In past generations, success was synonymous with hard work. In today’s consumer and glamour society, faith in luck has replaced faith in hard work and religion. One function that both luck and religion share is that both give hope. Nevertheless, empowering one’s self and being more active so as to generate one’s own “luck” is better than just waiting to get lucky. Firstly, what is luck? And why do some people consider themselves as lucky while others feel unlucky. Heider (1958) introduced the distinction between internal and external attributions to events, meaning that one may attribute the outcome of an event to themselves or external factors like luck. Weiner (1986) further developed the concept of luck and defined luck as external, unstable and having uncontrollable causes. Meeting the director of company seeking someone with your profile at a dinner and getting the job of your dreams could be defined as a lucky event. Then again, not necessarily. Students getting results from their exams often attribute their success to luck, while others attribute it to the fact they studied well and therefore empower themselves by taking credit for their work. Confident people tend to attribute success to themselves and failure to bad luck or themselves. This is empowering and builds self-esteem. Others who attribute success to luck and failure to themselves will wait for luck to guide them and will eventually become insecure as they rarely take credit for their successes. Being “lucky” or “unlucky” is also a question of perspective, someone having experienced a serious car accident can see the situation as “unlucky” after braking an arm, completely destroying their brand new car they bought with a loan the week before. On the other hand, this same person could say, “I’m very lucky to be here.” Psychologist Richard Wiseman, author of “The Luck Factor,” has extensively studied the concept of luck. In one of his studies Wiseman recruited 700 subjects some of which perceived themselves as lucky while others as unlucky. The “lucky” group believed to be twice as likely to win the lottery when compared to the “unlucky” group. In reality, there was no difference in winning between the two groups. In his next study, Wiseman investigated the life satisfaction of the two groups. The “lucky” subjects reported being significantly more satisfied with their lives than the “unlucky” subjects. Wiseman then demonstrates through a series of elegant experiments that “lucky” people do have more good things happen to them than the “unlucky” ones and its not because of chance or luck. The “lucky” subjects were people who where significantly more extrovert and open than the others. They were twice as likely to smile and engage in eye contact than the “unlucky” people. This translates into maximising the probability of positive opportunities. The “unlucky” subjects would meet and speak to less people, consequently reducing the probability of positive outcomes from occurring. Hence, meeting the director of company seeking someone with your profile at a dinner would not be due to luck. Instead, by being social and interacting with people you maximise the probability of such events occurring. Should you have been in this situation without being social and interactive, you might have not spoken to this person and you would not have been “lucky” to get the job. Another characteristic the “lucky” subjects had was that they were half as anxious as the “unlucky” subjects. Wiseman demonstrates through a series of experiments that being relaxed allows you to notice opportunities more than when anxious. Therefore, in addition to being open and interactive, being able to detect opportunities is also a competitive advantage. Thus, one can say that being “lucky” is determined by your state of mind and the way you engage the world.