Is Success Luck or Hard Work?...

[Scott Mayers]

YouTube linked me to Veritasium's video, and I'm forwarding it here: "Is Success Luck or Hard Work?".

For all political discussions that go on here, this video presents a careful look at whether luck or effort matters more to one's success. I already shared this view and have promoted all the ideas in parts of my own arguments everywhere. Veritasium did a better job at summarizing this and explains with scientific rationality.

What are your thoughts? Did you CHANGE any view after watching?

[vegetariantaxidermy]

How are you defining 'success'? Would that be the American definition i.e. how much money you have?

[Age]

YouTube linked me to Veritasium's video, and I'm forwarding it here: "Is Success Luck or Hard Work?".

For all political discussions that go on here, this video presents a careful look at whether luck or effort matters more to one's success.

Is EVERY individual case of so-called 'success' the EXACT SAME, are they ALL DIFFERENT, or are there SOME cases that are the EXACT SAME and DIFFERENT?

One would HAVE TO PICK one example of so-called 'success', and then LOOK AT ALL of the circumstances that led up to that, perceived, 'success'.

I already shared this view and have promoted all the ideas in parts of my own arguments everywhere. Veritasium did a better job at summarizing this and explains with scientific rationality.

What were 'your ideas' and 'arguments' regarding 'this'?

What are your thoughts?

The human being known as "derek muller" comes across as confident in what 'it' is SAYING and CLAIMING. But, is this because "derek muller" ONLY does what 'it' does on 'youtube videos' for money and/or fame, which some class as and call 'success', or for other reasons or a combination of reasons?

Did you CHANGE any view after watching?

Not really, but watching that video just made me recall those occurrences, which I had already previously realized were because of luck, of not being lucky, from what I had actually done/achieved, and/or from what I had actually not done/achieved.

[Impenitent]

"No victor believes in luck." - Nietzsche

-Imp

[trokanmariel]

There are the arenas of talent, which can be applied to the symbolism inference modus.

[RCSaunders]

How are you defining 'success'? Would that be the American definition i.e. how much money you have?

That's your definition. I didn't know you were an American.

I know a few people in America. None of them define success in terms of money at all. How many Americans do you know who have that opinion?

[Pardon me, but your prejudices are showing.]

[Scott Mayers]

How are you defining 'success'? Would that be the American definition i.e. how much money you have?

The linked youTube video wasn't sufficient context? "Success" is understood to be to acheive ones' personal goals, regardless of what they are. Given money, or rather, 'worth', is the most common measure we can share, "success" is often related to it and suffices as a standard to measure other forms of success in general.

People who generally 'succeed' by some predisposed economic advantage ('luck' in the video) tend to tell others that 'success' is earned by one's virtue (hard work). But they are projecting what they want you to think of their own success: as though it is unrelated to accident nor their predisposed wealth.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

How are you defining 'success'? Would that be the American definition i.e. how much money you have?

The linked youTube video wasn't sufficient context? "Success" is understood to be to acheive ones' personal goals, regardless of what they are. Given money, or rather, 'worth', is the most common measure we can share, "success" is often related to it and suffices as a standard to measure other forms of success in general.

People who generally 'succeed' by some predisposed economic advantage ('luck' in the video) tend to tell others that 'success' is earned by one's virtue (hard work). But they are projecting what they want you to think of their own success: as though it is unrelated to accident nor their predisposed wealth.

I couldn't be bothered listening to him. What a load of frivolous bollocks.

[Scott Mayers]

How are you defining 'success'? Would that be the American definition i.e. how much money you have?

That's your definition. I didn't know you were an American.

I know a few people in America. None of them define success in terms of money at all. How many Americans do you know who have that opinion?

[Pardon me, but your prejudices are showing.]

Actually, all people do anywhere but the U.S. most signficantly symbolizes success in terms of 'worth' using relative currency, even if one is not actually directly dealing with money.. "Financial independence" is the word often used to try to redirect the attention of this to the power one has in acheiving whatever they want without concern for money. But it is coimplied and such misdirection is usually about some con, like one trying to trivialize the value of money while they are stealing it. Money is our shared expression of stored/potential energy [when money is being spent, energy is being expended.]

