Really enjoyed this. The D&D dice metaphor is such a sharp way to capture how much randomness is baked into life. I completely agree that we never stop rolling, and that the starting dice aren’t distributed evenly.
Where I’ve landed is similar to what you wrote about influence: while we can’t control the outcome of each roll, we can change the number of rolls we take, the tables we sit at, and the people rolling alongside us. That’s how I think about “increasing your surface area for luck,” not denying the dice, just giving them more places to land.
Would love to hear your take: do you think there’s a point where effort stops mattering, no matter how many rolls you line up?
I like your surface area analogy! I think it’s never pointless to skew the dice in your favor/increase your surface area, but there are certainly some circumstances where further effort is probably not worthwhile. I’m imagining a 100 sided dice that must roll exactly a 100 to work, and all the effort in the world merely adds 99 as another positive outcome. This is why it’s sensible for parents to be afraid for their talented artist kids who want to make it a career, for instance. If you go down that route, you better have the passion- because even with great effort it will still take enormous luck to be commercially successful.
1. I think the credibility of the advice is not just based on the specific giver's 'track record' (which may be lucky). It is also tempered by common sense, how it reconciles with the receiver's previous experiences and views, and the aggregate influence of others in their orbit. Note this very 'tempering' also poses a problem when the 'truth' is sharply inconsistent with one's previous views, which likely biased their orbit, and [insert loop here]. This is where rational thinking and analytical skills come into play and is my answer to your first question.
4. Yes. I would like to raise the floor on poor luck for the worst affected in particular and would gladly lower the ceiling for those who most benefit from luck. I appreciate the evolution only afforded by some degree of luck (speaking beyond just biology), but I am not personally comfortable with the brutality of this for the sentient.
5. Yes, yes, and yes, in general. These are examples of artificially lowering the ceiling for some to raise the floor for others where luck may have been extreme. I recognize there are problems with this though, looking only at ‘financial status’ as a measure of ‘luck’. Just because someone is well off does not mean they came by it via ‘extreme good luck’, nor does someone suffering mean they came by it via ‘extreme bad luck’. “Hard work” and “bad choices” complicate use of income as a measure of luck, but in general I think these help address the original question of extreme luck.
Interesting answers, thanks for your thoughts. Regarding 5), completely agree that is usually very difficult to measure 'luck' and that significantly complicates the practicality of actually implementing any of these programs even if we all agree on the goal.
Really enjoyed this. The D&D dice metaphor is such a sharp way to capture how much randomness is baked into life. I completely agree that we never stop rolling, and that the starting dice aren’t distributed evenly.
Where I’ve landed is similar to what you wrote about influence: while we can’t control the outcome of each roll, we can change the number of rolls we take, the tables we sit at, and the people rolling alongside us. That’s how I think about “increasing your surface area for luck,” not denying the dice, just giving them more places to land.
Would love to hear your take: do you think there’s a point where effort stops mattering, no matter how many rolls you line up?
I like your surface area analogy! I think it’s never pointless to skew the dice in your favor/increase your surface area, but there are certainly some circumstances where further effort is probably not worthwhile. I’m imagining a 100 sided dice that must roll exactly a 100 to work, and all the effort in the world merely adds 99 as another positive outcome. This is why it’s sensible for parents to be afraid for their talented artist kids who want to make it a career, for instance. If you go down that route, you better have the passion- because even with great effort it will still take enormous luck to be commercially successful.
1. I think the credibility of the advice is not just based on the specific giver's 'track record' (which may be lucky). It is also tempered by common sense, how it reconciles with the receiver's previous experiences and views, and the aggregate influence of others in their orbit. Note this very 'tempering' also poses a problem when the 'truth' is sharply inconsistent with one's previous views, which likely biased their orbit, and [insert loop here]. This is where rational thinking and analytical skills come into play and is my answer to your first question.
4. Yes. I would like to raise the floor on poor luck for the worst affected in particular and would gladly lower the ceiling for those who most benefit from luck. I appreciate the evolution only afforded by some degree of luck (speaking beyond just biology), but I am not personally comfortable with the brutality of this for the sentient.
5. Yes, yes, and yes, in general. These are examples of artificially lowering the ceiling for some to raise the floor for others where luck may have been extreme. I recognize there are problems with this though, looking only at ‘financial status’ as a measure of ‘luck’. Just because someone is well off does not mean they came by it via ‘extreme good luck’, nor does someone suffering mean they came by it via ‘extreme bad luck’. “Hard work” and “bad choices” complicate use of income as a measure of luck, but in general I think these help address the original question of extreme luck.
Interesting answers, thanks for your thoughts. Regarding 5), completely agree that is usually very difficult to measure 'luck' and that significantly complicates the practicality of actually implementing any of these programs even if we all agree on the goal.