How much impact does/should 'luck' have on our lives?

[RandBlade]

I grew up playing a lot of D6 games which clearly have an element of luck in them, but came to the strong opinion before long that luck is a fairly meaningless term - often employed by the less skilled at the game to excuse them losing. On an individual roll of a dice whether its a 1 or a 6 is entirely luck dependent - and sometimes that bit of luck can change the game - but overall normally you "make your own luck". A skillful player will avoid having the whole game ride on one roll of the dice. Over time it always seems if you're losing that you've rolled a load of 1's and the opponent 6's but the reality is you'll have both rolled a similar number.

On a more philosophical level I believe luck to be even less meaningful in real life. Apart from gamblers we don't really roll a lot of dice in life, Chess (a game with no luck involved whatsoever) is a more apt analogy most of the time anyway - but even where luck is involved, once again it is what you did in the events preceeding and following the "luck" that determines how things go.

I don't believe there are people in this life who are generally "lucky" or "unlucky". We may have moments where it comes into play - and being sympathetic I might console someone as saying they were unlucky - but looking at life objectively I really do not believe at all that luck plays much of a role in our lives. What about you?

[wiggin]

I think that luck is rather important. I had the great fortune to be born in America in the late 20th century; out of the entire world population at the time, only about 10% of the world shared the same opportunities that i did growing up. Beyond that, I agree that within a given system (i.e., the rules of a game, one's milieu growing up), luck doesn't have as much of an influence as good planning, but it's still relevant. I'd say that in societies with decent mobility and at least reasonable meritocracies, luck is not that relevant from the perspective of living a fairly successful life. But in terms of 'making it big' - the truly exceptional cases of success - I think there is certainly an element of serendipity that helped propel a hard working and intelligent person into the stratospheric ranks of the truly extraordinary.

More broadly, I would argue that there are things that I don't measure by a rubric of 'lucky' or 'unlucky', but which are definitely dependent on circumstance. I met my wife at college because we overlapped for a year and were involved in similar campus activities. But what were the chances that we'd both decide to go to the same university at the same time, and that we'd meet and find enough compatibilities to have a go at living our lives together? There is a remarkable chain of coincidence that led to our nuptials. I don't consider that 'lucky' or 'unlucky' exactly - I'm sure I would have found someone suitable by now either way - but the specifics of my marriage to her are dependent on circumstance. Ditto for specific jobs we've held, places we've lived, yadda yadda yadda.

[RandBlade]

Indeed, there is the incidence of "accident of birth", to be born in the late 20th century UK I would again find fortunate. But then again if you look at the odd of a particular sperm meeting a particular egg etc

I like your phrase though of the given system. I was thinking of within our own systems. Clearly had any of us been born when we were in Ethiopia instead of the west then our lives would have been very different. But we all pretty much live within modern, western, meritocratic societies - so the question did imply within our own system(s).

[Aimless]

I think luck is even more important in real life than in games. For example, some people are lucky enough to be born male rather than female. How many RPGs do a good job of accounting for gender issues? Others are lucky enough to be born into two-parent households rather than to a single mom. Yet others are born into rel. happy and prosperous households rather than into troubled and less prosperous ones. How many games can account for the role of the family? Some are born in the right month and become more successful hockey-players. These "accidents of birth" influence the ability to "make your own luck" for a very long time. What school will you end up in? How will your teachers judge you on day one? What kind of people will influence you--your psyche, your behaviour--in your formative years? What crises will you and your family experience? Will you and your family be healthy? Will you be abused?


Taking a Chaloobian perspective, I might say that ultimately there is no such thing as "luck". Taking the perspective of the newborn, I think I'd have to come to a different conclusion. In retrospect I can weave two tales of my life: one in which where luck features strongly and another in which I am the master of my soul and captain of my fate. I know for a fact that both stories would be unreliable post-hoc constructions.



Btw, have you checked out Gladwell's Outliers yet?