Success at minimal is merely getting whatever you want for wanting it, even if it might be one's personal preference to live without anything of common value. If monetary value is not of one's apparent interest though, such 'financial independence' likely costs someone else for their apparent capacity to access their will so freely.

[Scott Mayers]

How are you defining 'success'? Would that be the American definition i.e. how much money you have?

The linked youTube video wasn't sufficient context? "Success" is understood to be to acheive ones' personal goals, regardless of what they are. Given money, or rather, 'worth', is the most common measure we can share, "success" is often related to it and suffices as a standard to measure other forms of success in general.

People who generally 'succeed' by some predisposed economic advantage ('luck' in the video) tend to tell others that 'success' is earned by one's virtue (hard work). But they are projecting what they want you to think of their own success: as though it is unrelated to accident nor their predisposed wealth.

I couldn't be bothered listening to him. What a load of frivolous bollocks.

But how would you know it was bull shit* if you didn't watch it?

*I charitably translated this to more humble down-to-earth expression we use in North America. Using language like "...frivolous bollocks," to us in North America sounds stereotypically haughty (hoity toity?) and smug as though said by Mr. Burns from the Simpsons.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

The linked youTube video wasn't sufficient context? "Success" is understood to be to acheive ones' personal goals, regardless of what they are. Given money, or rather, 'worth', is the most common measure we can share, "success" is often related to it and suffices as a standard to measure other forms of success in general.

People who generally 'succeed' by some predisposed economic advantage ('luck' in the video) tend to tell others that 'success' is earned by one's virtue (hard work). But they are projecting what they want you to think of their own success: as though it is unrelated to accident nor their predisposed wealth.

I couldn't be bothered listening to him. What a load of frivolous bollocks.

But how would you know it was bull shit* if you didn't watch it?

*I charitably translated this to more humble down-to-earth expression we use in North America. Using language like "...frivolous bollocks," to us in North America sounds stereotypically haughty (hoity toity?) and smug as though said by Mr. Burns from the Simpsons.

I saw the first few seconds and that was enough. Why would I care what he thinks? I suppose many things sound 'hoity toity' to those with a severely limited vocabulary.

[Scott Mayers]

I couldn't be bothered listening to him. What a load of frivolous bollocks.

But how would you know it was bull shit* if you didn't watch it?

*I charitably translated this to more humble down-to-earth expression we use in North America. Using language like "...frivolous bollocks," to us in North America sounds stereotypically haughty (hoity toity?) and smug as though said by Mr. Burns from the Simpsons.

I saw the first few seconds and that was enough. Why would I care what he thinks? I suppose many things sound 'hoity toity' to those with a severely limited vocabulary.

It was the irony that the WAY you said it as though atypical response of the one guilty of just such 'luck' but deluded into thinking they somehow earned all they have absolutely independent of others' roles in contributing more significantly to such prosperity.

The argument was demonstrated statistically and very logically. There is no doubt about it beyond one's religious or emotive reluctance to accept it of themselves. He also argues how evolution still favors us deluding ourselves necessarily if only to maintain the motivation to keep trying even against the odds.

Since I am arguing against issues within capitalism that creates problems based upon our dependence upon deception, I referenced this separately. If you disagree, what arguments do you have as a counter defence? ....or are you just evading what you know this might lead to if you had to argue it rationally?

[Scott Mayers]

YouTube linked me to Veritasium's video, and I'm forwarding it here: "Is Success Luck or Hard Work?".

For all political discussions that go on here, this video presents a careful look at whether luck or effort matters more to one's success.

Is EVERY individual case of so-called 'success' the EXACT SAME, are they ALL DIFFERENT, or are there SOME cases that are the EXACT SAME and DIFFERENT?

One would HAVE TO PICK one example of so-called 'success', and then LOOK AT ALL of the circumstances that led up to that, perceived, 'success'.

Did Donald Trump 'succeed' in winning the last presidential election? According to him and his followers, he'd say "yes". But this discussion isn't talking about the illusion or delusion of 'success' but the illusion or delusion of one thinking they earned real success versus one's luck.

I already shared this view and have promoted all the ideas in parts of my own arguments everywhere. Veritasium did a better job at summarizing this and explains with scientific rationality.

What were 'your ideas' and 'arguments' regarding 'this'?

What are your thoughts?

