Depressing thought. For at least 20 years I’ve been consciously solving for being more lucky, and it’s worked much better than I expected. But in the process I’ve kinda gotten used to being lucky, and that has made me stupider.
I was much smarter when I was average-lucky.
Conversation
Replying to
Meant to add. I think I hit a luck recession sometime middle of last year. Lost my Midas touch. It has yet to come back. Partly because I suppose I’ve turned a bit ambivalent about wanting it back.
3
1
13
Replying to
Please. You’re much smarter than the vast majority of your audience. This is like groveling loudly when you make a bogey on a par 4. Keep on keepin on.
1
Replying to
I don’t really compare myself to my audience. That’s not particularly meaningful to do. I mostly compare myself to people who scoop me on insights I’ve been digging for. They get there faster long term because they don’t rely on luck as much as I do.
3
1
5
Show replies
Replying to
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teela_Bro
... descended from "lucky" ancestors, six generations of whom were born as a result of winning Earth's Birthright Lottery. .... she'd led such a charmed and worry-free life that she was emotionally immature and unprepared for "harsh reality."
1
1
4
Replying to
Is that realization part of why you now advocate mediocrity? In practice, 'cultivating habits of excellence' doesn't look too different from 'solving for being more lucky'. Both establish a limiting 'new normal'. Maybe mediocrity minus new normals trumps excellence plus them.
1
1
1
This Tweet was deleted by the Tweet author. Learn more
Show replies
Replying to
Solving for serendipity means you'll get more good results, but less command of where those results occur.
A less lucky but smarter Rao would have made a far smaller dent in the universe. Maybe it would have been deeper in one direction, but it would also have been less broad.
1
3