[Loki]

Depends what you mean by luck. If you mean "things outside of our individual control", then luck matter quite a lot. You could be born in a "wrong" country, to the "wrong" family, have "wrong" physical or mental attributes, get passed over for a place in a college or job for the "wrong" reasons. All these factors set the constraints through which we act and think. Having said that, it is how people act within these constraints that set people apart. As Machiavelli said, virtu is about noticing the trends of the time and acting on them. You can't go against your constraints, but you could use them to give yourself an advantage.

[Lebanese Dragon]

Chess (a game with no luck involved whatsoever) is a more apt analogy most of the time anyway

I've changed my mind on this statement. At one point I would have agreed with you. After having listening to pros, and the psychology of chess. Since humans can't forsee all the way out many times they are playing a psychological game. Whether you're using a famous opening (whether you know how to capitalize or not) or whether you're mimicking a tactic or situation a friend you play a lot created earlier to throw them off to your normal play. A lot of times you bank on that confusion creating opening for yourself or for them to misread your intentions. This is more on a high level of chess, it's really fascinating. Obviously at the end of the day Chess is a completely solvable game and there is no faking out of people etc... They call this Objective Chess, but people are not always playing Objective Chess which is fascinating.

[Khendraja'aro]

Depends what you mean by luck. If you mean "things outside of our individual control", then luck matter quite a lot. You could be born in a "wrong" country, to the "wrong" family, have "wrong" physical or mental attributes, get passed over for a place in a college or job for the "wrong" reasons. All these factors set the constraints through which we act and think. Having said that, it is how people act within these constraints that set people apart. As Machiavelli said, virtu is about noticing the trends of the time and acting on them. You can't go against your constraints, but you could use them to give yourself an advantage.

Only if free will actually exists.

[RandBlade]

I'm a firm believer in free-will, if we don't have free will there's no point worrying about anything.

[Aimless]

Except about constraints on our will

[GGT]

wiggin used a better word than Luck---Serendipity. I'm not convinced Free Will has anything to do with that, since none of us could choose our parents/genetics, era of birth, or social and cultural experiences. Our lives sprout from important things we can't or don't control, so it's pretty hard to ignore at least a randomness in life.

Lebbie made an interesting point comparing how we approach life's successes, and playing high-level strategic chess. Someone with a functionally low IQ isn't the same as someone with structural brain impediments---savants with photographic memories could probably win every chess game, but couldn't tie their own shoes. At some point, we all hit our limits of "strategical" thinking.

Best laid plans, roads paved with good intentions, and all that jazz.

[Ziggy Stardust]

All we do is throw dice. The influence we can have is trying to maximize our chances. Sometimes you try to make the situation such that instead of being successful on a 6 result, you are successful on a 6, and you have back-up plans for 4 and 5. If you can you try to minimize your losses for the 2's and 3's. But you're fucked on a 1 no matter what.

Case in point. When I became unemployed because of downsizing, I had a career consultant helping me get a job. Because of the skills I had, he was optimistic about my chances of finding a job. I maximized my chances by applying for junior programmer's job, which may make less money but I got to learn a new skill and I was employed. So, my 6 was the job I've worked for 11 years, my 4 and 5's were related jobs which needed me to be satisfied with a smaller paycheck. I was lucky enough to be in a position to have these degrees of freedom. But he also told me about construction workers who fell victim to the credit crunch who have been construction workers their entire life, at the age of 45-50 didn't really have a shot at re-employment as a junior learning a new trade. They were very keen to get to work, very keen. After a year of unemployment many had psychological problems of stress and feelings of incompetence because they couldn't support their families. Tell me Rand, what bad choices did these guys make? How did they, by their choices, cause this credit crunch/housing crisis which causes the downsizes and the complete stop at job opportunities in construction to happen? Was their choice to become a construction engineer 30 years ago poor, because they should have foreseen this crisis?

[RandBlade]

A recession is not luck, it happens. Every 8-10 years in fact normally there's a recession.

As for construction workers, they are normally the first to be laid off in a recession. Or in other words they're normally at high risk of being laid off every 8-10 years.

If they survived 30 years in that industry then they did well.

If you expect the sunshine to continue forever, then its not bad luck when the rain arrives.

[Ziggy Stardust]

How do you define "luck"?

