Skip to main content

Analysing Luck

I've just been reading an interesting new book called Science 1001 (See at or The idea of the book is to cover all of science in 1001 easily digestible topics. Some of them are on obvious subjects - like Newton's laws. Others less so. I was particularly struck by the entry on luck.

This asks why some people seem to have an endless supply of luck while others are sadly lacking. Apparently Richard Wiseman, a psychologist at the University of Hertfordshire, has found out that people who rate themselves as lucky are often extroverts, while those who think themselves unlucky are often introverts, whose self-doubt holds them back.

It's certainly true that creativity and getting on in life is, to some extent, a Pygmalion effect. If you believe your ideas are rubbish, you won't tell anyone about them, and you won't try to put them into practice. But I have two problems with the theory as presented.

Firstly, self-doubt and introversion aren't the same thing. It's entirely possible to be introverted and full of confidence in your own ability (the typical geek caricature, for instance). Secondly, though I am convinced by the Pygmalion effect, I think Dr Wiseman has partially got causality back to front. I suspect luck is primarily just that. It's a very common mistake to think that because something is distributed randomly it is distributed evenly. In fact a random thing like luck comes in clusters. You would expect some people to have a lot and some very little. (See my post on clusters.)

So I would expect some people, entirely randomly, to be more lucky than others. (Many entrepreneurs spring to mind.) And after a while, it wouldn't surprise me if those people became more extrovert as a result of their success.

Of course, a one paragraph article can't give the detail of the research, and I suspect Dr Wiseman's conclusion is more complex than 'luck is caused by extroversion' - but it's interesting to ponder.


  1. Very interesting stuff. I guess Wiseman is talking more about the type of luck which one 'makes' oneself, i.e getting your projects to succeed, and I can certainly see that having a self-image of yourself as a lucky person could well be valuable to that end (though presumably after some point it will spill over into overconfidence, which might prove a liability).

    In the case of successful entrepreneurs, it's also worth bearing in mind the survivorship fallacy, which suggests we should take their tales of success with a pinch of salt.

    Your point about randomness not equalling fairness is spot on, as spectacularly illustrated by the case of the lucky lady who won the New Jersey lottery.... twice.

    As it happens, this and related subjects are discussed in the section on "Coincidence" in that book's companion volume "Maths 1001" (which just happens to be written by me).

    Richard Elwes

  2. Thanks, Richard. I shall drop hints with the PR people that we ought to review Maths 1001 on too!

  3. Thanks - that would be marvellous! That being the case, I've just bunged an email to the appropriate people encouraging them to post you a copy, which they may agree to do if they're feeling cooperative.

    Richard Elwes

  4. They have already agreed, Richard - they will send one through as soon as the PR company has them in.

  5. I read another review of this title, which sent blood pressure soaring. It seems yet another (yawn) attempt at justifying the notion that 'life is what you make of it'. Tell that to the victims in ... well, select your own genocidal/natural disaster scenario. Sounds awfully like bad science to me (not that I am qualified to judge - far from it!). Now off to seek further enlightenment in your post on clusters.

  6. Minnie - most of the book is straightforward science, but I think it suffered in this section by trying to include soft sciences, where the topics are rather less concrete.


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's recent gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some ex

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Which idiot came up with percentage-based gradient signs

Rant warning: the contents of this post could sound like something produced by UKIP. I wish to make it clear that I do not in any way support or endorse that political party. In fact it gives me the creeps. Once upon a time, the signs for a steep hill on British roads displayed the gradient in a simple, easy-to-understand form. If the hill went up, say, one yard for every three yards forward it said '1 in 3'. Then some bureaucrat came along and decided that it would be a good idea to state the slope as a percentage. So now the sign for (say) a 1 in 10 slope says 10% (I think). That 'I think' is because the percentage-based slope is so unnatural. There are two ways we conventionally measure slopes. Either on X/Y coordiates (as in 1 in 4) or using degrees - say at a 15° angle. We don't measure them in percentages. It's easy to visualize a 1 in 3 slope, or a 30 degree angle. Much less obvious what a 33.333 recurring percent slope is. And what's a 100% slope