is no doubt in my mind that, had I been there at any of those moments instead of Bill Gates, then at some point I would have led the train down a considerably different track than Gates did, and that I would have failed to make the most of the opportunity that Gates made of it.

But suppose you are like Gates.  Let's say that, unlike me, it really is within you to do what Gates did.  There are two implications to this: First, it is therefore "luck" which separates you from Bill Gates.  That is the only conclusion that Jonathan Chait and other liberals want everyone to draw.

But if you really are like Bill Gates -- or even if you are merely like me -- then you will see the second implication of being like Bill Gates:  You can and will achieve, but you will simply have to do something that Gates has not already done.  And that's good, because we already have what Gates gave us anyway.

Liberalism's real use for luck is as an excuse.  When you can attribute achievement to "luck," then you can claim "social justice" when you steal the rewards of achievement. 

And of course, as a liberal, "luck" allows you to blame your own miserable failure -- even your own mediocrity -- on something other than yourself.  Or, ironically, you can just blame it on Bill Gates.

That's the John Galt Line.

Comments

[TQ]

Well if you read Malcolm Gladwell's account of Bill Gates rise to fame and fortune, it's not so much luck but historical contingency. A unique line of unrelated events led to Gates being in the right place at the right time (in Gladwell's narrative, the two big things being access to a computer in high school and access to computers at the University of Washington). I suppose you can call that luck, but there were lots of people who grew up in the same neighborhood and under the same circumstances as Gates and they didn't grow up to innovate a new industry. Where Gladwell's narrative diverges sharply from the luck hypothesis is that he recounts Gates obsessive drive to program and the countless hours and self-discipline he put into mastering programming.

Throughout "Outliers" the story is more or less the same: exceptional people happen to be fortuitous enough to be in the right circumstances and their talent and drive allows them to succeed amazingly. Gladwell, I think, plays up the luck angle, despite his insistence on the "10,000 hour rule" (e.g. it takes at least 10,000 hours of disciplined practice to get good at anything). But I found the take home message of the book to be that, yes, circumstances are important (and often beyond your control), but that drive and talent matters more. Most people are not good at most things because they lack the drive to put in the 10,000 hours. That is what makes these individual outliers, not the circumstances of their birth.

In your hypothetical experiment what would happen is that the Gates twin removed from his fortuitous upbringing in Washington would have been successful nonetheless. Clearly Gates is a man who will put in the hours. If there wasn't a computer around, his twin would have put in the hours doing something else. That the hypothetical Gates twin wouldn't have founded Microsoft and become the wealthiest man in the world is irrelevant really--he would have still been a very successful person (although perhaps only a modest millionaire). Success only appears to be luck because a particular person was able to take advantage of a situation that many others failed to take advantage of. Gladwell makes much of Chris Langan, possibly the smartest person in the world in terms of raw brain power, and also amazingly unsuccessful in life. He blames much of Langan's failures on his unfortunate upbringing and having been born into poverty. This is a pretty ridiculous argument though, as we know many people in history have been born into poverty and unfortunate circumstances and find a way to succeed. In fact, Gladwell argues that the man with the 200 IQ got kicked out of college for financial reasons because he couldn't figure out how to get financial aid. And he couldn't figure it out because of his upbringing. This, of course, is absurd. Langan failed because he's lazy and undisciplined and probably needed a lot of therapy (again, which he could have sought out).

Luck then merely turns out to be, as Seneca pointed out 2000 years ago, when preparation meets opportunity.

[John Galt]

Excellent, TQ.

In fact, my first draft of the post started with Seneca's quote -- and an observation that an axiom which has endured for 2000 years should not be dismissed lightly.

[J Green]

Nicely put, TQ. Although in regards to Langan, he's definitely not lazy, undisciplined or a failure - simply objective and a prime example of a Gates twin who did something else.

[hiscross]

The only thing Gates invented was the Basic programming language. He was and remains a person of who grew up with money. He used it wisely, but built the "Banner". Steve Jobs built real innovation. Steve has always seen what Gates can never see and that is craftsmanship. Howard Roark or John Galt would only use a Mac, but they could see the difference. That isn’t luck, but knowledge. Jobs builds products that people can use, Gates has people who buy his products. There is no such thing as Luck.

[John Green]

hiscross, you've just written something that's entirely arguable with no commonly accepted factual basis leaving only your opinion as the weight of its backing. Rather than spawn a long winded Software/Hardware debate, I'II just say that I think I gather somewhat what you're trying to say in regards to luck, but I don't agree that luck is non-existent.

If you want to do something with your life, and you have bad luck it's very rare that luck stops you. It may make things more difficult it may even make things easier. For the vast majority probability dictates that they will have a share of good and bad luck in regards to whatever it is they are pursuing with their lives. Now for 99% of people, if they give up it's not because they had bad luck that could not be overcome, it's simply because they decided in the face of adversity that they did not want to continue - most people will blame anything but themselves, unfortunately for 99% of us, we only have ourselves to blame.

[hiscross]

John Green, my point is that things don't just happen, but are produced by events that play out in our lives. Gates didn't use luck to build Microsoft and either did Jobs use luck to build Apple. They used their God given ability to think. Gates had money from the start (his father is a successful lawyer) and Jobs worked his butt off along with some really talented people who wanted to work with him. It is often quoted that 3% of the people in the world make things happen 2% can make things happen, but loot from the 3% and 95% only go along for the ride (until their gas runs out and then they use bad luck for an excuse). I stand by my statement that luck doesn't exist.

[jouer casino]

Il était intéressant à lire! Avant, je ne savais rien sur l'histoire de ces entreprises! Curieux!

[John Galt]

Don't take it trop literalment, jouer. C'est un supposition.