[Aimless]

How do you define "luck"?

"impossible"

[Ziggy Stardust]

I just noticed the word: "should" in the thread title. Which is a rather interesting question. Would life be more fair if luck has no impact at all. But I realise that those who claim luck plays no, or an insignificant part in life already claim that life is fair in that regard, so I take it the word was included as an addition angle for those who say it does have a significant impact.

And it's a more difficult question the longer I think about it. When I make a decision, I influence my life. But I don't exist in a vacuum, so I influence other people's lives as well. Those other people may not have any influence on my decision. Is from their perspective my decision a matter of luck whether or not I make the decision which is favourable or unfavourable to them? In reverse, is it fair that the decisions of others influence my life? Is it even right to call this luck? I'd say so, but is it?

[RandBlade]

And it's a more difficult question the longer I think about it. When I make a decision, I influence my life. But I don't exist in a vacuum, so I influence other people's lives as well. Those other people may not have any influence on my decision. Is from their perspective my decision a matter of luck whether or not I make the decision which is favourable or unfavourable to them? In reverse, is it fair that the decisions of others influence my life? Is it even right to call this luck? I'd say so, but is it?

You're right we don't exist in a vacuum and that is why you're making a mistake. From there perspective is it luck what decision you make? Maybe, but lets expand the question. If they can influence you, your thinking and how you choose to proceed is it luck? Same in reverse, if you can affect how others act is it luck?

Have you ever heard of Game Theory?

[RandBlade]

Posted in "Occupy Hobos" by mistake:

I'd be curious how you define "luck" - and that is why I put it in quotation marks in the top, so far in this thread there have been many definitions of luck. I'm an atheist, I don't believe in the supernatural, so any supernatural definitions of luck I simply don't think exist.

By luck I think people normally mean whether chances go good or bad. Good luck is good chances, bad luck is bad chances. But as for chance, there is little that is well and truly left to chance such that we can not influence it. If we take a situation where we have 10 completely random and equally important events with a 50-50 chance of going good or bad then that is neutral right? Getting 6 or more to be positive is "good luck" while 6 or more going negative is "bad luck".

But if someone else influences the chances before the events happen, maybe guarantee one will happen somehow and then load it so that there's a 90% chance of each going good - does the second person have "better luck" than the first? What about from the perspective of the first? On a purely random level everything is equally random but events will almost certainly go better for the second.

No I did not. I asked you to win the lottery to support your little sound bite "you make your own luck". Which is a contradiction, since luck is outside the zone of your control. Which is why I took the lottery as a point since the result is outside your zone of control. All you can do is minimize the effects of the slings and arrows, which is where your influence steps in. My point is no less and no more than "you make your own luck" is bull. What you just did is tell me how to avoid risks. Well, that's great son but that's missing the point.

Why is luck outside your zone of control?

There is much in life that is inside of our zone of control and that includes the lottery, which people tend to view as outside and thus prescribe to "luck". The result of the draw may be outside of our control, but how much we spend on it etc is not. What I did was bring it back inside our zone of control. You may be unhappy about this, but the fact is that we don't live in a vacuum. By changing our decision before the event, we change the result of the event.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Heh. Interesting

All we do is throw dice. The influence we can have is trying to maximize our chances. Sometimes you try to make the situation such that instead of being successful on a 6 result, you are successful on a 6, and you have back-up plans for 4 and 5. If you can you try to minimize your losses for the 2's and 3's. But you're fucked on a 1 no matter what.

By luck I think people normally mean whether chances go good or bad. Good luck is good chances, bad luck is bad chances. But as for chance, there is little that is well and truly left to chance such that we can not influence it. If we take a situation where we have 10 completely random and equally important events with a 50-50 chance of going good or bad then that is neutral right? Getting 6 or more to be positive is "good luck" while 6 or more going negative is "bad luck".

But if someone else influences the chances before the events happen, maybe guarantee one will happen somehow and then load it so that there's a 90% chance of each going good - does the second person have "better luck" than the first? What about from the perspective of the first? On a purely random level everything is equally random but events will almost certainly go better for the second.
Why is luck outside your zone of control?

