Creating a New Luck Surface Area Model
Creating a visualization to better understand two variables - doing and telling - that allow people to create their own luck.
We cannot control all of the things that influence our lives. Millions of variables affect what happens to us and when it happens. These variables make the concept of controlling our own luck elusive. Yet, just because something cannot be controlled does not mean that it cannot be facilitated. Doing and telling are two variables that allow us to create our own luck, not control it, in order to increase our chances of success.
The variables doing and telling were created by Jason Roberts who coined the phrase “Luck Surface Area” and created the first Luck Surface Area model. Jason breaks down the concept with a visual representation and a linear function (L=D*T) where L is luck, D is doing, and T is telling. Folks in the comment section of Roberts' original blog post note that his argument would be stronger if the function were hyperbolic, not linear. I agree with these comments, so I took a set of hyperbolas, plotted example points, added a luck level scale, and created a constraint in the form of “effort points” to further break down the concept of a Luck Surface Area through an economic lens.
The units by which we will be measuring levels on the x-axis doing (D) and the y-axis telling (T) will be "effort points" - a mechanism of calculating effort. The plotted points on the graph land in a luck level as indicated by the different shades of color. The red region is the least amount of luck (1) while each lighter shade moving up and to the right represents a larger level of luck until we reach maximum luck in the upper right-hand corner represented by the lightest shade of yellow (10). The goal is to reach the maximum level of luck given the number of effort points that are invested.
Under this specific circumstance, the sum of each plot point (D,T) equals 90 in order to represent the same level of effort across each individual case. In point A, we allocate a mere 10 effort points to doing (D) but 80 effort points to telling (T). In point B, we allocate 80 effort points to doing (D) but a mere 10 effort points to telling (T). In point C, we allocate 45 effort points to doing (D) and 45 effort points to telling (T).
There are two key takeaways from the Luck Surface Area:
1. To do and not tell or to tell and not do is an inefficient allocation of our resources as it does not yield the maximum utility we can create under the circumstances. We must balance taking action (doing) as well as sharing our stories (telling) in order to maximize our luck.
2. The hypothetical example above shows C as the most efficient allocation under the constraint of 90 effort points, but if you increase the number of total effort points invested and continue to allocate them efficiently then you can reach into even higher levels of luck. In other words, it’s not just the efficient allocation of effort but also the increased level of effort that allows us to push into higher levels of luck.
Recently, I have focussed on doing but have been negligent to the telling portion - particularly on digital platforms. I've created this website to change just that. After all, if I'm going to think critically about a 2-variable function about creating one's own luck, shouldn't I try and put both variables into practice? With that said, I'd like to hear from you:
What variables/constraints would you introduce into your rendition of the Luck Surface Area?
Tweet at me here.
---The following add-on was published in the 6/2/2022 edition of my newsletter--
2 years ago, I wrote about 2 variables that allow people to create their own luck.
Doing = (D)
Telling = (T)
D * T = Luck
This linear equation to manufacture luck was the thesis of a piece from Jason Roberts of Codus Operandi.
The basis of the equation is that you have to efficiently allocate effort to both doing (D) and telling (T) in order to be lucky.
I took Jason's model and expanded upon it in the first piece I published online (mainly adding parabolas to his original image + the idea of allocating effort points).
Now that 2 years have passed, here's my assessment of the Luck Surface Model:
1 thing I didn't expect from the Luck Surface Model:
- Storytelling = Chance for Schools to Improve - this is backed by anecdote, not by data, but my gut feeling is that the majority of people focus on doing (D) and not telling (T) because of the "beat the test" culture in school. Doing (D) the work in school = memorizing answers, regurgitating them onto a page, and moving on. The absolute value of D in "beat the test culture" is low. In the workforce, we are required to do (D) the work with critical thinking, detail, and intention because we need to be able to defend - tell (T) the story - behind the work to clients, bosses, team members, prospective clients, etc. The absolute value of doing (D) is much higher when you're expected to tell (T) the story behind your work, leading to higher levels of luck. As a result, I think we need to do a better job of teaching the telling (T) aspect in school.
2 pros of operating the Luck Surface Model:
- Improved Thinking - nothing will make you improve your thinking around any given subject like having the guts to publish your writing on it. Building the courage to put your ideas out there is healthy because it requires you to challenge your own thinking, cite your sources, and invite other people to critique your perspective. The caveat here is that you have a responsibility to engage with people who intentionally engage with your work - even if they disagree with you; especially if they disagree with you.
- Friends with Shared Interests - you're at a cocktail party. You're deeply interested in a subject. You're pontificating upon said subject. The listener is trying not to fall asleep as you pontificate. This doesn't count as a friend with shared interests. I'm talking about people who want to jam with you about what you're talking about because they're also deeply invested in the subject. The Luck Surface Model helps address this because chances are, people who have your niche interests don't live in close proximity to you. You may only be able to find your whacky people through the internet.
3 variables that need to be included in a future Luck Surface Model:
- Passion (P) - do you care about what you work on? If so, it'll yield higher levels of luck.
- Consistency (C) - a routine cadence with which you do (D) and tell (T) leads to higher levels of luck.
- Empathy (E) - the ability to relate to people. This results in higher levels of trust amongst team members/supporters, leading to higher levels of luck.
I haven't found a way to incorporate these 3 new variables mathematically or visually into a new model, but I'll keep workin' on it and circle back with you down the line.