Thanks, I appreciate your answer. Not sure it’s me tho. I guess another side I’d there’s probably real value in the fad, too. On some level, if you can figure that out.
All these people with money didn’t all get it by being stupid or fddy or vaporware so they’re responding to signals of value and their responses are reliable indicators in general.
There is more luck involved with getting rich than you might think. Mark Cuban once said if he had to start over he would have no problem becoming a millionaire but becoming a billionaire is completely dependent on luck.
But on some level, it’s also stupid to pursue the fad because it’s so hyper competitive and effect of luck is going to be magnified.
- but 'luck's meaning is nuanced and depends on how you define it.
The problem with 'luck' is it's a rough model. A hypothesis based on incomplete information or insufficient analysis or non-comprehensive insight. Was it luck? Or was it something else? It's too easy to falsely ascribe significance to mere randomness (both mistaking randomness for coordination, and mistaking coordination for randomness), as I think many people consider luck. Almost as if "luck is a lottery". The wrong view of luck can confuse one's view of agency.
Also, because in the common conception 'luck' deals with the unknown as well as achievement, debates on luck conjure political and religious conflict that can be super contentious and feel intensely personal - essentially intolerable differences for many!
I don't see luck that way - but I agree that luck, in how I view it, is needed!
All these people with money didn’t all get it by being stupid or fddy or vaporware so they’re responding to signals of value and their responses are reliable indicators in general.