So I already answered that.

I'd be curious how you define "luck" - and that is why I put it in quotation marks in the top, so far in this thread there have been many definitions of luck.

I asked you as well in this thread, because there have to be differing definitions you and I are using.

The definitions I know were also posted by Minx. I though that was a reasonable definition:

Luck refers to that which happens to a person beyond that person's control. This view incorporates phenomena that are chance happenings, a person's place of birth for example, but where there is no uncertainty involved, or where the uncertainty is irrelevant. Within this framework one can differentiate between three different types of luck:

Constitutional luck, that is, luck with factors that cannot be changed. Place of birth and genetic constitution are typical examples.
Circumstantial luck—with factors that are haphazardly brought on. Accidents and epidemics are typical examples.
Ignorance luck, that is, luck with factors one does not know about. Examples can be identified only in hindsight.

I'm very curious which definition you are using.

Why is luck outside your zone of control?

By definition of the word.

There is mcuh in life that is inside of our zone of control and that includes the lottery, which people tend to view as outside and thus prescribe to "luck". The result of the draw may be outside of our control, but how much we spend on it etc is not. What I did was bring it back inside our zone of control.

What you did was avoiding the point I was making with regard to your still unsupported statement: "you make your own luck". You may mean "You can increase the odds" but even in that regard, you are still not "making your own luck".


Now, before we continue. How do you define luck?

[RandBlade]

Here's 4 definitions of luck from a dictionary:

1. the force that seems to operate for good or ill in a person's life, as in shaping circumstances, events, or opportunities: With my luck I'll probably get pneumonia.

2. good fortune; advantage or success, considered as the result of chance: He had no luck finding work.

3. a combination of circumstances, events, etc., operating by chance to bring good or ill to a person: She's had nothing but bad luck all year.

4. some object on which good fortune is supposed to depend: This rabbit's foot is my luck.

1: Supernatural - I don't believe in this.
2: The outcomes of chances, this is what I think of as luck
3: Again the outcomes of chances, again what I think of as luck.
4: Supernatural, I don't believe in this.

In not a single one of those definitions do I see "outside of your control", however for the two I'd think of as luck I believe that by changing how events happen or how they affect you they can "change your luck".

[Aimless]

In not a single one of those definitions do I see "outside of your control", however for the two I'd think of as luck I believe that by changing how events happen or how they affect you they can "change your luck".

What you do is influence your exposure to luck, ie. how many/what aspects of your life are influenced by luck and to what extent they are influenced. Translating from the view both Ziggy and I seem to hold (see the wikipedia quote for clarification), that's another way of saying that it's possible to influence, to some extent, just how much and in what ways your life is affected by things outside your personal control/influence, things that are uninfluenced by your preferences. Even the ability to minimise your exposure to luck (or risk or whatever you want to call it) may be constrained by factors not entirely in your control.


If you missed it:

Luck refers to that which happens to a person beyond that person's control. This view incorporates phenomena that are chance happenings, a person's place of birth for example, but where there is no uncertainty involved, or where the uncertainty is irrelevant. Within this framework one can differentiate between three different types of luck:

Constitutional luck, that is, luck with factors that cannot be changed. Place of birth and genetic constitution are typical examples.
Circumstantial luck—with factors that are haphazardly brought on. Accidents and epidemics are typical examples.
Ignorance luck, that is, luck with factors one does not know about. Examples can be identified only in hindsight.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Here's 4 definitions of luck from a dictionary: 1: Supernatural - I don't believe in this.
2: The outcomes of chances, this is what I think of as luck
3: Again the outcomes of chances, again what I think of as luck.
4: Supernatural, I don't believe in this.

In not a single one of those definitions do I see "outside of your control", however for the two I'd think of as luck I believe that by changing how events happen or how they affect you they can "change your luck".

You are confusing odds with luck.

You're right we don't exist in a vacuum and that is why you're making a mistake. From there perspective is it luck what decision you make? Maybe, but lets expand the question. If they can influence you, your thinking and how you choose to proceed is it luck? Same in reverse, if you can affect how others act is it luck?

