We don't write case studies on the hundreds of companies that failed while trying similar playbooks. We incorrectly attribute success to the visible strategies of survivors (like an org model) while ignoring luck, timing, and funding, which are often the real differentiators.

In domains with extreme outcomes (music, startups), success is heavily influenced by luck, making it difficult to replicate. A more effective strategy is to study the common failure modes of the vast majority of talented people who tried. This provides a clearer roadmap of what to avoid than trying to copy a lucky winner.

Success can arise from luck, high volume, innate advantages, or changing the odds. Many famous stories, like Marilyn Monroe's discovery, are based on luck. Attempting to replicate such a path is an unreliable strategy; focus on controllable systems you can influence instead.

Successful individuals and companies don't experience more fortunate events. Instead, they excel at capitalizing on positive serendipity and navigating negative shocks. The narrative of "luck" is often a psychological crutch for those unwilling to take responsibility for their reactions to life's inherent volatility.

A good outcome does not automatically validate the decision-making process, as luck plays a significant role. Howard Marks stresses the importance of intellectual humility in recognizing that a successful result could have stemmed from wrong reasons or randomness, a crucial distinction for repeatable success.

Advice from successful people is inherently flawed because it ignores the role of luck and timing. A more accurate approach is to study failures—the metaphorical planes that didn't return. Understanding why most people *don't* succeed provides a more robust framework for navigating risk than simply copying a survivor's path.

When evaluating others' success, ask if their strategy would work for most people who adopt it, or if it relied heavily on luck. If a strategy isn't reproducible and leaves many casualties behind, it's not a model to be learned from, regardless of the impressive outlier outcome.

Citing Nassim Taleb, a strategy involving many small losses can appear foolish until a single, massive success. This one event rewrites the entire narrative, validating what was previously seen as delusional. History is rewritten by one good day.

The narrative that vast tech fortunes are built on individual grit alone ignores the critical role of luck, timing, and systemic tailwinds. Recognizing fortune is key to humility and social responsibility, contrasting with the "obnoxious" belief of being purely self-made and entitled to the winnings.