Study says being rich is determined by chance rather than intelligence or talent

[XbladeX]

"Study says being rich is determined by chance rather than intelligence or talent"

yeas you can get rich quicly but same time you will go brke ass fast as you become rich.
The jay is not buy lambo but be able to keep this lambo over time and here we have problem.
Stupid people will get rect over time by advisors ext.
there is no easy way to obtain rael wealt and keep it.

[1714785492]

1714785492

[1714785492]

1714785492

[1714785492]

1714785492

[Barcode_]

In my opinion, I don't really agree being rich is determined by chance rather than intelligence or talent, take Cristiano Ronaldo who is one of the best footballer in the world as example, he is one of the richest football player in the world due to his talented skills in the game.

Bill gates does have great intelligence to be able to create Microsoft and he also became the world richest man because of his own creation.

But without Alex Ferguson giving Cristiano Ronaldo a chance to be included in the first team of Manchester United in the past, Cristiano Ronaldo might not be able to gain his fame and popularity in such a short period of time so chance is also a very important aspect, and I would say being rich is actually determined by chance, intelligence and talent.

[Stratobitz]

I think timing and place play a large part of the "chance" of success of any person or endeavor.

Take any rags to riches story; and displace that person's birth by even 10 years, and the rise to riches would have never been realized.

I launched a start up back in 2005. I launched in a city which had service providers which offered the "service industry" I was entering into; but not with the "angle or approach" which I took.

There was a lot of media and video content companies; but a huge void of creativity. The true creatives went west to Los Angeles or North to NYC.

So there was basically a lot of "terrible content" being produced here at that time.

I launched in with a very sleek new concept, solid branding, promoting our firm as the the leader in "Creative content that captures and inspires the imaginations of our customer's audiences". That sort of thing.

All my competitors offered "Video and Multimedia Services Since 1992". So it really was a "Blue Ocean", where I made my own market and took ownership of it.

Now in the years to follow; we put a lot of firms out of business, as we grew into a multi-million dollar firm with a full time staff of 20 and 10k sq feet of space.

By this point our competitors who were still in business were rapidly re-branding, following suit to what we were offering. And our competition, ended up getting tougher as more and more people simply advertised themselves the way we did.

- So regardless if you're talking about someone like Bill Gates, or Zuckerberg being displaced by 10 years; had I come to this city 10 years earlier (born earlier) or later; the opportunity likely would not have presented itself due to the market changes that happened between 2005 and 2015 (such as moving from SD to HD).

Sort of a microcosm example; but if you've got the talent; you have to do your absolute best; everything you can, to be ready, for when, and if the time comes- for your chance... and do everything you can to make that chance happen.

Cheers!

Strato

[1nvestments]

Being rich is according to fate and predestination

Hmmmm..

https://anothertouchnow.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/your-choice.jpg

They say that chance only knock ones you have to grab it but also you have to do something you have to work on it wisely.

Exactly and on point.

I have always felt people who achieved success where mainly in the right place right time

and with right decision.

That's not truth, even life could not let you becamo rich, I think theres too much anarquist here, and theres people without a chance.

[19spawnfeed]

In my opinion, I don't really agree being rich is determined by chance rather than intelligence or talent, take Cristiano Ronaldo who is one of the best footballer in the world as example, he is one of the richest football player in the world due to his talented skills in the game.

Bill gates does have great intelligence to be able to create Microsoft and he also became the world richest man because of his own creation.

But without Alex Ferguson giving Cristiano Ronaldo a chance to be included in the first team of Manchester United in the past, Cristiano Ronaldo might not be able to gain his fame and popularity in such a short period of time so chance is also a very important aspect, and I would say being rich is actually determined by chance, intelligence and talent.

I absolutely agree with your own opinion Sir. Being rich not determine by chance rather than intelligence or talent. A good example Mr Bill Gates the person who become rich using his talent. The example of the person who become rich because of the chance are those person with skill with the help of other person in giving his chance to explore his talent.

[Nahl]

being rich not determined by fate because every people can change their fate but indeed there is no guarantee smart people will being rich people because if they can't utilize every opportunities to makes them rich then smart people will never being rich but this is not fully true because i consider for those who able to utilize every opportunities to making money and being rich people i think they're also pretty smart

[minthit]

The problem is we usually tend to alienate these wealthy people, something like thinking they might be very talented, they might be very lucky. The truth is they are also human. They have struggles, they have their own coping strategy, etc. They might even react to certain situations like we usually did. They are indifferent from us. So, in other words, it's fair to say that luck plays a big role with their achievement. Now, since there's proof, I'm quite sure with my thoughts now. This is from the wealth perspective though. What about sense of fulfillment, happiness, success (no matter how you define it)? I think I will stick to my opinion that these can be achieved with right living, not just by luck.

