Fame! Wealth! Power! The surest route to all of these is birth—something we don’t have control over. But even the enablers, such as freedom, connections and education are more accessible to some than to others. A general rule of thumb is that the world opens up for those who can get more formal education and credential themselves. However, this is predicated on getting a good start with nutrition, a culture that values education, resources for learning (such as books) and capable teachers who want you to succeed. If you are scrambling for food or you live in a region far from schools — or your ethnicity, clothes or learning style irritate teachers — you may be out of luck.

Has technology helped to level the playing field? I’d say it has. Certainly, if you have access to the Internet, the knowledge of the world is set before you. And if you’re clever enough, you can draw attention and supporters. We have crowdfunding and performance spaces (like YouTube) and social networks that can connect you to the people you need to help you win honor and glory.

So, why aren’t we all famous, rich and powerful? Why is, in fact, social mobility slipping away in some places like the United States? Some would argue that regulation, taxation and the exercise of raw power make the playing field uneven–perhaps, tipped even more than it was before the harmful technologies we have today. There are plenty of people making this argument now, so I won’t use this space to join that conversation. Focusing on technology, I’ll simply state that it often works as an amplifier, making it easier for the rich to get richer and the poor to get poorer.

But even within our social context, our technologies have enabled people who previously would have been trapped by their circumstances to have better lives and even obtain fame, wealth and power. Why doesn’t this happen for more people? Diligence and luck play a role, but I would say that a major element—maybe the X factor—is taste.

I read a lot of manuscripts and I know a lot of authors. Some seem to know what good is. They set the bar at a lofty level, and they know when they’ve exceeded it. Others are completely satisfied with what they have achieved even though it isn’t very good. Hard work, connections and help provided by the Web (and other technologies) and even luck are unlikely to allow them to reach their ambitions.

But can someone of limited taste develop the capability to really know quality? And can technology help them? The old-fashioned way of developing taste — interacting with people who have taste, being open to criticism, expanding life experience and immersing yourself in the best that’s out there in your field – still works. This is one reason why genius tends to be clustered. People with talent and ambition come together and interact in ways that cultivate their taste. That raises the bar. And we certainly have the opportunity now to form such communities online. But there’s another factor that can help—testing.

In his biography, Hollywood director Frank Capra writes about how he was one of the first people to test his films before general release. His confidence in the results of such testing is illustrated by a story of how he literally threw away the first reel of a completed film, based on audience feedback. Consumer testing has become a huge industry. But the sophisticated testing and data analysis is primarily in the hands of the big guys today. With enough testing, provided it is the right kind of testing, it may be possible for people with little taste to develop it or to pass that role off to others. Generate enough ideas and test them all, and one may be a winner. (However, I worry that confidence in bad or inadequate testing tools are likely to kill some the best ideas.)

So, can the little guys test the way the big guys can? Eventually, yes. Wealth may not trickle down, but technology does. The supercomputers of yesterday are the smart phones of today—only more user-friendly. If creative and ambitious people understand what such testing might do for them, they will eventually have the means to put it to use. So the future is likely to have a dimension where taste is more broadly available than it is today.

Which leads timing. Knowing when to snag an opportunity to make a difference. While some people seem to have a sense of Zeitgeist and they’re able to use it like a wind at their backs, I would guess that most success in timing comes from luck. But if we can find the tools to automate good timing for everyone, we might find ourselves in a very different world.