The human being known as "derek muller" comes across as confident in what 'it' is SAYING and CLAIMING. But, is this because "derek muller" ONLY does what 'it' does on 'youtube videos' for money and/or fame, which some class as and call 'success', or for other reasons or a combination of reasons?

Did you CHANGE any view after watching?

Not really, but watching that video just made me recall those occurrences, which I had already previously realized were because of luck, of not being lucky, from what I had actually done/achieved, and/or from what I had actually not done/achieved.

That last sentence is confusing to me and your mental disassociation with humanity you seem to jump to when lacking anything valid to say is offputting. But....


As to MY shared agreement to Derek's, I've had a lifetime of living in a world that tells its children that anything and everything is literally possible and, where one's will is concerned, assured if one remains persistent, they CAN acheive anything. But this religious fantasy is the delusion that effectively contradicts reality when people actually DO try but fail.

The argument can be made identically by asking,
"Is Failure due to Bad Luck or to one Unwilling to Work for it?''

While certainly if one is lazy, they are going to be less likely to succeed from earning it unless being lazy itself was the goal. But the presumption by those who 'win', as comparable to the thread on Putin's War against Ukraine, the winner alone decides what the 'facts' are. For those who 'win' (a type of 'success') the war, they get to decide what 'crimes' of their enemy exist.

In the same way, the 'successful' place no or little significance upon their own flaws and so intepret their 'wins' as EARNED and justified in the same way they would interpret the 'loser' as losing due to DESERVING it (That is, earning their demise). That is, they do not interpret the outcomes of all people involved as 'earning' it! Is that logically rational or sound?

By contrast, the loser, like if Ukraine fails to Russia, would rationally recognize that the precondition of Russia's larger force due to better weapons of mass destruction was what made Russia 'win'. This is the "LUCK" factor. Or would you interpret whomever wins the war as 'earning' their success?

Is Ukraine not 'unlucky' for lacking the same muscle power that Russia has? If so, is Russia's success not relatively 'lucky' by contrast?

Also, the Ukrainians are still 'working hard' to win (not lose) even against the odds. So if (or 'when') they lose, would it be due to their LACK of 'working hard'? No doubt the Russians would nevertheless interpret their 'hard work' as futile afterthefact. And what will you think Putin would think once he wins? Would he chalk it up to just 'luck'? Or do you think he 'earned' the right to rule over Ukraine?

[vegetariantaxidermy]

But how would you know it was bull shit* if you didn't watch it?

*I charitably translated this to more humble down-to-earth expression we use in North America. Using language like "...frivolous bollocks," to us in North America sounds stereotypically haughty (hoity toity?) and smug as though said by Mr. Burns from the Simpsons.

I saw the first few seconds and that was enough. Why would I care what he thinks? I suppose many things sound 'hoity toity' to those with a severely limited vocabulary.

It was the irony that the WAY you said it as though atypical response of the one guilty of just such 'luck' but deluded into thinking they somehow earned all they have absolutely independent of others' roles in contributing more significantly to such prosperity.

The argument was demonstrated statistically and very logically. There is no doubt about it beyond one's religious or emotive reluctance to accept it of themselves. He also argues how evolution still favors us deluding ourselves necessarily if only to maintain the motivation to keep trying even against the odds.

Since I am arguing against issues within capitalism that creates problems based upon our dependence upon deception, I referenced this separately. If you disagree, what arguments do you have as a counter defence? ....or are you just evading what you know this might lead to if you had to argue it rationally?

None of that makes any sense whatsoever. Did you use Google translate?

[RCSaunders]

How are you defining 'success'? Would that be the American definition i.e. how much money you have?

That's your definition. I didn't know you were an American.

I know a few people in America. None of them define success in terms of money at all. How many Americans do you know who have that opinion?

[Pardon me, but your prejudices are showing.]

Actually, all people do anywhere but the U.S. most signficantly symbolizes success in terms of 'worth' using relative currency, even if one is not actually directly dealing with money....

You too? You define success as, "financial success," but the word success only means achieving what one aspires to achieve. Perhaps you never heard of artistic success, literary success, scientific success, or the success of those who discover new things, achieve what has never been achieved before, or successfully completing a course, building a house, grow a garden, raising a family, or just cooking a mean and enjoying others without ever having a thought about money.

You need to get out of your philosophy/economics classes and live in the world more, I think. Everything is not politics.