Luck and risk are not distant cousins—they are siblings, intertwined in the fabric of every outcome we face. They underscore a fundamental truth: no matter how diligent or talented we may be, the forces that shape our lives extend far beyond individual effort. Success and failure are co-authors of a complex narrative woven by chance, timing, circumstance, and sometimes, sheer unpredictability.
NYU professor Scott Galloway offers a crucial lens through which to view success—both your own and that of others—when he reminds us, “Nothing is as good or as bad as it seems.” This perspective prepares us to acknowledge the subtle interplay between effort and the invisible hands of luck and risk.
The Story of Bill Gates and Lakeside School’s Computer
Bill Gates’ meteoric rise as a tech pioneer is often attributed to his genius and tireless work ethic. Yet, beneath those qualities lies an extraordinary element of serendipity—his attendance at Lakeside School during a moment when computing technology was on the cusp of transforming the world. In the late 1960s, the presence of computers in high school settings was almost unheard of. Computers were enormous, expensive, and confined primarily to research institutions or government agencies. For a secondary school to possess access to such technology was revolutionary.
This leap was primarily made possible thanks to Bill Dougall, an educator with a vision that transcended the standard academic approach. Dougall was a former World War II Navy pilot who became a math and science teacher deeply committed to blending theoretical knowledge with practical application. He recognized early that traditional book learning would not suffice in preparing students for an increasingly technological future. Dougall’s foresight extended to understanding the significance of computers well before they became mainstream.
In 1968, Dougall successfully petitioned the Lakeside Mothers’ Club—a group of dedicated parents who raised funds for the school—to invest about $3,000 from their annual rummage sale towards leasing a Teletype Model 30. This machine was connected via phone lines to a General Electric mainframe computer. Importantly, this setup used a recently invented technique known as time-sharing, which allowed multiple users to access the mainframe concurrently. The concept of time-sharing had only been introduced in 1965, placing Lakeside at the bleeding edge of technology adoption.
This investment positioned Lakeside uniquely among educational institutions. Most universities, even at the graduate level, lacked such advanced computing resources. For Gates and his classmates, this was an unparalleled opportunity. The school did not integrate computing into the formal curriculum; instead, it offered an independent study program. This freedom was crucial. Rather than being confined to rigid lessons or schedules, Gates, Paul Allen, and others were free to experiment and explore at their own pace, after school hours, late into the night, and on weekends.
This environment fostered a playground for creativity and technical mastery. The students weren’t merely learning to program; they were delving into the possibilities of a nascent field, guided by curiosity and the absence of external constraints. The unrestricted access to such cutting-edge technology ignited a passion that would fuel Gates and Allen’s ambitions for decades.
One memorable moment in this period was when Gates showed Allen an issue of Fortune magazine, wondering aloud what it would be like to run a Fortune 500 company. This was no idle musing; it was the germ of an entrepreneurial dream. Allen, unsure, admitted he didn’t know, but Gates’ vision was clear: they could start their own company and change the world. That company would become Microsoft—a testament to how rare opportunity, combined with talent and ambition, can alter the course of history.
A Stark Contrast: The Mathematics of Luck and Risk
Understanding Bill Gates’ extraordinary opportunity requires stepping back and examining the stark statistical reality that shaped it. In 1968, the global population of high school-aged youth was roughly 303 million—a staggering number that reflected the vast potential pool of future innovators. Yet the chances that any individual would find themselves in an environment like Lakeside School are astronomically low.
Narrowing the scope, about 18 million of these adolescents lived in the United States. Zooming further in, Washington state accounted for approximately 270,000 high-school-age students, with the Seattle metropolitan area housing about 100,000 of them. Lakeside School itself was an elite institution enrolling just around 300 students—a tiny enclave amid hundreds of thousands.
This statistical funnel reduces the odds of being in Gates’ position to roughly one in a million. To put it plainly: among every million high-school-aged students in the world, only one had access to the unique combination of resources, foresight, and technological exposure that Lakeside provided. It’s a sobering realization that Gates’ context was not merely a fortunate coincidence, but a near-impossible alignment of factors.
Gates has never hidden this truth. In a 2005 speech at his alma mater, he stated unequivocally, “If there had been no Lakeside, there would have been no Microsoft.” This candid admission highlights that individual brilliance alone is insufficient without the support of rare opportunities.