[Sekai]

getting rich can indeed be determined by the luck factor but actually get rich it is because hard work, never give up, and able to see the opportunity (innovative). innovative we must have a smart brain so I think to be rich also determined from intelligence.

[Granslam]

I strongly believe to it, not more than 60% of total rich people in the world got rich because of their talent or intelligence. I believe that fortune and luck is the another way for getting rich, example, you have a family business and you are a business management graduate that you are the leader of it, business went wrong and bankrupted because you didn't get enough luck or the path is not really yours.

[eagleman]

That's not truth, even life could not let you becamo rich, I think theres too much anarquist here, and theres people without a chance.

You're giving up too early? Your fate and your life is in your hands.
If you work hard then it will be paid off and you'll finally reap all those times that you've been with the use of your strength, sweat and blood. I believe in luck and if being rich is for you and you are destined to be, it will come but you have to do efforts for it.

[Stratobitz]

The problem is we usually tend to alienate these wealthy people, something like thinking they might be very talented, they might be very lucky. The truth is they are also human. They have struggles, they have their own coping strategy, etc. They might even react to certain situations like we usually did. They are indifferent from us. So, in other words, it's fair to say that luck plays a big role with their achievement. Now, since there's proof, I'm quite sure with my thoughts now. This is from the wealth perspective though. What about sense of fulfillment, happiness, success (no matter how you define it)? I think I will stick to my opinion that these can be achieved with right living, not just by luck.

We don't alienate them. They alienate or rather highly insulate themselves from ordinary people. They have no tolerance in general for the public, or every day individuals. If it's not for PR it is a waste of time.

As someone who has done well for myself, I'm by no means "Rich" in terms of 100s of Millions of Dollars. But some of my clients are. Mid 9 Figures Levels.

I can say after having spent a lot of time working with them one on one; traveling with them; spending days/nights with them in locations and working on projects; they are generally have little tolerance for wasting time dealing with ordinary people.

This isn't to say that celebrities, high level executives, and high level government officials don't seem extremely friendly when they are in the situation where shaking hands, putting their other hand on your elbow or shoulder, leaning in, acting engaged, isn't something they do very well. But it is for the most part a role they play, and trust me they would rather be anywhere else. Like back on their yacht or on their horse farm with their family and other rich friends.

They also don't so much alienate themselves; rather insulate themselves. I've been in the unique position because of the type of work I do where they can't hire my firm/me without really being directly engaged, because of the disconnect that would occur and how that would lead to me providing them with a compromised product/level of service. They understand that.

But for most people they have to deal with; the truly wealthy insulate themselves with layers of management and assistance. I do this to some degree as well. I prefer to deal directly with my executive assistant on pretty much all matters both personal and business. And only get on the phone for the critical calls, attend meetings where my presence is necessary or with a client, because my time is better spent doing what I do.... such as posting to this forum

But just to note, it's you, not them. (No insult or pun intended). You aren't alienating the super rich and talented people in the world; they just want nothing to do with common people (again not saying that's you); just in general.

Cheers!

Strato

[carlisle1]

Being rich is according to fate and predestination

It is a yes when according to fate but in predestination i dont think so. What you mean to say about predestination is people cant change their future. When they are born poor and in the future they are also poor is that what you want tyo point out. People has freedom, and they can change life they want to be in the future.

opportunity only knock once not twice so must be grabbed..i had some chance in my life,but let it go for some reason..being rich is not a destiny but a legacy.something that we must try hard to achieve and fulfill,

That's not truth, even life could not let you becamo rich, I think theres too much anarquist here, and theres people without a chance.

You're giving up too early? Your fate and your life is in your hands.
If you work hard then it will be paid off and you'll finally reap all those times that you've been with the use of your strength, sweat and blood. I believe in luck and if being rich is for you and you are destined to be, it will come but you have to do efforts for it.

Maybe OP only gains failure in life.thats why bitterness is what hes mouth talk.but in a point hes right not all of us given a chance,or maybe time for someone still on the process and will come soon

[gantez]

For me I do not see being rich as just a single factor leading to it. I believe it to be contributory. Apart from intelligence, chance and predestination is very important. If somebody is predestined for being rich, circumstances would present itself to make the person step on it.

