A lengthy post on how to achieve success! For free! No registration or SMS required! I just stumbled upon a scientific study proving that the role of chance in success is greater than that of talent. And this resonated with my belief that successful people are successful because they are lucky, not because they are extraordinarily talented, smart, or unusual. Rather on the contrary, they are so because they’ve been lucky. Note, not because they are “lucky ducks,” but because they’ve been lucky. These are different things.
Let me argue this. There’s a study “Talent vs Luck: the role of randomness in success and failure,” authors Alessandro Pluchino, Alessio Emanuele Biondo, and Andrea Rapisarda. Yes, the funny part is that Alessandro received the Ig Nobel Prize for this work (“a symbolic award for scientific discoveries that ‘first make people laugh, and then make them think'”). They used agent-based modeling to analyze the contributions of talent and luck to success.
As initial data, they took supposedly objective things: talent and intelligence are distributed among the population according to the normal (Gaussian) distribution, where most people have an average level of these qualities, and extreme values are rare, while wealth, often considered an indicator of success, follows the Pareto distribution (power law), where a small number of people own a significant portion of the resources, and the majority owns only a small share.
Further, the authors developed a simple model in which agents (1000) with varying levels of talent are exposed to random events over the hypothetical 40 years, which could be either favorable (luck) or unfavorable (misfortune). Each such event affects the “capital” of an agent, serving as a measure of his success.
Result: Though a certain level of talent is necessary to achieve success, it is often not the most talented individuals who become the most successful, but those with an average level of talent who experience more fortunate events. There is a strong correlation between the number of fortunate events and the level of success: the most successful agents are also the luckiest.
My observation of how the world works completely agrees with these conclusions. You just need to do things so that you’re more fortunate. That’s it. Don’t try to be the smartest—it doesn’t help as much as the following things do:
1) Being in environments where important events occur. Silicon Valley for startuppers. New York for financiers. Hollywood for actors. If an environment increases the chance of meeting “key” people, it makes sense to place oneself in that environment.
2) Creating more points of contact with the world and maintaining them. Running a blog, writing articles, giving interviews. Attending conferences, participating in communities. Calling and writing to acquaintances and semi-acquaintances, especially when such calls and letters are potentially important to them. Expanding the number of contacts—even if 99% are useless, 1% can change your life.
3) Increasing the number of attempts. The more projects, the higher the chance that one of them will “hit.” The best example – venture funds: they invest in dozens of startups, knowing that success will come from only one. Artists, writers, musicians create hundreds of works, knowing that only one will become a hit.
Unfortunately, for this point, you need to love your work. So choose a task where attempts are enjoyable.
Organizational psychologist Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic in his book “Why Do So Many Incompetent Men Become Leaders?” asserts that luck accounts for about 55% of success, including such factors as the place of birth and family wealth. This is true, but since you are sitting on Facebook on an iPhone with a cup of coffee and not herding cows in a loincloth in Africa, you already have pretty good initial conditions.
From here, an interesting conclusion — is it necessary to study at a university to achieve success in life? Look at the points above. Being in the right environment, creating more points of contact, increasing the number of attempts. Out of these three points, two work better in the case of face-to-face learning, while the third does not work well because the university consumes 4-5 years of life (and the university is one attempt). But the other two criteria are very important—during the period of study, the average student interacts with hundreds of peers, who can make a significant contribution to the likelihood of this student’s success.
But sitting at home with books for five years does not meet any criteria. Online education lies somewhere in between, see for yourself, it varies, but it’s closer to the option of “sitting with textbooks.”
The authors of the study confirmed the concept of “The Matthew Effect.” This is from the Bible: “For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath.” (Matthew 25:29). They explain why success accumulates even if it is initially random:
People who are fortunate in the early stages receive more resources, opportunities, and attention. This, in turn, increases their chances for new fortunate events. As a result, those who were initially in a better position continue to build on their success, while the rest lag behind.
This explains why wealthy people often receive profitable investments, popular artists become even more popular, and less known ones remain in the shadows, and companies that “hit the stream” attract more customers and resources than their less fortunate competitors.
That’s why success also requires following the principle of “Fake it till you make it.” Successful people often exaggerate their skills or achievements, and then catch up to the proclaimed level. Society easily forgives and quickly forgets such things, but when they work (and they often do), the person no longer really needs them. There’s also a self-fulfilling prophecy—the idea that if a person states something as a fact (even if it’s an exaggeration), they and those around them start behaving as if it’s true, and eventually, it becomes reality.
There’s also the principle of “there’s no harm in asking” (It doesn’t hurt to ask). The principle is that if the likelihood of success is increased by asking someone a question (“can you raise my salary starting in March or put me in charge of that project”), then it’s worth asking. You never know unless you ask.
And one more thing. Act now, apologize later. Actions speak louder than words. As you know, being at the right time in the right place not only involves the right place (this is the first point from my list), but also the right time. Therefore, just do it. People who don’t dream but act never end up homeless on the street because they rushed.
And finally. Time is a finite resource. There was a good idea about the sheet with squares—google “90 years of life in weeks.” You can color the lived weeks and look at the remaining ones.
So, in summary.
Success is determined by luck, not talent. Talent helps, but is often formed under the influence of success. Knowledge is useful, but experience is more valuable. Time is a finite resource. Planning doesn’t work, three things do:
1) being in an environment where important events occur,
2) creating more points of contact with the world and maintaining them,
3) increasing the number of attempts where luck might work.
Three principles:
1) Fake it till you make it
2) It doesn’t hurt to ask
3) Actions speak louder than words
Hi, I'm Rauf Aliev. 