Why do the stories we hear about success often feel more common than they really are?

There are times when a particular outcome appears more frequent than it actually is. Successful investors, winning strategies, and standout performances tend to receive attention. Their stories are shared, analysed, and repeated. Over time, they begin to form a picture of what success looks like, and how it might be achieved.

What is less visible are the outcomes that did not succeed. Strategies that failed, funds that closed, or decisions that did not work out are far less likely to be seen. They leave fewer traces. The result is that the available evidence becomes uneven, shaped more by what has survived than by the full range of what occurred.

This is where Survivorship Bias begins to influence perception. Rather than evaluating all outcomes, attention is naturally drawn to those that remain visible. The absence of the unsuccessful cases can create the impression that success is more common, or more easily achieved, than it truly is.

The concept has been discussed across statistics, economics, and decision-making, and is often illustrated through historical examples. During the Second World War, analysts initially focused on reinforcing areas of aircraft that showed the most damage on returning planes. It was later recognised that the critical areas were those where damage was not observed, because aircraft hit in those areas had not returned. The visible data told only part of the story.

In markets, this can be seen in the way performance is interpreted. Investors may study successful strategies or individuals and attempt to replicate them, without fully accounting for the many similar attempts that did not succeed. Backtested results, track records, and widely shared examples can all reflect this imbalance.

What makes this difficult to recognise is how natural it feels. It is easier to learn from what is visible than from what is not. The challenge is that when the unseen outcomes are excluded, the conclusions drawn can be incomplete.

You may notice this in yourself when certain strategies or success stories appear more common than expected, or when outcomes are judged based on the examples that are easiest to find. There can also be a tendency to assume that what has survived represents what is typical.

Survivorship bias does not change what happened.

But it changes what is seen.

For Further Reading

Merton, R. K. (1968). The Matthew Effect in Science. Science, 159(3810), 56–63.