Why do you think humans in general are more prone to failure than success?

[noblegas]

Discuss. I suppose one person's failure could be another person's success. But In this context, I defined failure as not reaching all of your goals and success as reaching all of your goals. Even seemingly successful people have seen more failures than success.Einstein was said to publish scientific papers prolifically, but most of them never came close to matching the success of his papers on special relativity and general relativity. Shakespeare was said to write at least 40 plays, but I think at least 8 of his plays are considered of any importance to the world. Is it like this for everyone? Could there be genetic reasons for why I believe most humans experience more failure than success.

 

[Big O]

Because there is only one absolute correct answer vs. many, many incorrect answers. We learn what is not and keep narrowing the possibilities.

 

[Big O]

The difference between the human mind and random selection is our ability to apply reasoning to information gathering and shorten the amount of time it takes to arrive at the truth.

 

[Astronuc]

Could there be genetic reasons for why I believe most humans experience more success than failure.

seems to contradict the question "Why do you think humans in general are more prone to failure than success?"

Education and personality are significant factors in determining one's success or failure.

 

[noblegas]

seems to contradict the question "Why do you think humans in general are more prone to failure than success?"

Education and personality are significant factors in determining one's success or failure.

typo. I meant to say why humans are more prone to failure than success. Yes knowledge always gives people who acquires lots of it an advantage. But even knowledgeable people experience more failure than success. Seemingly successful people only experience a higher success rate better than their fellow man. But that does not mean that they will meet all of the goals that they set for themselves.

 

[leroyjenkens]

Shakespeare was said to write at least 40 plays, but I think at least 8 of his plays are considered of any importance to the world.

Depends on what you mean by importance to the world. I don't think any of them were really important to the world. But if you mean important as in world renowned plays that are acted out all over the world, then he has a lot more than 8.

Could there be genetic reasons for why I believe most humans experience more failure than success.

It's hard for Einstein to repeat the success of relativity, if that's the measuring stick you're using, everything but that would be considered failure.

 

[Zubin]

No matter who we are and what we do in this short time we're here, the entirety of our lives is insignificant in the vast infinity of the universe. Really all we are is an animal that has the ability to make goals, communicate well, and manipulate our environment. It's because Humans are able to both make goals and communicate information very well to other humans that we are able to make progress in the pursuit of increasing currently available information.

While humans may be the only animal on Earth right now capable of setting goals, communicating well, and manipulating its environment, it does not mean that humans are necessarily the best possible species, even for what humans specialize in. For example, humans have blind spots which predisposes them to seeing and imagining things that aren't there. Humans simply haven't evolved beyond some of their old biology which was built around being able to hunt well, maneuver well(unlike Neanderthals), being able to outsmart animals, etc.

Simply put, we humans are not as good as we could be in terms of what we do today because what we do today is based on a "more recent" development in our behavior that is drastically different from what we did for many thousands of years prior to said development.

 

[Topher925]

I don't believe you can have success without failure.

 

[Astronuc]

typo. I meant to say why humans are more prone to failure than success. Yes knowledge always gives people who acquires lots of it an advantage. But even knowledgeable people experience more failure than success. Seemingly successful people only experience a higher success rate better than their fellow man. But that does not mean that they will meet all of the goals that they set for themselves.

Is this collectively or individually. Some folks seem remarkably successful, perhaps not all the time, but most of the time. Others may seem to fail, or at least not succeed, partly because they never attempt.

Clearly there are very successful people on Wall Street - those who make millions or billions of $. And then there are those who simply fail and lose lots of money, and perhaps never recover what is lost.

Among the aspects of personality are characteristics such as hubris or arrogance, which would be characteristic of folks like Jimmy Cayne (Bear Stearns CEO), Dick Fuld (Lehman Brothers CEO), Stanley O'Neal (Merrill Lynch CEO) or Vikram Pandit (Citigroup CEO). They seem to have believed they could not fail - and consequently ignored the risk to which their companies were exposed. And there were others.

 

[rootX]

Similar to what Topher said, without failures there would be no successes.

If a failure pushes me bit closer to my dreams and makes me bit stronger against all the failures coming, would it still be a failure?