What this math illustrates is that luck isn’t a trivial factor—it can be a decisive one. It challenges the often-perpetuated myth that hard work and intelligence alone drive success. Instead, it reveals a complex interplay between personal effort and external circumstance, where being in the right place at the right time can grant an almost unassailable head start.
The reality for millions of equally capable peers who lacked access to similar opportunities was starkly different. Gates’ statistical rarity is a powerful reminder that while talent is necessary, it is far from sufficient. Recognizing the role of luck in opening doors encourages a more nuanced understanding of achievement and the structural factors that enable it.
The Other Side of the Coin: Kent Evans and the Role of Risk
If Bill Gates’ story is a testament to the transformative power of luck, the tale of Kent Evans embodies the unforgiving counterpart of risk. Evans was no less gifted or driven than Gates. The two became best friends in eighth grade, bonding over their shared enthusiasm for computers and a mutual ambition that extended well beyond academics.
Gates himself acknowledged Evans as the best student in their class—an accolade underscoring Evans’ intellect and dedication. The pair spent countless hours collaborating, not just on programming projects but on envisioning futures of influence and leadership. Evans carried a large briefcase reminiscent of a lawyer’s, symbolizing his business-mindedness and serious approach to their shared dreams.
Together, they undertook challenging projects, such as designing a computer program to automate the school’s complex class scheduling—a logistical puzzle that required sophisticated problem-solving skills. That children in middle school were entrusted with such responsibility speaks volumes about their talent and the trust the school placed in them.
Their conversations often revolved around their aspirations to be CEOs, generals, or ambassadors, with confidence in their capacity to leave a lasting mark on the world. This partnership held the promise of a formidable future, potentially including Evans as a founding partner alongside Gates and Allen in the nascent stages of what would become Microsoft.
Tragically, this future was never realized. Kent Evans died in a mountaineering accident before graduating from high school—a rare but devastating event. Statistically, the odds of a high school student dying in such an accident in the United States hover around one in a million. It was a cruel twist of fate that cut short a life brimming with promise.
Evans’ death is a stark reminder of risk’s relentless impartiality. No amount of skill, ambition, or preparation can shield against the randomness of certain dangers. His story personifies how risk operates silently alongside luck, capable of overturning even the most well-laid plans.
In the shadow of Gates’ success, Evans’ fate compels us to confront the precariousness of outcomes. The same statistical rarity that favored Gates’ ascent played a role in ending Evans’ journey prematurely. Their intertwined narratives reveal how the forces of luck and risk govern life’s possibilities, shaping destinies in ways that transcend personal effort alone.
Luck and Risk: Two Sides of the Same Coin
Luck and risk exist as intertwined forces that govern nearly every aspect of human endeavor. To view them as separate or unrelated is to misunderstand the fundamental uncertainty that is woven into the fabric of life. Both luck and risk stem from the same underlying complexity—the vast, unpredictable web of interactions that characterizes our world.
Imagine life as a gigantic, multidimensional game with over seven billion players. Each individual’s actions ripple outward, interacting with countless other variables, most of which lie far beyond personal control. In this swirling maelstrom, the outcomes we experience—success, failure, fortune, or misfortune—are as much a product of random chance as they are of skill or effort.
Luck represents the fortunate confluence of factors aligning in one’s favor: being born into a supportive environment, encountering the right mentor, or simply being in the right place at the right time. Conversely, risk is the shadow side—the possibility that events unfold unfavorably due to factors like illness, accidents, or economic downturns. Both operate invisibly yet exert enormous influence.
Recognizing that luck and risk are two sides of the same coin is vital. You cannot claim the blessing of luck without acknowledging the lurking presence of risk. To believe that your decisions solely determine outcomes is to ignore the profound uncertainty inherent in complex systems.
This duality also reframes how we judge others and ourselves. When we see someone succeed spectacularly, it’s tempting to attribute that solely to merit or genius, neglecting the role of luck that tilted the scales. Similarly, when failure strikes, we often default to blaming poor choices or character flaws, overlooking the harsh hand of risk.
Appreciating luck and risk as inseparable forces cultivates humility and empathy. It allows us to accept that despite our best efforts, many outcomes are governed by chance. This awareness encourages a more compassionate and realistic view of human achievement and setback alike.
