But ogres are notoriously stupid.

Actual intelligence only comes into this if it's a conscious choice; it could easily manifest as a subconscious dietary preference such as a craving.

For example I vaguely remember an excellent short conference talk (British Ecological Society meeting in Liverpool a few years back, I think) on dietary preferences in - geese, i think? - where they choose fat-rich or protein-rich grasses depending on what they need most.

@User24712 hogwash. The smart make their own luck, while stupid people do stupid things. For example, think of the Darwin Awards.

@User24712 how about, "Successful People Make Their Own Luck"?

@RonJohn Darwin awards are not just awarded to inherently dumb people. Rather, people who were failed at an important aspect of trying out something new. There is the chemist who accidentally made isopropyl alcohol instead of ethanol alcohol in his lab, then there is the guy who successfully installed a jet engine on his car. There were oversights, sure, but most people are not intelligent enough to even attempt some of those ways to die.

@Nosajimiki they're intelligent enough to do something stupid.

@RonJohn Knowing that something can go wrong is not the same as knowing it will go wrong. Smart people are good at predicting what might fail, and learning not to repeat their mistakes, but in doing so are often less successful than people of average intelligence who are willing to fail at something 10 times only to succeed on the 11th try or who are do not foresee how badly something might turn out. This "dumbness" that makes one blind to negative outcomes might end in a Darwin Award, or it might open up opportunities for windfall advantages that a more critical person would have ignored

So it's more accurate to say that stupid people make their own luck whereas smart people avoid behaviors that rely on luck all together.

@Nosajimiki Lol no. You're confusing smart with "educated".

@Nosajimiki more importantly, you're confusing "educated" with "hidebound".

@RonJohn Educated has nothing to to with it, though it is fair that you bring up that different people define intelligence differently. People who are more successful risk takers ( luckier ) have a higher white-to-grey matter ratio in their brain. But, aspects of what most people consider "intelligence" ( things like memory, emotional maturity, language skills, analysis, and self-control ) are functions of your grey matter. So intelligence, at least in the since that most people mean it, makes you less lucky because it pushes out the intuitive part of your brain.

... and minimizes risk taking behaviors.

@Nosajimiki where in the world do you get the idea that risk takers are luckier? Certainly not in hospitals and clinics after celebrations where guys shoot fireworks.

@RonJohn It's a pretty common principle you will find in all sorts of business theory textbooks, self-help books, etc. Here is what Google has to say on the subject: google.com/…

You are talking about the benefits of risk aversion in not getting unlucky, I am saying that getting lucky requires taking risks. Two sides of the same coin really.

@Nosajimiki how much risk is "risk"? Everyone who drives takes a risk. Race car drives risk a lot, but they wear nomex suits, helmets and drive cars designed to disintegrate instead of transmitting force into the driver. They take risks... calculated risks.

"then there is the guy who successfully installed a jet engine on his car" snopes.com/fact-check/carmageddon "are risk takers more successful in life" I'd rather see an authoritative source, rather than something Google will give you an echo chamber for. Here is a quick thought - survivorship bias will make it appear that risk takers are more successful. By ignoring all the ones who failed.