Talk:Luck

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Remember that article talk pages are provided to coordinate the article's improvement only, and are not for engaging in discussion of off-topic matters not related to the main article. User talk pages are more appropriate for non-article-related discussion topics. Please do not use this page as a discussion forum for off-topic matters. See talk page guidelines.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Luck article.
Article policies
This article is being improved by WikiProject Rational Skepticism. Wikiproject Rational Skepticism seeks to improve the quality of articles dealing with science, pseudosciences, pseudohistory and skepticism. Please feel free to help us improve this page.

See Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

LUCK According to me when moving to practical terms is the Preparation and Opportubities taken together. Either of the two alone will not work. (Sandeep Tikoo E-Mail: tikoo.sandeep@gmail.com)

Contents

[edit] Weyhey! Luck, that sounds a bit naughty don't you think?

I believe it khanki needs to be added into the article that luck sounds almost exactly like f- --Realityisboring 09:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't need to explain what he just said, do I? I think so because if you guys cannot keep one section on and delete is cause it is not notable! You all definitely don't have that spongy peach-ish substance in your skull! User:Mother_eater:Mother_eater 09:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Enrico Fermi lucky-horseshoe story

Perhaps we need the Enrico Fermi lucky-horseshoe story:

"of course, it's all rubbish. But the person who sold it to me told me OOPS TYPO SORRY it works even if you don't believe in it".

and I don't believe in horoscopes, like a typical Cancerian! -- Tarquin 00:04 Mar 7, 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Neil Peart

Neil Peart of Rush didn't come up with the phrase "Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." It was Seneca the Roman dramatist. This article needs some heavy researching.

[edit] Oprah

I think Oprah presented a similar formula: Luck = Preparation + Opportunity (L = P + O) But opportunities come by luck, in fact I would say Opportunity is Luck. (L = P + L, P = zero, makes no sense). Therefore Oprah and all these other people who (along with hardwork, intelligence, etc.) got extremely lucky and became super successive are now using this "there is no luck" message to portray themselves as ultimate victors in a seemingly merit based life game, where everyone has the same opportunities/luck. Someone has to address the huge "random" component in someone's ability to succeed in life within this article, because this is what most people consider to be "luck" (bad or good). Someone has to address the facts that "luck" can cause a perfectly nice, hardworking, intelligent, honest individual to FALL THROUGH THE CRACKS of society and end up in extreme hardship (and the other extreme can occur too).

Hmm, perhaps a better phrasing on her part would have been multiplicative (P * O). That way, setting either variable to 0 would result in an overall result of 0. And keep in mind that the phrase "fall through the cracks", which I certainly agree with, necessitates that there is at least something in which those cracks exist, that is, the system is neither 100% meritocritous or 100% random.— Lenoxus 19:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Western bias?

This article also seems to forget about the non-West. China, Japan, and presumably other cultures have a whole slew of other traditions associated with luck.

Agreed; more non-western traditions are needed. -- weirdoactor t|c 15:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Social section is useless

The Society viewpoint is useless and fuzzy. I know very hardworking, nice people who have terrible lives and seem never to get luck. On the other spectrum, we all know lazy crooked bums who are living high and well. The social viewpoint, as it is now, seems to portray societies as meritocracies, and this can not be farther from the truth. So much of life depends on the "randomness" in live, and this can also be called "luck."

[edit] Sayings

"Luck doesn't exist." There are more variations on this phrase than can be listed here, but not enough to make believers care. It seems to me that end of this could be rephrased, as "not enough to make believers care" seems a bit insulting.

Only if you believe in luck. Dodiad (talk) 09:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Quoting from "scripture"

There's a cultural bias there: at least mention *which* religion's scripture you're quoting from. Furthermore, not all English translations of Isaiah 65:11-12 mentions 'Fortune,' 'Fate,' nor 'Destiny.' It's an interesting nugget of information, to be sure, but it currently reads like a warning that was left behind for "fellow Christians" to stumble across. --Mozai 11:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I like the quote from Eccesiastes and hope it stays, as it provides a nice religious and cultural context, and I found it useful.66.150.206.225 16:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article is Biased and needs serious rewriting