The Blind Spot: Why Luck and Risk are Hard to Measure and Accept
Despite the clear influence of luck and risk, humans have a remarkable tendency to underappreciate their roles. Economist Robert Shiller highlights this dilemma by noting that the precise extent to which luck affects investing success remains unknowable. This blind spot stems from psychological, social, and cultural factors that make admitting randomness uncomfortable.
At a societal level, praising luck in someone’s success can be perceived as diminishing their hard work or talent. It may even be interpreted as a sign of envy or cynicism. This social stigma leads to an implicit bias toward attributing success to personal merit and failure to personal faults.
On a personal level, recognizing the role of luck in one’s achievements can be unsettling. It challenges deeply held beliefs about control and self-efficacy. It can be demoralizing to acknowledge that factors outside of your control have substantially shaped your trajectory.
A telling example emerges when considering the world’s billion investors. Statistically, purely by chance, a small fraction of these investors will become billionaires without exceptional skill. Yet few would publicly identify who those lucky individuals are or concede that their success might hinge on luck.
The interplay of inherited advantages further complicates this picture. Research shows that income correlations among brothers are stronger than correlations in physical traits, such as height or weight. This reflects how family background, social capital, and access to opportunities heavily shape economic outcomes. Nevertheless, individuals rarely see their success as a product of these external influences.
Failure is equally clouded by bias. When people experience setbacks, the default narrative is often that they made poor decisions or lacked effort. While this may be true sometimes, it overlooks the fact that risk can produce negative results even when choices are rational and well-informed.
This difficulty in measuring and accepting luck and risk creates a profound blind spot. It distorts how we interpret both success and failure, encouraging oversimplified stories that satisfy cognitive biases but obscure reality.
The Gray Area: Boldness, Recklessness, and the Role of Risk
History and business are rife with examples where the boundaries between strategic boldness, reckless risk-taking, and outright illegality blur. These cases highlight the challenge in parsing which behaviors merit admiration and which warrant condemnation, and how luck often influences which narrative prevails.
Cornelius Vanderbilt famously expanded his railroad empire by flagrantly ignoring legal constraints. When warned by an advisor that his deals violated New York state statutes, Vanderbilt retorted, “You don’t suppose you can run a railroad by the statutes, do you?” This unapologetic defiance was instrumental in his staggering success. Yet such lawlessness could easily have backfired, landing him in ruin or prison if fate had dealt differently.
Similarly, John D. Rockefeller’s business practices frequently skirted ethical and legal boundaries. A judge once called his company “no better than a common thief.” Historians debate whether Rockefeller’s tactics reflect ingenious business acumen or ruthless criminality. The fine line separating pioneering innovation from criminal behavior often depends on perspective, and crucially, the outcomes.
Benjamin Graham, lauded as the father of value investing and mentor to Warren Buffett, made a fortune by holding a concentrated stake in GEICO, defying his diversification principles. He questioned whether this was luck or shrewdness, underscoring the difficulty of disentangling skill from chance.
More recently, Mark Zuckerberg’s refusal to sell Facebook for $1 billion is hailed as visionary, while Yahoo!’s similar decision to reject Microsoft’s offer is derided as folly. Both faced nearly identical choices, yet the consequences framed one as a genius and the other as shortsighted.
These stories illuminate the thin, often invisible line between daring and foolhardy, genius and hubris, legality and crime. Luck often determines whether bold risk-taking leads to legendary success or catastrophic failure.
Acknowledging this gray area cautions against simplistic moralizing about entrepreneurs and investors. Instead, it calls for a nuanced understanding that outcomes often hinge on unpredictable external forces as much as on deliberate choices.
The Danger of Oversimplification
Our minds are wired to crave clear, straightforward narratives. When confronted with complex realities, we instinctively simplify them into digestible cause-and-effect stories. Success often results from smart decisions and hard work, while failure is frequently attributed to poor judgment or a lack of effort. This cognitive shortcut, while comforting, is perilous because it obscures the messy truth of how luck and risk interplay in shaping outcomes.
