The pie chart of success in career

Post Reply New Topic

Dude, how many oil wells have you drilled?

None?

I worked as a 'roughneck' in central Michigan (yes, there are oil fields there) for a couple of summers in college.  I know first-hand how much research and effort goes into deciding where a drilling rig should go; and although my degrees are in Electrical Engineering, I can appreciate how important it is to eliminate reliance on 'luck' in any endeavor.

Did you ever stop to think that maybe it is your reliance on 'luck' that has held you back all these years?

I have drilled a lot of oil wells in my life as a oil company owner and I got unlucky a lot.Veterans who have been in the industry for many decades that luck is a huge factor.Like I wont ever be a billionaire oilman on the Forbes 400 if I dont get overriding royalties or get my first big break or have a lot of luck along the way.But one time we did a great amount of research and effort on a well location and we had a bad driller and that well was not profitable even though it had premo geology.You simply cant eliminate reliance on luck or fate or destiny to be a billionaire oil baron or any kind of billionaire or whatever you want to call luck.I did not think that my reliance on luck has held me back at all.I simply have had a lot of bad luck for example having autism.Like if i didnt have that I would most likely have a better chance at providing for myself.I am a hard worker but i have had the misfortune and bad luck of nobody giving me a chance even after I got a university bachelor's degree.You can reduce a lot of reliance on luck in drlling for oil but you cant eliminate it completely.Like you have to get lucky to be in a position to get the oil lease to even think about drilling.

Those who rely on luck are doomed to eventual failure.

"Luck" isn't merely the grace of heavens above. For example, it's the situation you find yourself in and had no choice but to find yourself in when you were born. I don't want to discredit hard work or an eye for opportunity, but you cannot argue that a man born into a moderately wealthy family in NYC won't have a better shot at conventional success than an unwanted child of an HIV-positive parent in a third-world country. Being born in the aforementioned family is good luck. Being born in the latter family is bad luck. People don't start from an equal position in life, that's just nonsense.

What I would say is that while luck is a factor in your objective chance of success, we're better off ignoring it and work with what we have to make the lives of those around us (and ourselves) better. You can't change what you have no control over, anyway.

I don't think ignoring luck is the best approach. We should always acknowledge luck/risk factor and leverage it to achieve desired long term outcome. Always estimate luck/risk, effort, potential loss and potential reward every time you are making any important decision. Too often I see people refusing to try low effort, low risk, low loss, but potentially extremely rewarding stuff when success isn't a sure thing, when there is any chance of failure.

If by risk you mean the possibility that an outcome will be more detrimental than beneficial, then it should definitely be considered.  This should not be confused with luck, which involves some alleged supernatural influence that can allegedly be modified by rituals and talismans.

However, it is fair to point out that risk diminishes as advantages increase; and by advantages, I mean improvements in assets and resources over and above a common "default" level.  Everyone carries some level of risk, with the greatest amount of risk associated with the unprepared, and the least amount of risk associated with those who plan and prepare for as many contingencies as they can.

This is why an employed person with many skills and talents ("If the ladies don't find you handsome, they should at least find you handy") has a lower risk of rejection than an unemployed person with no skills or talents -- all else being equal, of course.

There are factors beyond your control and your knowledge. We must accept that. You put on a random t-shirt from the top of the stack, this t-shirt happens to have a band logo on it. During lunch break you approach a pretty woman at a coffee shop, it might be her favorite band and you will bond immediately, but it might be a favorite band of her abusive ex she just broke up with couple weeks ago and she will reject you on the spot. No matter how successful, socially adapted, attractive or whatever you are, you might still end up being rejected because luck is important factor.

Believing it's all about luck is delusional, but believing luck is not a factor at all is just as delusional.

Yes, risk can be minimized, but not eliminated entirely.

(I disdain the term "luck" because of its inherent supernatural connotations.)

"Risk", however, is something that can be perceived, calculated, and planned for.

Now, forgo the random element, deliberately choose an ordinary tee-shirt, and wear it to the same coffee shop.  Because there are no 'triggering' images on it, there is less risk of rejection.  Of course, there is also less risk of attracting the Metallica fan-girl, but there are other factors that can be brought to bear, like duplicating her order, giving the barista a similar name, 'mistakenly' claiming her order, and apologizing for the 'error', as well.

Social relations are more like chess than poker, in that aside from choosing who goes first, it is all about strategic actions -- advance, feint, block, check, capture, and mate.

And that's how I got 3 years.

I find this advise very dumb in this context, like you are missing the point entirely. You don't reduce total risk of rejection by doing any of it. Neutral t-shirt can be just as triggering as a t-shirt with a band logo, maybe it's exactly the same "boring" color or brand her abusive ex loved and had dozens t-shirt of the same color. Claiming her order has the same probability of backfiring as wearing a t-shirt with a "wrong" band logo on it, maybe this is what her abusive ex did to attract her attention, you can't know that. No matter what you do there are things beyond your control, something you can't predict. That's the point.

Did I not mention in an earlier post that risk cannot be entirely eliminated?  There is always going to be risk -- heck, just sitting here typing this entails the risk that my heart will suddenly stop beating.  The best anyone can do is to reduce the risk of rejection by making one's self more attractive, even if it means compensating for one's obvious flaws.

But you do not reduce risk or rejection by wearing a neutral t-shirt and trying to compensate reduced probability of bonding over a favorite band by trying to attract her attention with annoying tricks potentially used by dozens of slimy douches before. Taking all the factors into account, doing this would probably increase risk of rejection and reduce probability of meaningful connection over common interests. This is the opposite of what most people here want.

"Can't"?  After something has worked for me more than once, there is no reason to believe that it "can't" be done.

Social games and chess games have similarities -- some more subtle than others -- and unless you are willing to "up your game", your risk of rejection and loss will remain high.

a) There are factors beyond your control and knowledge, things you can't predict, it is stupid to argue against it. Luck factor is never zero, it makes "social games" much closer to poker, nothing like chess. If you think "social games" are chess, you have no idea what you are talking about.
b) By addressing explicitly described risks like t-shirt with a band logo, you just introduce new risks, that doesn't reduce totals risk of rejection. If you don't see that, you don't understand risk management. You have no idea what you are talking about.
c) An average person on the spectrum trying to implement your "venusian arts" advise would come of as "creepy" and it would increase risk not only of rejection, but of actual damage to their image and reputation.
d) There is no evidence any of your advise ever worked for you except your own claims.

I don't see why anyone here should take your advise seriously.