Talent vs. Luck: Are Effort and Intelligence Overrated?

Meritocracy, sacrifice, work, effort, dedication, preparation, skill, talent — these are the terms thrown around in one direction or another, in an attempt to understand or justify social and/or economic positions that seem exaggerated and disproportionate. A study published by Alessandro Pluchino and his team at the University of Catania indicates that there is a much more powerful factor in determining the success and wealth of certain people... and it is none other than luck.

A person extends their studies, gets a solid job, is responsible with personal expenses, avoids excess, and invests safely... only to have the latest ("insert economic crisis here") take it all away, ending up pedaling for a few euros. The more privileged might tell them they weren't smart, that they should have been better prepared, that they didn't work hard enough, but they will hardly talk about luck.

Not convinced? Let's see: the distribution of wealth is supposed to follow (to a greater or lesser extent) the 80:20 rule, meaning 80% of wealth is in the hands of 20% of the public (the Pareto principle). That relationship seems to work independently of society or scale, however, there are gigantic anomalies. Some people have more than expected. This is when they appeal to meritocracy, intelligence, superior preparation, or natural talent to defend such a difference... but as in the previous example, they don't talk about luck, or they do so in a very limited way.

The Study

So, what is the true impact of luck on economic success? Alessandro Pluchino and his team at the University of Catania published in February 2018 (with a review in July) a study called «Talento vs. Suerte: El Rol de la Aleatoriedad en Éxitos y Fracasos». This team created a computer model of "human talent" and the way people apply it to take advantage of opportunities in their lives.

The model is based on "N people", each with a level of talent, which was distributed to a normal distribution (Gauss). If talent is defined as "key to success", the distribution of wealth should follow very similar parameters to the distribution of talent.

The Simulation Results

The computer model gives each individual a working life of 40 years. During that simulated period, each individual receives "strokes of good luck" that they can exploit to increase their wealth according to their talent, but there are also "strokes of bad luck" with the opposite effect. Pluchino and his team ran multiple simulations to reinforce their results and calculated the distribution of wealth. The first point to note is that the Pareto principle remained relatively intact, with an 80:20 relationship. However, that privileged 20 percent is far from being the most talented.

The parameter of "maximum economic success" almost never coincided with "maximum talent", and vice versa. In other words, the vast majority who reached the top did so by pure luck. In a world that deifies winners (and rewards them with more resources and privileges) while punishing losers, the work of Pluchino and his team forces us, at the very least, to take a second look.

Access the study: Click here

Source: Business Insider