Again, even that is irrelevant. You can study anybody really. Still their characteristics would have nothing to do with what you are trying to do. different times, different content different dynamics,
heck, the same people that became successful might even try to follow their own strategies and fail. this is actually the rule rather than the exception.
So if you think "Luck" is the driving force behind or as you said "major payor" then please define luck in your own words? In this context most , not all, Successful people have used strategy to their advantage and strategy isn't the same thing as luck
I did already 3 times in this thread.
Luck is simply the poor understanding of the unfathomable amount of events that are taking place at any point in time and space affecting you.
confirmation bias. unsuccessful people also used the same strategy. your point?
"I don't think there is a strong correlation to make a case about following successful people. Luck is a major game player."
So you are agreeing with me that "luck" in this context is actually when successful people use strategy to their advantage.
Therfore how could your definition of "luck" be a bad thing for unsuccessful people to attempt?
:)
no. i am just saying that they being human and doing what everybody else does.
you need to stop making post-hoc fallacies
No i was just pointing out correlations between the multitude of concepts you keep bringing up.
Nah