Some are of the belief that luck is the determining factor when accomplishing a given goal. In my opinion, luck is pivotal in individual situations but its importance decreases over larger sample sizes.
The main argument for the primacy of luck is highly visible, singular examples. This translates to extremely successful individuals. For instance, Bill Gates and Steve Jobs were exceptionally intelligent and hard-working but they would never have become leading figures in history if they had not grown up in California in the 1970s during the computer boom. It is likely they would still be successful regardless of their era and place of birth but the extent of influence would be more limited. This same principle applies for the average individual as there are moments in one’s life that are best credited to good luck or an advantageous situation.
However, the significance of luck decreases over time. Take, for example, an average person. They may be born into a wealthy family and have a good start in life; they are lucky from the onset. Nonetheless, if they are not hard-working, there is a strong chance they will not be able to accomplish their goals in life. The reverse is true of someone born into a bad situation. There are exceptions, where the situation is dire or the period in history precludes success, but most people who apply themselves over a long period of time will ‘make their own luck’. This is because as sample sizes become larger, the influence of variance naturally decreases. It still requires some extraordinary luck to attain huge aims but more modest ones result from repeated action rather than fortune.
In conclusion, luck is decisive in particular instances but not more generally. It is therefore more important to place greater value on working hard in the long-term than on the off-chance of being lucky.
Buni ayni nimasi 7.5 va 8 bólyapti