 

[rootX]

Is this collectively or individually. Some folks seem remarkably successful, perhaps not all the time, but most of the time. Others may seem to fail, or at least not succeed, partly because they never attempt.

Clearly there are very successful people on Wall Street - those who make millions or billions of $. And then there are those who simply fail and lose lots of money, and perhaps never recover what is lost.

Will those still be successful people if they are not satisfied by what they have?

 

[waht]

There is only cause and effect. If the effect is desirable, then we call it a success, and undesirable a failure.

Since there is too many unknown variables globally, it's impossible to make reliable prediction as to what correct actions to take in order to achieve a desirable effect.

In situations where there is few unknown variables you could in theory navigate your way around and arrive at success in a logical manner.

In situations with too many unknown variables - you basically take your life on faith, like a raft drifting in the ocean. You can't really know where it will take you. If you arrive at success, that's because your were lucky, if not, then unlucky.

In general, a chain of events leading to success or failure will be a combination of these cases, where you make some logical choices, and then drift a little bit in the ocean and wash ashore, and then make logical choices.

 

[Astronuc]

Will those still be successful people if they are not satisfied by what they have?

I suppose success is relative. It all depends on the standard against which one measures success.

One could also measure the success or failure based on the number of goals acheived.

It still comes down to education or knowledge and personality. Can one set realistic goals? Can one persevere until a goal is achieved? Does one put a time limit on the goal? . . . .

 

[zoobyshoe]

But In this context, I defined failure as not reaching all of your goals and success as reaching all of your goals.

Here you're defining success in terms of goal achievement.

Even seemingly successful people have seen more failures than success.Einstein was said to publish scientific papers prolifically, but most of them never came close to matching the success of his papers on special relativity and general relativity. Shakespeare was said to write at least 40 plays, but I think at least 8 of his plays are considered of any importance to the world. Is it like this for everyone? Could there be genetic reasons for why I believe most humans experience more failure than success.

Here, though, you've shifted to a different criteria, defining success as how your output falls on a bell curve of popularity. The first criteria is not the same as the second.

 

[rewebster]

I think most people don't bother to learn from other peoples' mistakes, to read to see if those mistakes were made before, or to listen for advise to avoid making mistakes.


I think a lot of people are just hard-headed and want to find out for themselves.



another good example of the bell-shaped curve...

 

[Zubin]

I suppose success is relative. It all depends on the standard .

Why not just measure it in a game theoretic sense?
A person's success can be judged by whether or not s/he receives the expected payoff for a given situation.

 

[GeorginaS]

I defined failure as not reaching all of your goals and success as reaching all of your goals.

Using this definition reminds me of the expression that anything you are looking for (ex: car keys) are always in the last place you look. Of course they're in the last place you look because you stop looking once you've found them.

So, then, using your definition of failing and succeeding, of course it would appear that you fail more than you succeed because once you have succeeded, you stop trying. There would be no need to succeed fifteen times to offset fifteen failures/attempts, now would there?

 

[Zubin]

Using this definition reminds me of the expression that anything you are looking for (ex: car keys) are always in the last place you look. Of course they're in the last place you look because you stop looking once you've found them.

So, then, using your definition of failing and succeeding, of course it would appear that you fail more than you succeed because once you have succeeded, you stop trying. There would be no need to succeed fifteen times to offset fifteen failures/attempts, now would there?

Also you could think of it as heuristic methods tend to consume less resources to arrive at the same outcome of an eventual success.

 

[drankin]

I don't believe you can have success without failure.

Bingo, true success comes after many failures.

 

[GeorginaS]

Bingo, true success comes after many failures.

What if you succeed the first time? Does the lack of failure then nullify that success?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Success seems rather ill defined. Particularly if referring to goal oriented success.

If my greatest goal in life is to play as many video games as possible would you consider having played 90% of all video games a success? If I lived in a third world country with little access to technology would playing only 10% of all video games be a success? Or maybe my goals are insipid and their achievement unworthy of being called success? Perhaps living in a third world country and wasting limited resources on playing video games would even qualify me for being considered a major failure?

But we still have a problem even with goals that may be considered worth wile such as getting married and having children. A rather significant number of people get married and have children. If this is a person's greatest goal in life does it count them as being a successful individual? Graduating High School? Always paying their rent on time? Obtaining and maintaining gainful employment? Would you consider all of the people who achieve these goals successful individuals?