This article is more about "Why rationalists want you to feel foolish for believing in luck" than it is about luck per se. It does not express a neutral point of view. It is programmatic rather than informative. It is condescending. It is inaccurate. Nouns contained within it are not propperly linked to their base-pages in the WP. It is not properly linked in to articles on amulets, talismans, or other aspects of luck. It is, in short, a mess and a half. I am sure that the contributors brought to it the best they had to bring and certainly had the best of intentions, but the tone throughout is an "opposing view" tone, and that alone makes the article useless for someone trying to study the subject. When i have time, i shall return. Look for great changes at that time. Catherineyronwode 20:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

This is bugging me so much, i have taken time from my work day to add more comments:
The fact that the arcticle BEGINS with a "rationaist" viewpoint is evidence of serious bias. Even the section "Spiritual viewpoint" is anything but accurate to that viewpoint.
For instance, within the Spiritual viewpoint section, the statement "In their original forms, the folk religions view mind, spirit and body as one" is condescending, colonialist, and, above all ot privileges outsider-rationalist viewpoints above both outsider-anthropological viewpoints and participant-aderhent viewpoints.
The following sections of the article do not -- repeat, DO NOT -- deal with the subject matter of luck, but present only a series of shifting-ground oppposing views to and arguments against the belief in luck:
  • Rational viewpoint
  • Spiritual viewpoint
  • Effects of viewpoint and beliefs
  • Risky lifestyles
  • Positive outlook
  • Effects
  • The gambler's fallacy
In dealing with folk magic and folk belief, ask yourself these questions:
  • If this article were about an organized religion instead of a folk belief, would you say that it accurately represented an adherent's POV -- or would you say that it attempted to mock, derogate, ridicule, dispute, or rationalize away tan adherent's POV?
  • Why is a person with an opposing POV tackling this topic in the first place and what is their agenda in writing the lead paragraphs of a supposedly descriptive page from an opposing viewpoint?
  • Is there a graceful way to relegate opposing viewpoints to the end of the article or to an opposing viewpoints page?
My response, when submitting this page to that series of questions, is as follows:
  • In no way does the first half of this article accurately represent an adherent's POV, rather, it attempts to mock, derogate, ridicule, dispute, or rationalize away the adherent's POV.
  • A person would write lengthy content filling a total of 6 sub-heads that dispute the material and place these paragraphs *before* the material that actually defines the subject if they had an agenda of promoting the opposing viewpoint. This violates the NPOV. Would WP wish to begin the article about the Catholic Church with 6 subheads' worth of content explaining that Jesus did not exist, that the Catholic Church is filled with pederast priests, and that science has disporved the existence of God? I think not.
  • Opposing viewpoints, if retained on a page, should be clearly labelled as such, should be relegated to the bottom of he page, and should occupy less than 25% of the total wordage; anything more must go on an opposing viewpoints page or run the risk of demonstrating editorial bias against the topic. In this case, the total opposing viewpoint wordage is suffiently lengthy that i do not believe it can remain on the page as-is. It is not badly written -- it is simply too long. A link to a new page should be created and the opposing viewpoint material moved there. The only question remains what to name it...
As i said, i will return; this is too important a topic and touches on too many people's sincere beliefs to be left in the state of disrespectful dismissiveness it is in now. Catherineyronwode 22:45, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "rational" is the wrong word!

The "Rational viewpoint" section should be perhaps be renamed to "skeptical viewpoint," as it essentially expresses the naive argument that probabilistic phenomena such as coincidences simply don't exist. Not only is this viewpoint irrational, it is unscientific and insulting to scholars such as Chaos theorists, who work at developing theories to explain such things as luck.

It's not that "probabilistic phenomena such as coincidences" don't exist; it's just each person's definition/opinion of what *causes* said phenomenon differs. Good or bad things happening in clusters don’t point to a pattern; they are just that...clusters, followed by periods of non-clustering. Humans seek a pattern in the events that "control" their lives; "luck" is the same as faith in religion, in that you can't prove or disprove its existence, but it makes you feel better and seem like you are more in "control" of the chaos that is life. Chaos being the natural (and for many, uncomfortable) state of our existence in this universe, order is sought, through terminology such as "luck", "God/Allah/Buddha/Jesus/Zeus/Mother Earth/etc.", "karma", and other related terms. But wishful thinking doesn't make something so....if it did, I'd be a dark elf named Drizzt Do'Urden. My opinion is (as quoted in the article) that luck is "probability taken personally" (Penn Jillette) or "the residue of design (in other words, the result of bad or good planning, training, or preparation)" (John Milton), period. Weirdoactor 19:43, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestions

Isn't the broken mirror bad luck avoided if you don't look in the mirror (and even those who didn't break it get bad luck by looking at it).

