LogFAQs > #910711189

darkknight109 posted...

That sounds like it's extending beyond luck, though. For instance, if I tried to code a video game, it would be shit. I haven't coded in almost 15 years and even then my coding skills were on the level of writing macros in excel or super simple functions in C++ or Matlab - I simply do not have the technical knowhow to do anything related to video game design. In fact, you literally would not be able to play any game I made, because I don't even know how to make an executable file.

So that leaves one of two possibilities - either my jumbled mess of code somehow becomes wildly popular, in which case I'm flat-out altering the material properties of the universe because it's making people think that something objectively terrible is fun and entertaining, or I reach a level of omnipotence such that slapping my hand on the keyboard like a frightened chimp miraculously produces code that is not only functional, but completely fantastic.

First problem, you're thinking of coding only, which is the boring part of design that people don't really want to do in the first place. People learn coding because they can't get people to code for them. The thrilling part of any design is more of a producer/executive producer role where you're coming up with the game concept, you're dictating character designs, you're coming up with the layouts for areas, and then having others do the coding work.

However, if we were just talking coding, luck would involve making fewer mistakes, meeting the people who could teach you most effectively, etc.

darkknight109 posted...

But someone couldn't practice law or medicine or accounting or engineering just by luck. You couldn't recite Shakespeare on stage with zero practice by luck. That's just not what luck is. You could potentially compensate for some physical abilities (assuming you already know the rules, but even then some things - like, say, playing a musical instrument at a concert level - could not reasonably be done simply by luck), but you can't make up for a lack of knowledge with luck.

Except you kinda can practice law or medicine on luck alone. A lot of court cases come down to finding precedents to justify your case (or finding witnesses, evidence, etc) and, if you were lucky, you'd be a LOT better at doing that.

And, given malpractice rates, medicine *also* heavily seems to come down to luck. If you're less likely to accidentally miss something, you're going to be far more successful. If you're stumped by a problem and accidentally knock over a book that lands on the right page or run into a colleague who says something that jogs your memory, you're going to be a lot more successful. (And if something happens to just jog your memory, you're going to assume that it's because you're good. The book thing is probably suspiciously serendipitious if it happens often.)

And, while you obviously would need to read Shakespeare first (and you'd have to go through law school or medical school for the other stuff so you have some basis), you'd be less likely to make a mistake with luck.
---

(\/)(\/)|-|
There are precious few at ease / With moral ambiguities / So we act as though they don't exist.