In finance and business, this oversimplification manifests most starkly. Investors and entrepreneurs alike tend to seek heroes and villains: those whose strategies are deemed either foolproof or catastrophic. The media perpetuates these stories, spotlighting dramatic wins or spectacular losses without adequately exploring the role of randomness.
This binary thinking can lead to dangerous conclusions. By ignoring the impact of luck, people may overestimate their control and underestimate their vulnerability to unforeseen events. Likewise, blaming failures entirely on bad choices ignores how risk can defeat even the most prudent plans.
Such oversimplification also distorts learning. If we attribute success solely to skill, we risk replicating behaviors that may not yield results when luck is factored out of the equation. Conversely, if failures are assumed to be purely a reflection of incompetence, people may become demoralized or avoid taking reasonable risks that are necessary for growth.
Ultimately, the world is a stochastic arena where certainty is rare and ambiguity is the norm. Rejecting simplistic narratives and embracing this complexity is essential for making wiser decisions and developing resilience.
A Better Approach: Patterns Over Anecdotes
Instead of fixating on extreme cases—such as billionaires, celebrities, or headline-grabbing failures—a more reliable path to understanding lies in examining broad patterns and common experiences. These patterns, emerging from the lives of ordinary people, reveal actionable insights less distorted by luck or rare circumstances.
Extreme successes often involve an outsized role of randomness. Trying to emulate the habits of billionaires may be misleading, as their achievements are often as much a result of fortunate circumstances as exceptional talent or effort. The uniqueness of their journeys limits the applicability of their lessons.
On the other hand, observing widespread trends—such as consistent saving, avoiding excessive debt, or maintaining control over one’s time—uncovers principles with greater predictive power. These behaviors correlate with financial stability, personal happiness, and long-term success across diverse populations.
The work of historians like Frederick Lewis Allen reinforces this perspective. By chronicling the daily lives of average Americans—how they worked, what they ate, how they navigated social change—Allen illuminated enduring truths that resonate broadly. These stories, grounded in common experience, offer wisdom that is often more practical and relevant than the exceptional tales that dominate the media.
Focusing on patterns encourages humility and patience. It shifts the narrative from chasing spectacular breakthroughs to cultivating consistent habits that tilt the odds in one’s favor. This approach acknowledges the role of luck but empowers individuals through replicable strategies.
The Paradox of Success and Failure as Teachers
Success and failure, the twin pillars of human experience, are paradoxical teachers. Each can mislead as much as they instruct, depending on how we interpret and internalize their lessons.
Success is seductive. It breeds confidence and a sense of invulnerability. Bill Gates captured this when he warned, “Success is a lousy teacher. It seduces smart people into thinking they can’t lose.” When success is amplified by luck, it can lull even the most intelligent into ignoring risks or failing to adapt. The illusion of control closes our eyes to the fragile contingencies beneath triumph.
Failure, conversely, can be a harsh and unforgiving tutor. It tempts us to believe our decisions were flawed or that we lack the necessary ability. Yet, in many cases, failure results not from incompetence but from the inherent unpredictability of risk. Even the best-laid plans can falter due to external forces beyond our control.
The challenge lies in navigating between these extremes. Resilience becomes key—the capacity to absorb setbacks without losing sight of long-term goals. Structuring one’s financial and personal life to withstand failures ensures that temporary misfortunes do not end the journey.
This perspective transforms failure from a terminal verdict into a data point within a broader process of learning and growth. Similarly, it tempers success with humility, recognizing it as a moment in a continuum rather than a permanent state.
By embracing this paradox, individuals cultivate wisdom: appreciating that neither success nor failure tells the whole story but both offer valuable, if incomplete, lessons.
Embracing Humility and Forgiveness
Recognizing luck and risk in our narratives cultivates humility about our achievements and compassion for our failures.
No outcome is a pure reflection of effort or folly. Accepting this complexity frees us from harsh self-judgment and judgment of others. It encourages a mindset focused on continuous learning, adaptability, and patience.
Bill Gates and Kent Evans’ intertwined stories embody the twin forces of luck and risk. Gates’ fortune was amplified by the rare opportunity Lakeside presented; Evans’ potential was tragically curtailed by chance misfortune.
Their narratives exemplify how fragile the boundary between triumph and tragedy can be. Understanding this balance allows us to appreciate the true nature of success and failure beyond simplistic metrics.