Also, perhaps the idea that bad luck can be arbitrarily assigned to objects (e.g. the "spirit stick" in the movie "Bring it on") should also be included.

Finally, when I was growing up, whistling was bad (meant you weren't gonna have money) as was sitting at a corner of a table (meant you weren't gonna get married for some number of years). But that could've been local. yuliya 01:28, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Another suggestion: I think “*five leaf clovers” (in the unlucky section) should be either also in the good luck section (a Google search gave me a lot more results on the “more luck” than a four-leaf clover, although I know a Google search isn’t an argument). What I remember is that a five leaf clover is unlucky unless given to someone else (case in which it is then good luck for both the finder and the receiver) or specified that it's also sometimes considered lucky. I read this in a book, but remembering what book would be practically impossible. Pro bug catcher 19:55, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Updates

Greetings all, I'm adding this page to my Cleanup Queue and will hopefully correct some of the issues that have been brought up. One thing I am not planning to change is rationalist. This section is fairly accurate to the rationalist point of view. I will, however, be changing "Rational" to rationalist so that it fits with the rest of that section. Skepticism avoids topics by saying that the answer cannot be found, which is an entirely different approach to Luck.

I will also be making updates to most of the other sections and the initial paragraph. If you have specific requests or ideas, please leave them here as a sub heading to this paragraph so I can spot them easily. Aces & Eights 16:03, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] So far

So far I've updated the rationalist and the spiritualist sections to make them more neutral and hopefully more informative. I'm looking for additional information on African religions, as well as traditional Asian and North American religious beliefs on luck to compliment the spiritual section. If anyone has this type of information, feel free to add it, or get in contact with me.

I only did brief look overs on the first two sections for grammar and wikification, once the whole article is done I will edit everything at once. If anyone notices anything though, please fix it.

I'm also looking for feedback on the first two sections to see if it is a fair considering the disputes that have happened so far. I'm interested in hearing both sides opinions of the changes. If there is no disagreement with the POV in the next week or so I will remove the Neutrality in dispute banner. Aces & Eights 21:11, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Luck is superstition?

This article makes luck sound like a supernatural governor of fate. I always thought luck was the probability that something will happen, a synonym for chance. When someone wishes someone else "good luck," doesn't that mean that someone hopes the odds are in someone else's favor?" If someone says that they won the lottery by luck, wouldn't that mean that he/she won the lottery by chance? But I don't know. I used to think that "imminent" meant unstoppable. Jecowa 08:54, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

hi jecowa, your thoughts sound interesting, i think you are talking about the intro paragraph mostly? Theres something confusing here i think, because chance is conpletely 'chancey', and luck is either the belief that it is not conpletely 'chancey', or the hope that chance will bring good things for you. is that what you are talking about, i think its insightful and should make it to the page Spencerk 15:25, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
By definition, luck isn't chance, but more akin to fortune (which some believe is fated--IE, the opposite of chance). When someone wishes "good luck", they're wishing another's fortune to be good regardless of odds. (Luck is capitalizing on chance.) -RJFerret 02:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Move Quotes section to WikiQuote?

There is currently no page on Luck at WikiQuote: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Luck. This seems like a more appropriate place. What do people think? --Captwheeler 02:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

So done... -RJFerret 03:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Luck as a measurable quantity

This BBC story is about research that shows how people who consider themselves lucky generate the luck, without resorting to magic or superstition: [1], [2]. Zocky | picture popups 04:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Commercial external links

Just so we're all clear; no one should be adding bal external links to commercial websites to the article. Per policy, its considered spamming, and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising. One link in particular link in particular keeps getting re-added, to a commercial site that generates lucky numbers/lotto numbers/etc. If the link re-appears in the article, it will be removed, and the user will be warned and/or reported for vandalism, per policy. Thanks! -- weirdoactor t|c -- 23:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bird shit