[Alalex]

Yes it takes hard work and intelligence to get rich, some also get rich by chance but it is really difficult because there is no desire from the beginning.
If now I want to be rich a person like me who wants to do cripto currency trading business, which I have learned from the first time I know coin cripto currency, and now I have a little useful knowledge to be a cripto money trader. It's all thanks to my own intelligence that I can use for my own success.
It was not by chance but I did have my intention to be rich.

[lingwistiko]

Being rich is according to fate and predestination

On top of that, being rich isn't always in the right place or time but also if you are lucky. There are those who doesn't even have diploma or earned education, out of school people, or dropout but became rich and very successful in life.

[longhair0418]

Well, being rich or "successful" is seldom the result of one aspect of one's life. It is the combination of background, intelligence, appearance, and luck.......etc. Also, IQ is not the only kind of intelligence. Let's say sb has a IQ of 180 but has super low EQ and pisses off people all the time, he might never have access to a good investment thus never get the "chance" to get rich.

[kalawang]

Being rich is according to fate and predestination

Maybe not. It's gotta be your hard work and your will. Everything that you do is not always destined and your fate. If you don't do something about it you can't reach a certain goal. We make our goals and we make precautions for it to happen and be reached. As of being rich, you need hard work and a mindset of being one.

[bubble pop]

If you’re so smart, why aren’t you rich? Turns out it’s just chance

The most successful people are not the most talented, just the luckiest, a new computer model of wealth creation confirms. Taking that into account can maximize return on many kinds of investment.

The distribution of wealth follows a well-known pattern sometimes called an 80:20 rule: 80 percent of the wealth is owned by 20 percent of the people. Indeed, a report last year concluded that just eight men had a total wealth equivalent to that of the world’s poorest 3.8 billion people.

This seems to occur in all societies at all scales. It is a well-studied pattern called a power law that crops up in a wide range of social phenomena. But the distribution of wealth is among the most controversial because of the issues it raises about fairness and merit. Why should so few people have so much wealth?

The conventional answer is that we live in a meritocracy in which people are rewarded for their talent, intelligence, effort, and so on. Over time, many people think, this translates into the wealth distribution that we observe, although a healthy dose of luck can play a role.

But there is a problem with this idea: while wealth distribution follows a power law, the distribution of human skills generally follows a normal distribution that is symmetric about an average value. For example, intelligence, as measured by IQ tests, follows this pattern. Average IQ is 100, but nobody has an IQ of 1,000 or 10,000.

The same is true of effort, as measured by hours worked. Some people work more hours than average and some work less, but nobody works a billion times more hours than anybody else.

And yet when it comes to the rewards for this work, some people do have billions of times more wealth than other people. What’s more, numerous studies have shown that the wealthiest people are generally not the most talented by other measures.

What factors, then, determine how individuals become wealthy? Could it be that chance plays a bigger role than anybody expected? And how can these factors, whatever they are, be exploited to make the world a better and fairer place?

Today we get an answer thanks to the work of Alessandro Pluchino at the University of Catania in Italy and a couple of colleagues. These guys have created a computer model of human talent and the way people use it to exploit opportunities in life. The model allows the team to study the role of chance in this process.

The results are something of an eye-opener. Their simulations accurately reproduce the wealth distribution in the real world. But the wealthiest individuals are not the most talented (although they must have a certain level of talent). They are the luckiest. And this has significant implications for the way societies can optimize the returns they get for investments in everything from business to science.

Pluchino and co’s model is straightforward. It consists of N people, each with a certain level of talent (skill, intelligence, ability, and so on). This talent is distributed normally around some average level, with some standard deviation. So some people are more talented than average and some are less so, but nobody is orders of magnitude more talented than anybody else.

This is the same kind of distribution seen for various human skills, or even characteristics like height or weight. Some people are taller or smaller than average, but nobody is the size of an ant or a skyscraper. Indeed, we are all quite similar.

The computer model charts each individual through a working life of 40 years. During this time, the individuals experience lucky events that they can exploit to increase their wealth if they are talented enough.

However, they also experience unlucky events that reduce their wealth. These events occur at random.

At the end of the 40 years, Pluchino and co rank the individuals by wealth and study the characteristics of the most successful. They also calculate the wealth distribution. They then repeat the simulation many times to check the robustness of the outcome.

When the team rank individuals by wealth, the distribution is exactly like that seen in real-world societies. “The ‘80-20’ rule is respected, since 80 percent of the population owns only 20 percent of the total capital, while the remaining 20 percent owns 80 percent of the same capital,” report Pluchino and co.