What though of the person who graduates high school at 30? Is that not a success for that person? A person who goes through life lonely and finds the love of their life at 60 and gets married is not successful because they did not achieve this goal in a timely manner?

I would assume by the OP though that mundane successes are not being counted. But if one measures success by the uniqueness, originality, or magnitude of a goal obtained then only the Einsteins and Shakespears are successes and the OP's conjecture is true by default due to the definition being used. If I only just figured out Relativity then I am behind the times and if I write a play today about star crossed lovers I am only a hack.

 

[mugaliens]

If you're going to compare us to other life on Earth, you'll have to take a look at the same factors, including infant mortality and reproduction rates. In this area, we're a huge success, from an evolutionary point of view.

Thus, I don't think humans are failures in general. I think we're rather the opposite.

 

[noblegas]

If you're going to compare us to other life on Earth, you'll have to take a look at the same factors, including infant mortality and reproduction rates. In this area, we're a huge success, from an evolutionary point of view.

Thus, I don't think humans are failures in general. I think we're rather the opposite.

I think we are failures when it comes to intellectual developments and technological advancements, seeing that most humans embraced mysticism for the bulk of their existence and scientific and technological and yes even moral advancements(ending of slavery, recogniction of women's rights, recognition of natural born rights) have been made and acknowledged like in the last 400 years .

 

[rewebster]

What if you succeed the first time? Does the lack of failure then nullify that success?

we should all be so 'lucky'

 

[GeorginaS]

What if you succeed the first time? Does the lack of failure then nullify that success?

we should all be so 'lucky'

I repeat the question.

And yes, SA, "success" and "failure" haven't been sufficiently defined for this to be a reasonable discussion.

 

[noblegas]

I repeat the question.

And yes, SA, "success" and "failure" haven't been sufficiently defined for this to be a reasonable discussion.

Of course they are sufficiently defined. Success in this context meaning that all of your work being the absolute best work you produced. Scientists , for example making significant contributions and gains within their field and not encountering a lot of more failure than success in their scientific research which seems not to be the case for most scientists or even most successful scientists.

 

[rootX]

What if you succeed the first time? Does the lack of failure then nullify that success?

Is breathing a success too?

 

[Moonbear]

I don't think I agree with the OP's definition of success. Achieving ALL your goals? By that reasoning, someone with very few, limited, easily achieved goals is more successful than someone who sets a lot of challenging goals for themself? Or, someone who sets a new goal for themself every time they achieve one would never be successful because they still have goals they have not achieved?

Personally, I only count something as failure if you give up on it before you accomplish it. By that measure, I think people are usually more successful than failures unless they are lazy or give up easily.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Of course they are sufficiently defined. Success in this context meaning that all of your work being the absolute best work you produced. Scientists , for example making significant contributions and gains within their field and not encountering a lot of more failure than success in their scientific research which seems not to be the case for most scientists or even most successful scientists.

This contradicts your previous definition of success as achieving your goal.

And: How can ALL someone's work be their best? Best what? "Best" is a retroactive relative assessment made by placing someone's output on a bell curve having one emphasis or another.

Is Einstein's paper on Brownian Motion a failure because it's not as mind-boggling as his paper on SR? Is Richard II a failure because it's not as highly regarded as Hamlet? It seems all I would have to do to render Relativity a failure is to ask "Of all Einstein's writings, what was his best paper on Brownian Motion?" SR would fail to even make it on the bell curve, ergo: SR is an Einstein failure.

 

[rewebster]

Is breathing a success too?

it is and has been for some people

 

[rootX]

it is and has been for some people

In those circumstances, they do not succeed in the first attempt. Similar question could be does getting food is also a success. I can be very successfully defining simple goals like this. Question is can I?

 

[noblegas]

This contradicts your previous definition of success as achieving your goal.

And: How can ALL someone's work be their best? Best what? "Best" is a retroactive relative assessment made by placing someone's output on a bell curve having one emphasis or another.

