Why are successful people turned into instruments of unique opportunity? Why are their stories told as circumstances of chance?
There are many examples of this kind of mystification. Isaac Newton suddenly discovered gravity when he observed an apple fall from a tree. A composer found inspiration and then wrote an amazing symphony. An entrepreneur had a brilliant idea and made a fortune through his business.
In countless of stories such as these, the triggering factor to a significant event is always made up to be external, and thus out of reach for the person’s influence.
But this is not reality: authors write nine to five regardless of any “inspiration”, they rewrite the same passage countless of times and they most often produce their best work when they are old. Newton didn’t discover gravity due to some falling apple; he had studied physics, mathematics and astronomy more than most people ever did.
I dare say that the real factor to success is always, and has always been, damn hard work and many failed attempts.
This is, however, a dangerous idea. People go to extreme lengths to deny it. For example the woman playing the lottery, believing it is the only way for her to become rich. Or the failed author blaming his empty pages on not having found the right inspiration — “yet.”
There is really no excuse for not having the capacity to achieve one’s own success. No talent? Talent is not nearly as important as the time you spend with a task, as described by Malcolm Gladwell in his Outliers (in which he also describes the importance of opportunity). No money? University is free, study loans are accessible for anyone and it doesn’t cost anything to start a company. Not “ready”? Get over it.
Why is the idea that anyone can become anything through one’s own ambition not embraced, but instead denied? Because it means complete responsibility for oneself, and the unlimited possiblities are easier shrugged off than capitalized. By some reason people are much more likely to confine themselves to a state where they believe they can’t affect their own destiny, rather than to embrace freedom. But still everyone knows that they could do anything, if they only tried. The guilt reminds them of this.
This is why successful people are mystified. By admitting that the causes for success were indeed equally accessible for everybody, the guilt is unbearable. So the choice is simple — deny the possiblities, stop thinking about it and blame everything on lucky circumstances.
October 8th, 2009
by Fredrik
If you had not so loosely defined success I would have been forced to disagree with you. The success of the Outliers discussed in Malcolm Gladwells book are not so successful by shear work-load – as is the point of the book. They have put in their 10 000 hours+, but Bill Gates was still the only kid in the states with unlimited access to a terminal.
I think this is what mystifies people, they think that it takes the same kind of “luck” to achieve self-sustainability as becoming a billionare – this is simply wrong.
Anyone can sustain themselves on their own work and live perfectly successful enriched happy lives while doing it.
BUT – and I belive this is important – they can do this technically. I believe that many (not even close to most though) people would actually crack and mentally break down on having the kind of responsibility it requires to live off your own power and ability.
They are simply not raised to be able to handle that.
October 8th, 2009
by Emanuel
The Author
The loose description was on purpose. For some success equals fulfilling a dream, for some an enjoyable life, for some a billion dollars.
There is also a (big) difference between success and extreme success. As you say, Outliers explains the “luck” Gates had to have access to computers everywhere. The point I’m trying to make is rather that the work-component to success is still a lot greater than the luck-component.
Somehow it seems people only talk about luck, since work, as a means to success, is too great a responsibility.
Last part is interesting, I’ve thought of that. I don’t think the way someone was raised determines the handling of responsibility. It affects it, perhaps a lot, but I don’t think it’s conclusive. But yet, I’m not at all sure.
October 9th, 2009
by Linus
I totally agree with your theory that hard work is the largest reason for success. I do however also think that the right circumstances have to present themselves, and when they do it is up to the individual to take advantage of the opportunity. Perhaps this is what people refer to when they talk of the chance aspect. What I mean is that in a complex world there are often things outside your control that have to be in the right state as well.
I’m also wondering how, or if, this differs from one country to another? Isn’t the belief that you can become anything you want if you work hard almost the essence of the American national psyche? At least that’s the image I feel is being portrayed in American movies and media. Does this reflect in peoples actions as well or is it just that the people who are successful refer to this?
October 9th, 2009
by Emanuel
The Author
Very true, Linus. Sure enough, the blog post makes a rather one-sided argument leaving out some complexity. But still, to a large extent you “create your own luck”.
Also, I interpret the “American dream” as just this — anyone can become anything. Yet, I can’t help but feel that given the equal opportunities in Sweden, the American dream is in some ways easier to achieve here than over there. Regarding if it’s something only successful people think about, I guess it all comes down to how people feel towards others who have a better life: are they envious or do they feel motivated to create something of their own?
October 23rd, 2009
by Max
The concept of “success”
In a world where the demand of general knowledge steadily increases the result of one or another’s specific performances can’t reach the same level of knowledge as of a person with a concentrated interest or an obsessity for a certain subject.
As Newton were studying mathematics and physics (and a majority of other subjects) he probably missed out the qualities of being a cool stylish single hog – converting girls in to shivering horny monsters (as one of the things), or he was a genius.
The difference between being a true genius and being mentally disrupted is just a slight such,
I reckon. And I do think that I’ve heard that Bill Gates got some kind of disruption as well?
So what’s the best; having a point competence or knowing a little less in many more different areas?
Success is something bittersweet. You can achieve many highlights during a career or having an active life, but the bitterness of it all is that you can’t reach success in every single subject area. In my opinion there is one way of attaining success; having a general interest of learning new things during your entire lifetime. But Newton was pretty cool anyway ;)!
October 23rd, 2009
by Emanuel
The Author
Hey Max! :) Thanks for the comment.
I think that knowing a little less in different areas, and perhaps as a consequence having a better developed social life, is more than good enough for almost all people. That’s why most people don’t find the motivation to go even further. As Jim Collins says, “good is the ‘enemy’ of great”.
…and all scientists are cool! ;)
October 30th, 2009
by Erik
Completely agree. Great post!
Futhermore I think that the concept of “the Big Idea” in entrepreneurship is very limiting. People hear the stories you refer to and think they have to wait for a brilliant idea in order to start. In reality I think successful people just pick “an idea”, use that as a starting point, and then work damn hard to experiment and change the idea until they find a formula that works.
But when people later tell the story of how that success came about, they are biased by the fact that the formula is now clear. It becomes very easy to imagine the entrepreneur getting inspired and instantly dreaming up the finished idea.
You need luck to become successful, but you need to make that luck for yourself.
October 31st, 2009
by Emanuel
The Author
Erik, I’ve thought a lot about that and I agree. There’s an almost complete consensus among entrepreneurs who “made it” saying the same thing. One such example is Paul Graham.
Also, it’s very very clear that ideas really don’t matter that much. At least not compared to what people you have around you!