That may not be surprising or unfair if the wealthiest 20 percent turn out to be the most talented. But that isn’t what happens. The wealthiest individuals are typically not the most talented or anywhere near it. “The maximum success never coincides with the maximum talent, and vice-versa,” say the researchers.

So if not talent, what other factor causes this skewed wealth distribution? “Our simulation clearly shows that such a factor is just pure luck,” say Pluchino and co.

The team shows this by ranking individuals according to the number of lucky and unlucky events they experience throughout their 40-year careers. “It is evident that the most successful individuals are also the luckiest ones,” they say. “And the less successful individuals are also the unluckiest ones.”

That has significant implications for society. What is the most effective strategy for exploiting the role luck plays in success?

Pluchino and co study this from the point of view of science research funding, an issue clearly close to their hearts. Funding agencies the world over are interested in maximizing their return on investment in the scientific world. Indeed, the European Research Council recently invested $1.7 million in a program to study serendipity—the role of luck in scientific discovery—and how it can be exploited to improve funding outcomes.

It turns out that Pluchino and co are well set to answer this question. They use their model to explore different kinds of funding models to see which produce the best returns when luck is taken into account.

The team studied three models, in which research funding is distributed equally to all scientists; distributed randomly to a subset of scientists; or given preferentially to those who have been most successful in the past. Which of these is the best strategy?

The strategy that delivers the best returns, it turns out, is to divide the funding equally among all researchers. And the second- and third-best strategies involve distributing it at random to 10 or 20 percent of scientists.

In these cases, the researchers are best able to take advantage of the serendipitous discoveries they make from time to time. In hindsight, it is obvious that the fact a scientist has made an important chance discovery in the past does not mean he or she is more likely to make one in the future.

A similar approach could also be applied to investment in other kinds of enterprises, such as small or large businesses, tech startups, education that increases talent, or even the creation of random lucky events.

Clearly, more work is needed here. What are we waiting for?

Ref: arxiv.org/abs/1802.07068 : Talent vs. Luck: The Role of Randomness in Success and Failure

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/610395/if-youre-so-smart-why-arent-you-rich-turns-out-its-just-chance/

A very interesting spin on anything that has ever been said about money, success or wealth!

I don't know what to think about this. The scaling argument which says 1% of the human population shouldn't own 40% of the world's wealth due to them not having IQ's of 200,000 or talent proportional to the highly disproportionate stake of wealth they control is something that will take time for me to digest and think about. Its certainly a novel concept.

Its also very interesting that they attempted to model along lines of standard deviation and wound up with a historical 20/80 wealth distribution. I think this is something which could use more exposure and media coverage. Its not often relatively original or new perspectives like this come along and the paradigm shift which can accompany them can often take decades to be fully appreciated within a pop culture vein.

We all have so many perception in life but I believe that you want to really pursue something whether it is small or big thing you can reach it with the help not just by someone knowledge and skills or talent but with it's hard working personality and most of all that he/she do things with all of their heart I could say that being successful is when you are already happy of what your doing. That the meaning of being rich for me.

[buwaytress]

I think we've all always known this. Even if you just want to look at the new crypto millionaires that are beginning to show themselves, they weren't necessarily intelligent (or talented), they simply had the luck to be involved early, or the luck to have their below-radar alt suddenly become so valuable (I'm thinking coins like Raiblock/Nano).

Of course, one should also credit a lot of early Bitcoin adopters (who also held) and its developers for having incredible foresight. It's probably true though, that only a handful of early proponents and developers actually held much coins, though had they done so, we'd have seen much slower adoption and use.

[orions.belt19]

I'd have to disagree. I think a better term would be 'circumstance' not chance. Although there are those who get rich in an instant like those who win the lottery. People like them get rich because they were lucky - a lucky 'chance' for that matter.

But then, many get rich because of the circumstance that they're in. They're born from a rich family and because of their background, they have the resources to exploit more and eventually get even richer. Those who are born in a poor setting have a harder time of getting rich, or attaining wealth. Thus, because of the chance that they're born in, this dictates their status in life. Even those intelligent or talented that are born in a poor setting would still have a hard time getting up the ladder, no matter how good their skill is or how intelligent they are. But then again, there are misnomers to this standard and some are able to get rich if they work hard enough.

As a conclusion, the best determinant of wealth would be ourselves and how resourceful we are. No matter the circumstance that you're in, it would be up to you to make out the most of what you have and to determine our own fates.