Luck seems very unreliable and uncontrollable. If you rely on luck alone to achieve survival, then your probability of surviving is probably about the same as waiting for a pie to fall from the sky.
The education we have received in the past has always been that a better tomorrow starts with today's efforts. There will never be an elder who will teach you that you can live a good life by luck.
So is luck really unreliable, or is the power of luck underestimated?
Italian economists and physicists have teamed up to try for the first time to quantify the role of luck and talent in successful careers . They propose a "toy mathematical model" that simulates the career development of the collective population over a 40-year (20-60) working life.
Italian researchers placed a large Latest Mailing Database number of hypothetical individuals (agents) with varying degrees of "gift" in a square world, and the working lives of these agents developed within this set career. Talents can include traits such as intelligence, skills, motivation, determination, creative thinking, emotional intelligence, and more. The point is, more talented people will be more likely to get the most out of a given opportunity.
All agents started the simulation with the same success rate (10 "units"), and it was assumed that every 6 months, a person would be exposed to a certain number of lucky events (green) and a certain number of unfortunate events (red).
Whenever a person encounters an unfortunate event, their success is cut in half, and whenever a person encounters a fortunate event, their success is multiplied by their talent (reflecting the relationship between talent and opportunity). actual interaction).
What was the result?
In the end result of this 40-year simulation, while talent is normally allocated, success is not. The 20 most successful individuals accounted for 44% of the overall success rate, while almost half of the population was still under 10 units (note, this was the initial starting condition for the experiment). This is consistent with real-world data, although some suggest that success in the real world is more unevenly distributed.
While this distributional outcome may seem unfair, it may be plausible if it turns out that the most successful people are indeed the most talented or capable.
What did you discover from this simulation?
Talent and success are not the same thing . In general, those with more talents are more likely to increase their success rate by exploiting the possibilities offered by luck.
However, talent alone is never enough, because the most talented are rarely the most successful. In general, mediocre but lucky people are more successful than more talented but unfortunate people.
Does that mean that people who are born without good luck are doomed to have a poor future?
Of course not, the thinking to be talked about here is "lucky surface area".
Lucky surface area was proposed by TechZing co-founder Jason Roberts, and its meaning is that lucky occurrence is proportional to your enthusiasm for doing things, and it is related to the number of people you communicate with. As we often say, the harder you work, the luckier you get.
If this principle is formulated, then the lucky surface area L=D×T , L is luck, D represents doing things, and T represents communication and social interaction. Through this formula, you can clearly see that the more enthusiastic you are, the more you communicate, the more luck you will get.