Maybe that is why is why I stated: "Those other people may not have any influence on my decision.". It's called a condition. If that condition doesn't apply, I am not stating it's a matter of luck. If it does apply, I am saying it is a matter of luck. Clear?

Now Randblade, what if that condition applies?

[RandBlade]

Then so what? Decisions happen all the time? They're still in enough control to influence events. As you said no-one exists in a vacuum, but just as importantly there are countless decisions made and not made every single day.

Name anything that happens that is completely random.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Then so what? Decisions happen all the time? They're still in enough control to influence events. As you said no-one exists in a vacuum, but just as importantly there are countless decisions made and not made every single day.

Is this your answer to my question?

[Ziggy Stardust]

Can you show me Randy baby where I included events under our control in the definition of luck? If your assessment of my debating technique is correct I must have somewhere. Which is odd, since this has been your argument all along, and I have been arguing against that very notion all along.

I'm odd aren't I?

Too bad. I think there is a rather interesting discussion to be had.

[RandBlade]

I think you're progressively narrowing the term luck down to become rather meaningless anyway, by excluding everything we may possibly control or influence in one way or another you pretty much narrow it down to nothing so that luck isn't simply able to be influenced but rather instead has no impact at all on our life.

[RandBlade]

Initially you included the lottery and when I demonstrated how you could take a situation of someone betting on the lottery and change their decisions to change their result you weren't happy about it. So what I'm suggesting is you're going too narrow so that it excludes everything. You've already essentially excluded the lottery now.

Aimless: I took my definition from a dictionary, I've not seen which dictionary you're getting that quote from.

[Aimless]

Initially you included the lottery and when I demonstrated how you could take a situation of someone betting on the lottery and change their decisions to change their result you weren't happy about it. So what I'm suggesting is you're going too narrow so that it excludes everything. You've already essentially excluded the lottery now.

This is only confusing because you can escape by not playing the lottery. As OG suggested in the other thread, you can escape the lottery of life by not being alive, although it's harder to escape by not being born.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Initially you included the lottery and when I demonstrated how you could take a situation of someone betting on the lottery and change their decisions to change their result you weren't happy about it. So what I'm suggesting is you're going too narrow so that it excludes everything. You've already essentially excluded the lottery now.

What?

No really .... what? When I used the lottery as an example of using luck (I asked you to prove you can make your own luck by winning the lottery) you said: "You can always not play the lottery" and I excluded the lottery?

In what universe?

[RandBlade]

What?

No really .... what? When I used the lottery as an example of using luck (I asked you to prove you can make your own luck by winning the lottery) you said: "You can always not play the lottery" and I excluded the lottery?

In what universe?

You excluded the control people have over how much they choose to use the lottery. I looked at the lottery as a part of someone's life in the decisions they make, you wanted to look at it in a vacuum as something completely out of our control. Once I pointed out that control, you excluded the ability to do that - which is an ability we all possess.

I could guarantee to win the lottery: You give me somewhat over £233 million and I could guarantee to win the Euromillions lottery next week - by purchasing one of every single combination.

[Ziggy Stardust]

You excluded the control people have over how much they choose to use the lottery. I looked at the lottery as a part of someone's life in the decisions they make, you wanted to look at it in a vacuum as something completely out of our control. Once I pointed out that control, you excluded the ability to do that - which is an ability we all possess.

The decision to take part in a lottery isn't luck now is it? Your claim was: "you make your own luck". So how come you include the decision to take part in a lottery when that clearly isn't luck? Instead we need to take a look at something which is determined by luck, for instance the lottery.

And what you just said means you agree with me. I did not take the lottery out of the equation, I took the decision to take part in one out of the equation, you took the lottery out of the equation by copping out.

The decision to play in the lottery is not luck.
Winning the lottery is determined by luck.

I could guarantee to win the lottery: You give me somewhat over £233 million and I could guarantee to win the Euromillions lottery next week - by purchasing one of every single combination.

You take every occurrence of luck out of a process and then you are making the point to me you just made your own luck?

As I said before, you are confusing odds, which can be influenced, with luck.