When we see someone’s achievements, it is easy to infer their abilities and decisions from the outcome. It is harder to see the chance events they encountered, or what happened to others who made similar efforts.

In their 2018 paper Talent vs Luck, Alessandro Pluchino, Alessio Emanuele Biondo, and Andrea Rapisarda used a simplified agent-based model to explore talent, random events, and wealth outcomes. Their findings suggest that talent alone does not explain the highest outcomes: chance matters substantially. The model also retains a necessary role for talent. Paper abstract and publication details

The model does not tell us what percentage of a particular person’s success came from ability or luck. It also does not establish that success depends almost entirely on luck once ability is slightly above average. My takeaway is to leave room for chance when judging outcomes.

That leads me to two practical questions: Which losses might I reduce? How could I improve my chances of encountering, recognizing, and responding to opportunities? What follows is my own reflection, not a set of life prescriptions validated by the paper.

Recognize losses that could restrict future action

Illness, accidents, financial losses, broken relationships, and changes in the wider environment can interrupt a plan. Some allow preparation; others lie far beyond individual control.

Instead of giving myself the vague instruction to “avoid misfortune,” I can ask:

  • What would be lost if this happened? Could it prevent me from continuing?
  • What information, preparation, or alternative arrangement could I put in place now?
  • Which judgments exceed my competence and call for reliable professional help?
  • Could I try a smaller version that would leave room to adjust after failure?

These questions support preparation. They do not imply that people who suffer misfortune failed to prepare.

Separate given conditions from what can still change

The family and environment into which I was born, changes in society, and many encounters are not mine to choose. Some conditions can later be changed in part; others impose limits I need to recognize.

Looking back at good fortune, I also want to distinguish chance from accumulated effort. Someone may meet a collaborator by accident, while their ability to complete the work depends on prior skills, trust, and later action. Either an explanation based only on chance or one based only on effort leaves something out.

Create more ways for opportunities to reach you

I treat “increasing the frequency of good fortune” as a direction for action: within affordable limits, encounter different information, problems, and people, while practicing how to recognize and respond to what appears.

Encounter. Am I receiving the same inputs repeatedly? Could one real conversation, a small project, or sharing a piece of work reveal a problem I had not noticed?

Recognize. Do I understand what an opportunity requires and whether it suits me? An active or fashionable field may still be a poor fit. Recognition includes saying no.

Respond. If someone takes an interest in my work, can I explain its purpose, answer questions, and fulfill a small promise? If I am not ready, I can reduce the promise and develop the ability to meet it.

More attempts also mean more costs. Each experiment needs a scope and a stopping condition. “Creating luck” should not justify endless activity or uncontrolled risk.

One small experiment this week

Choose something you have already made some progress on. Write a short explanation of the problem it addresses and invite one relevant person to offer specific feedback. Record what you learn and whether it changes your next action.

This is an experiment in contact and learning. Its result may simply help you rule out an unsuitable direction, which can still be useful.

I cannot schedule good fortune. I can examine my preparation, choices, and actions so that an unexpected event leaves me a little more able to understand and respond.