Talent vs Luck: the role of randomness in success and failure. A. Pluchino. A. E. Biondo, A. Rapisarda. arXiv:1802.07068 [physics.soc-ph], Feb 20 2018, https://arxiv.org/abs/1802.07068
The largely dominant meritocratic paradigm of highly competitive Western cultures is rooted on the belief that success is due mainly, if not exclusively, to personal qualities such as talent, intelligence, skills, efforts or risk taking. Sometimes, we are willing to admit that a certain degree of luck could also play a role in achieving significant material success. But, as a matter of fact, it is rather common to underestimate the importance of external forces in individual successful stories. It is very well known that intelligence or talent exhibit a Gaussian distribution among the population, whereas the distribution of wealth - considered a proxy of success - follows typically a power law (Pareto law). Such a discrepancy between a Normal distribution of inputs, with a typical scale, and the scale invariant distribution of outputs, suggests that some hidden ingredient is at work behind the scenes. In this paper, with the help of a very simple agent-based model, we suggest that such an ingredient is just randomness. In particular, we show that, if it is true that some degree of talent is necessary to be successful in life, almost never the most talented people reach the highest peaks of success, being overtaken by mediocre but sensibly luckier individuals. As to our knowledge, this counterintuitive result - although implicitly suggested between the lines in a vast literature - is quantified here for the first time. It sheds new light on the effectiveness of assessing merit on the basis of the reached level of success and underlines the risks of distributing excessive honors or resources to people who, at the end of the day, could have been simply luckier than others. With the help of this model, several policy hypotheses are also addressed and compared to show the most efficient strategies for public funding of research in order to improve meritocracy, diversity and innovation.
- Antrobus, J. (1983). REM and NREM sleep reports: Comparisons of word frequencies by cognitive classes, Psychophysiology, 20, 562–568.Google Scholar
- Avila-White, D., Schneider, A., Domhoff, G.W. (1999). The Most Recent Dreams of 12–13 year-old boys and girls: a methodological contribution to the study of dream content in teenagers. Dreaming, 9, 2/3, 163–171.Google Scholar
- Azzone, P., Freni, S., Maggiolini, A., Provantini, K., Viganò, D. (1998). How early adolescents describe their dreams: a quantitative analysis, Adolescence, 33, 129, 229–244.Google Scholar
- Barcaro, U., Calabrese, R., Cavallero, C., Diciotti, R., Navona, C. (2002). Significance of automatically detected word recurrences in dream associations, Dreaming, 12, 2, 93–107.Google Scholar
- Benjamin, L.S. (1996). Interpersonal diagnosis and treatment of personality disorders. New York: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
- Bucci, W. (1997). Psychoanalysis and cognitive science. New York: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
- DeLaney, G.M. (1997). In your dreams: falling, flying and other dreams themes. New York: Harper & Collins.Google Scholar
- Domhoff, G.W. (1999). New directions in study of dream content using the Hall and Van de Castle coding system, Dreaming, 9, 2/3, 115–137.Google Scholar
- Domhoff, W. (1996). Finding meaning in dreams: A quantitative approach. New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
- Garfield, P. (2001). The universal dream key: the 12 most common dream themes around the world. New York: Harperperennial.Google Scholar
- Grinstein, A. (1983). Freud's rules of dream interpretation. Madison: Int. Univ. Press.Google Scholar
- Hall, C.S., Van de Castle, R.L. (1966). The content analysis of dreams. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.Google Scholar
- Kilroe, P. A. (2000). The dream as text. The dream as narrative, Dreaming, 10, 3, 125–138.Google Scholar
- Luborsky, L., Crits-Christoph, P. (1990). Understanding transference: The CCRT method. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
- Mergenthaler, E. Stinson, C.H. (1992). Psychotherapy transcription standard. Psychotherapy research, 2, 58–75.Google Scholar
- Mergenthaler, E., Freni, S., Giampieri, E., Ferrari, R. (1998). Regole standardizzate di trascrizione delle sedute di psicoterapia, Ricerca in Psicoterapia, 1, 29–46.Google Scholar
- Pagel, J.F., Blagrove, M., Levin, R., States, B., Stickgold, B., White, S. (2001). Definitions of dream: a paradigm for comparing flying descriptive specific studies of dream, Dreaming, 11, 4, 194–202.Google Scholar
- Popp, C. A, Diguer, L., Luborsky, L., Faude, J. (1996). Repetitive relationship themes in waking narratives and dreams, Journal of Consulting & Clinical Psychology, 64(5), 1073–1078.Google Scholar
- Roccioletti, G., Zulli, A.M., & Bertini, M. (1983). Il sogno nell'età evolutiva. Una ricerca sul contenuto manifesto. Roma: Bulzoni.Google Scholar
- Schredl, M. (2002). Questionnaires and diaries as research instruments in dream research: methodological issues, Dreaming, 12, 1, 17–26.Google Scholar
- Stevens, A. (1995). Private myths. Dreams and dreaming. London: Hamish Hamilton.Google Scholar
- Strauch, I., Lederbogen, S. (1999). The home dreams and waking fantasies of boys and girls between ages 9 and 15: a longitudinal study, Dreaming, 9, 2/3, 153–161.Google Scholar