By what culture or religion is having a bird defecate on your head considered lucky? -Toptomcat 05:11, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, I relocated the Bullet about "Lucky Bird Defecation" from the Good Luck section to the Misfortune Section. As humorus as it is, I think I can speak for the many when I say that It would be in foul luck to receive. Carlo V. Sexron 22:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I know it is in slovan countrys on and near the Balkan.... --Mudel 18:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Really! I guess that's a case of truth being stranger than fiction. Still, best to keep it out- some other well-meaning soul will likely remove it as vandalism simply because it seems bizzare, and we have plenty of good examples already. -Toptomcat 14:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


I think this needs a source cited to some degree... I personally don't believe it. 64.230.93.81 01:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removed superfluous external links per WP:EL

None of the links were purely about luck; one was about a town called "Luck" in Wisconsin, one was an essay on a blog, and at least one was some sort of scam. There's already a link to quotes, and I've added four leaf clover to "See also". -- weirdoactor t|c -- 00:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mathematical?

What about also describing luck as a mathematical outcome of possible unpredictable results the way that you would want to? Isn't luck probability resulting in our favour and so on?

I agree: I've been a gambler for many years. While I don't believe in "luck" as a spiritual or mystical force, I know some people who have consistently bucked probability. It's not that they win or lose in a fashion impossible to probability laws; it's just that they seem to have more runs of good or bad fortune than the average person. I don't believe in any supernatural force working here, but just that the sheer randomness of probability has consistently blessed or cursed these people. Any long-time gambler knows that good or bad fortune runs in streaks, too, and I suspect these people might have better random chance than others in happening to play when the streaks are going for or against them.
The first night I ever gambled, I turned about a 500% increase; but ever since, my gambling has evened out into a roughly 48% chance of winning against the house in my chosen games, and while I've been a consistent winner against the house and many call me "lucky", I credit that to a money-management strategy that recognizes these streaks and attempts to ride out the bad streaks and capitalize on the good ones. It wasn't the mystical "beginner's luck"; by random probability, I hit a streak then that I've seen many times since, but which has evened out over the years. If I'd never gambled again, or gambled little, that streak was "beginner's luck" to most people; the years have proven it was just one of many streaks of chance going one way. Can't some people have these streaks go on longer than I did, or more consistently, through sheer chance?
Isn't some rational view of the phenomenon known as "luck" from this perspective warranted in the article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 154.20.48.244 (talk) 09:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Origins of Luck

Luck has probably been around for ages but origins of the word? I heard it was derived from 'Lucifer' --Cazoodle 06:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

  • From Wiktionary: "Etymology - Shortened form of Middle Dutch: gheluc (happiness)"

Lucifer is completely unrelated, as it means "light bearer" in Greek and Latin. -Bredd13

[edit] Varkonyi

I removed the bit about Varkonyi. It seemed to imply that somehow his marriage gave him added "luck" that caused him to win the main event. That's simply not the case. Poker is a game of skill that relies on what some would call "luck," but that is simply probability and variance showing what they can do. Varkonyi is a skilled player (though less skilled than many of his opponents) who was in a situation where the cards just so happened to fall his way, for no particular reason. Mickeyg13 04:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

"a situation where the cards just so happened to fall his way, for no particular reason", I think thats what we call luck or being lucky. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.137.207.191 (talk) 08:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Luck is merely an expression

I feel that the last paragraph of "Luck as a fallacy" either needs to be changed to be more of an explanation of how one that sees luck as a fallacy would see someone saying "good luck", or it needs to be removed. To me, it kind of seems like its telling the reader what is or is not, rather than what believing that luck is a fallacy means. Rainalor (talk) 05:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Crud

This article is mostly worthless crud, and an example of why the concept of Wikipedia is fundamentally flawed (ie any tool on the face of the planet with a web connection can create and edit pages). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.11.72.4 (talk) 08:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Protected

Why is this article semiprotected? Can't even try to improve the stupid thing, which is biased, rather lacking in sources but not lacking in opinions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.137.207.191 (talk) 08:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Scripture" Passages

I agree with Mozai, the passages included present a bias. Either include more "scriptural" examples of luck from other religious viewpoints or remove the whole section.Blindchaos (talk) 23:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)