Luck is essentially a common interpretation of the stochastic nature of the world. I agree with the author of the article in that people could increase their luck by exposing themselves to random events. I disagree that counting all pictures rather than stopping when the note is found implies a "lucky" personality-- that is more like a rational/logical personality. Luck would be that in fact, the number of pictures was different than the number in the note, and the person's curiosity helped them discover this fact by continuing to count regardless of having seen the note.
I tried to describe this in one of my blog posts, but I am still missing the second part, if interested, take a look at: http://bit.ly/b0SjZq
I don't think the author was implying that stopping when the note is found implies a "lucky" personality. I think Dr. Wiseman was looking for personality traits that are common amongst "unlucky" people. The newspaper test demonstrated that unlucky people are more tense and anxious than normal, and this could explain why they may not spot new opportunities.
I agree. But does this actually follow the definition of lucky? A person could deem herself lucky without that actually being the case-- it might just be that she has personality traits that make her successful. Luck, by definition is not dependent of one's actions. I guess the article is saying that we can make ourselves feel lucky by working on certain personality traits-- but does that make us actually lucky? I am just being philosophical here.
I tried to describe this in one of my blog posts, but I am still missing the second part, if interested, take a look at: http://bit.ly/b0SjZq