The way I had this explained to me once, which I have always remembered, is that it is luck, it's rolls of the dice. Some people will hit on their first roll, some on their thousandth, some never will. But -- crucially -- you're the one who controls how many opportunities you have to roll.
This is excellent, start to finish. Reading it, I understood another mistake that some people make. I've noticed that quite a few people who want to write for well-known publications think it's a matter of having an "in", and so are looking for someone to give them that in. And that is, indeed, partly true -- there are certainly people writing for fancy publications who were connected in the right way rather than the absolute best writers on the planet. But what people miss is a lot of the time the connection only does something for you if you already have a body of work to testify to your skill. (For one thing, having proven yourself allows your connection to say genuine positive things about you.) It's probably not going to bring you from no clips to clips in the top places. I've noticed even some writers who had really vertiginous rises to the tops of their careers still wrote in less prestigious places when they started out, they just did so much writing for so many pubs that they were able to work their way up faster than most.
'Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity.' I think it was Seneca who said it (I confess to a quick google search so it might not be true, but I know I've heard this somewhere). I wrote my own take on late bloomers, in that I don't feel like one. I feel perennial!
"-----First is the pure chance of accident that happens to everyone.
I cannot deny this sort of luck exists, but I can show you it is less important than you think."
Don't forget survivorship bias, but overall I tend to agree.
Being mildly not autistic I really feel for the ultimate introverts in a society which overvalues the social institution of the individual, but does not actually value actual individuals like the autistic, whose ability to serve the market of smiling extraverts is limited. No one networks with them by happy accident.
Get out more they say, and meet people who get out more...
Interesting, I think we are probably in agreement but I had the exact opposite framing: you don’t make your own luck, you just do things that shift the probability distribution towards their goals… that just feels lucky.
Fascinating! I’m Harrison, an ex fine dining industry line cook. My stack "The Secret Ingredient" adapts hit restaurant recipes (mostly NYC and L.A.) for easy home cooking.
Apparent ‘overnight success’ and luck( in whatever form we define them whether personal, professional or both) are nearly always built on years of hard work in one form or another. Listening, exploring, asking questions, learning and self interrogation are all parts of the process, in addition to practicing and honing and being flexible without giving up what is uniquely us
I dig the shtick of creating a wide surface area of work with which to get busy.
Sure, it increases the space we make on which luck could land, and that’s cool, but it also keeps us going, keeps us creative and spontaneous and alert. Which I guess is part of the point of the Angelou example (well, your whole piece) man, one has to have good work, or the seeds of good work, for luck to have skin in the game.
I don't think this argument is wrong, exactly, but it certainly seems incomplete. Say you work as hard and diligently as Maya Angelou*. That takes your chance of success from 0% to... what? 25%? 10%? 0.01%? Over what time period? The answers to these questions really matter a lot! And pointing out that Maya Angelou exists just does not provide very much information here.
I agree that we would all be better off getting busy than complaining. But busy doing what? If your lifetime odds of success top off at 0.1%, then shouldn't you consider getting busy with something else?
The way I had this explained to me once, which I have always remembered, is that it is luck, it's rolls of the dice. Some people will hit on their first roll, some on their thousandth, some never will. But -- crucially -- you're the one who controls how many opportunities you have to roll.
This is excellent, start to finish. Reading it, I understood another mistake that some people make. I've noticed that quite a few people who want to write for well-known publications think it's a matter of having an "in", and so are looking for someone to give them that in. And that is, indeed, partly true -- there are certainly people writing for fancy publications who were connected in the right way rather than the absolute best writers on the planet. But what people miss is a lot of the time the connection only does something for you if you already have a body of work to testify to your skill. (For one thing, having proven yourself allows your connection to say genuine positive things about you.) It's probably not going to bring you from no clips to clips in the top places. I've noticed even some writers who had really vertiginous rises to the tops of their careers still wrote in less prestigious places when they started out, they just did so much writing for so many pubs that they were able to work their way up faster than most.
exactly so!
Excited to read this. One of my favorite quotes is “a real man makes his own luck”… okay gonna shower then dive in! Thanks for the tag!
I like that quote!
'Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity.' I think it was Seneca who said it (I confess to a quick google search so it might not be true, but I know I've heard this somewhere). I wrote my own take on late bloomers, in that I don't feel like one. I feel perennial!
https://open.substack.com/pub/writingfromthecafe/p/im-not-a-late-bloomer-im-a-perennial?r=5jf01z&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=false
"-----First is the pure chance of accident that happens to everyone.
I cannot deny this sort of luck exists, but I can show you it is less important than you think."
Don't forget survivorship bias, but overall I tend to agree.
Being mildly not autistic I really feel for the ultimate introverts in a society which overvalues the social institution of the individual, but does not actually value actual individuals like the autistic, whose ability to serve the market of smiling extraverts is limited. No one networks with them by happy accident.
Get out more they say, and meet people who get out more...
Loved this. Would write more, but have to go get busy and productive!
haha quite right!
Interesting, I think we are probably in agreement but I had the exact opposite framing: you don’t make your own luck, you just do things that shift the probability distribution towards their goals… that just feels lucky.
I will check your book out.
https://ondeciding.substack.com/p/can-you-make-your-own-luck
What an excellent, thought-provoking piece Henry - thank you!
I am obsessed with this post. I found it so energizing! *Lucky* that I saw it today.
haha yes indeed
Fascinating! I’m Harrison, an ex fine dining industry line cook. My stack "The Secret Ingredient" adapts hit restaurant recipes (mostly NYC and L.A.) for easy home cooking.
check us out:
https://thesecretingredient.substack.com
Apparent ‘overnight success’ and luck( in whatever form we define them whether personal, professional or both) are nearly always built on years of hard work in one form or another. Listening, exploring, asking questions, learning and self interrogation are all parts of the process, in addition to practicing and honing and being flexible without giving up what is uniquely us
I dig the shtick of creating a wide surface area of work with which to get busy.
Sure, it increases the space we make on which luck could land, and that’s cool, but it also keeps us going, keeps us creative and spontaneous and alert. Which I guess is part of the point of the Angelou example (well, your whole piece) man, one has to have good work, or the seeds of good work, for luck to have skin in the game.
Good luck with Second Act.
Good post. Not sure if you've seen it, but Marc Andreessen has great comments on James Austin's four types of luck: https://pmarchive.com/luck_and_the_entrepreneur.html
I also recommend Jim Collins's book *Great by Choice* for a good analysis of the role of luck in business success.
Oh that sounds great, thanks for the tip!
I don't think this argument is wrong, exactly, but it certainly seems incomplete. Say you work as hard and diligently as Maya Angelou*. That takes your chance of success from 0% to... what? 25%? 10%? 0.01%? Over what time period? The answers to these questions really matter a lot! And pointing out that Maya Angelou exists just does not provide very much information here.
I agree that we would all be better off getting busy than complaining. But busy doing what? If your lifetime odds of success top off at 0.1%, then shouldn't you consider getting busy with something else?