That logic is inherently flawed because luck plays a part in each of those aspects, too. To have learned the "relevant skills" means you need to have been fortunate enough to have been provided an education. To build a network that matters you need to have access to the right people. Looking for new business opportunities is only possible if you have the resources to do.

Eventually, it all goes back to who you were born as and who you were born to. Your odds of "success" are much higher if you're born as a white male in the US than if you're born as an female in rural India. No amount of effort can change those odds.

That's not to say that effort doesn't play a part, it absolutely does. But a significant amount of success is supported by good fortune layered on more good fortune.

I agree but I’m not sure why my logic would be flawed because of this

Lucky I just happened to be on HN to read this comment, otherwise I wouldn't have known I needed other skills to take advantage of opportunities that arise.

A million factors determine your trajectory long before you either do or do not prepare for this or that opportunity.

You can't position yourself to be born a white male, which I believe affords the greatest advantages, and opens the most opportunities of any personal attribute you can have.

Being a white male is certainly not mandatory for becoming successful.

And a better personal ability would be to have supermodel genes :>

No it's not mandatory at all, just incredibly advantageous. Much more so than physical attractiveness, although that helps a great deal in life as well.

Stop trying to make it a race and gender issue. It helps no one but the rentier class to further divide the people they are extracting profit from.

What wealth 'class' you are born into has by far the biggest effect on your chance of success.

But it is a race and gender issue. I'm not trying to divide people, just stating facts.

Attaining wealth is much easier if you're born into a specific race, thus your chances of being born wealthy are directly correlated with your chances of being white.

Attaining wealth is much easier if you're male. Among the many reasons are increased career opportunities in general, less chance of a stalled career because of child rearing, greater status in negotiations, etc.

All I'm saying is it is incredibly lucky to be born a white male in a society which so highly values them, and try as hard you might, you can't position yourself to get that advantage if you weren't born with it.

Stop doing this. It is a factor - no one denies that, but it is only one of many factors.

You're trying to elevate one factor above others and derailing the higher conversation people are trying to have here. It's just not productive.

Many people deny this, so I think it is an important part of the higher conversation and inherently productive to discuss.

People tend to think luck is heavily about positioning yourself to succeed.

I think that's true, but I also believe that the most important factors to putting you in those lucky positions are not in your control.

Someone who is not already born into a lucky position has to get even more lucky to succeed.

You telling me to simply stop talking about something that I believe is an important point to make is very strange.

> Many people deny this Maybe, but nobody brought it up before you did.

>People tend to think luck is heavily about positioning >yourself to succeed.

>I think that's true, but I also believe that the most >important factors to putting you in those lucky positions >are not in your control.

>Someone who is not already born into a lucky position has >to get even more lucky to succeed.

That we all agree on, what we disagree on is you trying to elevate race above all other uncontrollable factors in ones life. I don't know if it's true or not, but you probably don't have the data to back that assertion up.

> You telling me to simply stop talking about something that I believe is an important point to make is very strange.

Because we are trying to have a civil and deep discourse about an important subject . Any social issue under the sun can be related to racial issue, from violence to education level to health; It's doesn't mean that adopting a racial frame is the best way of discussing,reflecting and solving those issues. We aren't even sure to which part race is a causing vs a correlating factor. What we do know however is that race is such a polarizing subject (in the US at least) that trying to shoehorn race into a debate is a sure way to derail it. Not to mentioned the blatant disrespect to all the other type of human experience that somehow you think are worst than being black in america (mental health and devellopmentale issue for example, and yes see we can all play the game of who as it worst...)...

So ultimately it's not that race is not important, it's that it's not a useful frame for every subject.

And yes i am black, and on my wish list of stuff i want to change about myself higher social status, more money, higher overall sexual attractiveness come way before race...

I am having a civil discourse and did not intend to cause a polarization.

You cannot discuss luck and success in life without discussing race.

In no way did I suggest that people should want to change their race.

Having a black doctor for a parent probably provides more benefit than having a white dockworker for a parent. That's the point of the comment above. Similarly for being the daughter of rich couple or the son of a poor couple.

>Having a black doctor for a parent probably provides more benefit than having a white dockworker for a parent.

Sure, but having a white doctor for a parent is very likely more beneficial than both of those examples. This should not be a very controversial point.

Yes being white and rich is better than being black and rich, the point is about where benefit is coming from. The idea is that being white and rich is better than being black and rich but being black and rich is much better than being white and poor. Race, gender, all these things play a role but their influence is totally swamped by the influence of class.

Your argument would only hold water if distribution of wealth were independent of race. On the contrary, it is intimately intertwined with it. Race is the fundamental foundational rift that the nation constructed itself on, and it had better bring its primary focus to it.

Yes of course, but I don't believe that's what the commenter was talking about.

The comment said it is not a race or gender issue, which I disagree with.

While I believe you're right, wealth is the biggest factor, I would say race is probably the next biggest, and gender the next biggest after that. At least here in the USA.

That is a great example of confirmation bias. The person who positions themselves for luck deserves credit. And in my experience usually get it. The person who positions themselves for luck and is unlucky, is usually considered less capable.

I agree. I merely stated that it’s not automatic that you are even participating in the lottery of “becoming successful” :)

I think one has to be lucky to have talent, and the education and upbringing required to learn how to exploit that talent, in addition to having opportunities to take advantage of it. Not even getting into socio-economic challenges due to race and class.

Right on the money. I wouldn't be in the position I am today without a dose of luck/chance, I was in the right place at the right time and knew the right people - but at the same time none of this matters if I was unable to execute and take advantage of the opportunities I was presented.

One could only be so lucky to have the time and resources to be looking for opportunity.

The luckiest thing that could possibly have happened to you was which geographic area and social status you were born to. How did you manage to position yourself for that?

How did you choose who your parents were going to be?

What part of your carpe diem attitude helped your mom not do drugs and destroy your gestating brain before you were born?

How did you bootstrap your country so that you weren't a victim of war or starvation at a young age?

What part of your attitude ensured you were born into a modern society at the right time to be educated, instead of being a pre-agrarian human ancestor?

What part of your free will in life ensured you'd be the sort of tech person who'd post on HN rather than perhaps an ascetic who'd be living a life of poverty on the streets of Bangladesh to combat consumerist attitudes? Would that be a wrong choice to make?

That said, correlation and causation. The movers and shakers of society are likely to believe they had more control in their life. Not necessarily the other way around. But it can be helpful to envision yourself as being in control of more of your life than you really are.

This doesn’t change what I said though does it?

I never implied that anyone could do those things.

The point was that you’re not automatically participating in the “get lucky to become successful” lottery.