Is Einstein's paper on Brownian Motion a failure because it's not as mind-boggling as his paper on SR? Is Richard II a failure because it's not as highly regarded as Hamlet? It seems all I would have to do to render Relativity a failure is to ask "Of all Einstein's writings, what was his best paper on Brownian Motion?" SR would fail to even make it on the bell curve, ergo: SR is an Einstein failure.

Einstein's paper on Brownian motion would be be consider an important contribution to the progression of science because before this paper was published, Most scientists envisioned atoms as abstract entities and most speculated how atoms moved, but their was know experiment that showed how atoms moved. It took Edison $10,000 before he reached the experiment that led him to the invention of the lightbulb . As of right now, most of the proposed models for the Theory of everything are failures because their can only be one model that describes all of the unified forces of the universe. The Wright Brothers failed at most of their experiments until they reached the one engineering method that led to the invention of the airplane. Thats what I am talking about.

And: How can ALL someone's work be their best? Best what? "Best" is a retroactive relative assessment made by placing someone's output on a bell curve having one emphasis or another.

in this context means that the person's work is making the most contributions to science. Not every one's scientific work will contribute a lot to the progression of science. Most scientists will not make major contributions to science or even their scientific research might not lead them anywhere.

 

[zoobyshoe]

But In this context, I defined failure as not reaching all of your goals and success as reaching all of your goals. .

Here you define success as "reaching all of your goals".

Of course they are sufficiently defined. Success in this context meaning that all of your work being the absolute best work you produced. Scientists , for example making significant contributions and gains within their field and not encountering a lot of more failure than success in their scientific research which seems not to be the case for most scientists or even most successful scientists.

Here you define success as "all of your work being the absolute best work you produced."

in this context means that the person's work is making the most contributions to science.

Here you define "best" as "making the most contributions to science."

Again: reaching all your goals and having your work judged as important by other people on the bell curve of their choice are two separate criteria. A person might achieve all their goals, which should qualify them as successful by your first stated criteria, yet be anonymous to the world at large. Conversely, a person may be praised and lauded, and given awards for, work they themselves consider mediocre.

Again: all of a person's work can't be their best on any bell curve. The decision to locate the "best" automatically means you're going to select one thing from many according to some preference.

Also: Judging a person a failure because they didn't make the most contributions to science (or their chosen field) is insanely harsh and your assumption that people are more prone to failure than success, based on that insanely harsh criteria, is pretty much absurd.

 

[noblegas]

Here you define success as "reaching all of your goals".


Here you define success as "all of your work being the absolute best work you produced."


Here you define "best" as "making the most contributions to science."

Again: reaching all your goals and having your work judged as important by other people on the bell curve of their choice are two separate criteria. A person might achieve all their goals, which should qualify them as successful by your first stated criteria, yet be anonymous to the world at large. Conversely, a person may be praised and lauded, and given awards for, work they themselves consider mediocre.

Again: all of a person's work can't be their best on any bell curve. The decision to locate the "best" automatically means you're going to select one thing from many according to some preference.

Also: Judging a person a failure because they didn't make the most contributions to science (or their chosen field) is insanely harsh and your assumption that people are more prone to failure than success, based on that insanely harsh criteria, is pretty much absurd.

I am sorry but people are more prone to failure than success, when conducting a scientific experiments. Think of the example I gave you of Edison trying out 10,000(or was it 2000?) failed experiments before arriving at the experiment that led to the invention of the light bulb. I think pretending that Every one will be successful effortless at their work without crawling through a pile of struggle and failure and is a big slap to the face of reality .

Again: reaching all your goals and having your work judged as important by other people on the bell curve of their choice are two separate criteria. A person might achieve all their goals, which should qualify them as successful by your first stated criteria, yet be anonymous to the world at large. Conversely, a person may be praised and lauded, and given awards for, work they themselves consider mediocre.

Yes, it is true that you cannot objectively judge a person measure of failure based on one set of criteria, but there are many criteria you can apply because there are many different definitions of success and there are many definitions of success. For example, you might receive straight A's throughout high school or maybe college in their academic studies , but once you enter grad school in your scientific field, you will more like encounter a lot of scientific failed experiments before you reached the scientific experiment that closely described your proposed hypothesis that would eventually transformed into a theory if experiment goes correctly .

 

[glueball8]

Maybe its all that the lower fruits has been picked. Using a stick isn't a great innovation anymore.