6 ms·

I disagree - the hand you’re given, parents, status, genetics, etc pretty much decide the outcomes in reality. Similarly as you’ve pointed out the early rolls d

I disagree - the hand you’re given, parents, status, genetics, etc pretty much decide the outcomes in reality. Similarly as you’ve pointed out the early rolls decide most of the outcome as well.

WalterBright 7y ago
How does your theory explain The Beatles, Steve Jobs, Bruno Mars, Thomas Edison, Barack Obama, etc.? Did you know that the overwhelming majority of immigrants came to America with nothing but a suitcase? I know a modern immigrant who came with a suitcase and recently retired with his fu money. It's never been easier for someone to get a free college-level education, start an internet business, reach a global network of suppliers, and a global marketplace, for FREE. Blaming your parents might be fun, but is totally unproductive.
- newfeatureok 7y ago
  I’m not sure what your examples have to do with anything. Do you think people can will themselves to success independent of their circumstances? It’s obvious factors outside of your control determine 99.99% of your outcomes. Literally all the data agrees with me here. Don’t know what you’re arguing for exactly. That some people get lucky and some of those lucky people worked hard?
  - rudiv 7y ago
    It's easier to believe we live in a just world than to think critically about the societies we live in.
    - WalterBright 7y ago
      It's easier to make excuses than learn what needs to be done, make a plan, and execute it.
      - sokoloff 7y ago
        Particularly when these excuses aren’t subject to rigorous outcome testing or any feedback process at all. A wrong, convenient excuse is slightly less useful but is much more satiating than a correct excuse.
    - newfeatureok 7y ago
      Unfortunately many people have a poor understanding of statistics and cherry pick examples to fit their agenda.
      - icelancer 7y ago
        Even worse when people use averages as a method of policymaking for everyone, rather than realize that history is made by the exceptions. Not the averages.
  - WalterBright 7y ago
    > Literally all the data agrees with me here. I just quoted several data points that did not agree with "all the data". If they can succeed, why can't you? I also know a Microsoft executive who didn't attend college, and I'm not sure even graduated from high school. His father owned a hole-in-the-wall store. Fortunately for him, he didn't listen to "it's all luck". Most of the people I know don't fit into your "it's all luck" data. For all the people who think it's all luck being a CEO, how many have even read a book on how to run a business?
    - michaelmrose 7y ago
      Your place in life is the intersection of circumstance and merit. Imagine 4 integers (MeritWeight * Merit) * (CircumstancesWeight Circumstances) We can disagree what respective weights ought to be assigned but its pretty clear that it circumstances favor you sufficiently your trajectory is high regardless of merit. If your Merit is high enough your trajectory may be high regardless of merit. I don't think anyone disagrees much even though passionate arguments are passed by all. The thing is that only a minority are gifted by circumstances and most people are neither worthless nor extremely worthy. The merely average are bound for average lives at best in most cases and often for lesser lives depending on how other circumstances of their lives play out. When people say that life is unfair, which it is, and you say but look here is a list of a minority of worthy who made good despite middling or worse circumstances as if this itself were a refutation you are aren't even addressing the same argument, let alone refuting it. For the record. The average small business owners salary is 66-73k in the US. By contrast the median individual income is 40k. A middle class individual whose father owned a "hole in the wall" had a family that probably had more to start with than 70% of their fellows. This example is itself a demonstration of your lack of perspective. You literally think someone who started off better than average started out with substantial disadvantages.
      - WalterBright 7y ago
        > who started off better than average I knew him, and you didn't. The idea he was in the top 30% would certainly make him laugh. Lots of store owners barely scrape by.
- kick 7y ago
  Jobs was raised by two people middle class-enough to adopt, in the middle of one of the most progressive parts of the United States during one of its most progressive eras. He also wasn't harassed by the law for doing illegal things that would get someone a CFAA-equivalent punishment today (he was a huge phreaker, for instance, and made cash off of it before Apple). Beyond that, I might add, he was in 'audience-testing distance' of Hewlett-Packard back when the namesakes weren't only living, but active, and their company was on top of the world. And he managed to get free parts from one of them, a job, and a pretty important deal of networking, solely by sending Bill Hewlitt a personal phone call as a twelve-year-old. Show me a child in that situation who could get personal audience with, say, Zuckerberg, today. Or Gates. Or any of the Netflix guys. Or anyone running Apple. Or, let's lower the bar, any C-level executive at Microsoft. [Correction without changing the original text, as it's relevant downthread: The first sentence of this was later shown to be false. The rest, to the best of my knowledge, is entirely correct, though.] Edison grew up in walking distance of a college and was able to take classes there. Patents were also significantly cheaper to acquire in his time. Further, the job that effectively launched his career he got via nothing but luck (someone almost died by chance, he played a role in them not dying by chance, that someone's father gave him a job). Bruno Mars's success was pretty much entirely because of his family (not to mention, if you don't see how 'growing up in the safest and richest part of a state known for being safe and rich' might play a big role in things, you've got a very contrarian worldview): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruno_Mars#1985%E2%80%932003:_Early_life_and_musical_beginnings https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruno_Mars#1985%E2%80%932003:_... Barack Obama's mother was highly-educated and relatively influential (his father as well to both of those, along with his stepfather as to the former), and he went to private schooling as a child. The Beatles are the only ones on your list who don't have something heavily-significant going for them prior to success. I respect you a massive amount, but it's really disappointing to see this line of thought coming from someone as intelligent as you. I'm doing really well, myself, but it's not in line with reality to act like reality's meritocratic. There are significant barriers to success for more people than there aren't, and "blaming your parents" is a particularly strange way of phrasing 'structural barriers to opportunity'. EDIT: added a paragraph
  - WalterBright 7y ago
- thaumasiotes 7y ago
  >> the hand you’re given, parents, status, genetics, etc pretty much decide the outcomes in reality. > Did you know that the overwhelming majority of immigrants came to America with nothing but a suitcase? I'm pretty sure they also had genetics.
  - kick 7y ago
    The genetic argument doesn't really hold much water. You've got a lot of great ground to argue on, using something that's as contested as an argument in genetics isn't worth it when your argument can stand on its own merits.

I disagree - the hand you’re given, parents, status, genetics, etc pretty much decide the outcomes in reality. Similarly as you’ve pointed out the early rolls decide most of the outcome as well.

WalterBright 7y ago

How does your theory explain The Beatles, Steve Jobs, Bruno Mars, Thomas Edison, Barack Obama, etc.? Did you know that the overwhelming majority of immigrants came to America with nothing but a suitcase? I know a modern immigrant who came with a suitcase and recently retired with his fu money. It's never been easier for someone to get a free college-level education, start an internet business, reach a global network of suppliers, and a global marketplace, for FREE. Blaming your parents might be fun, but is totally unproductive.

newfeatureok 7y ago
I’m not sure what your examples have to do with anything. Do you think people can will themselves to success independent of their circumstances? It’s obvious factors outside of your control determine 99.99% of your outcomes. Literally all the data agrees with me here. Don’t know what you’re arguing for exactly. That some people get lucky and some of those lucky people worked hard?
- rudiv 7y ago
  It's easier to believe we live in a just world than to think critically about the societies we live in.
  - WalterBright 7y ago
    It's easier to make excuses than learn what needs to be done, make a plan, and execute it.
    - sokoloff 7y ago
      Particularly when these excuses aren’t subject to rigorous outcome testing or any feedback process at all. A wrong, convenient excuse is slightly less useful but is much more satiating than a correct excuse.
  - newfeatureok 7y ago
    Unfortunately many people have a poor understanding of statistics and cherry pick examples to fit their agenda.
    - icelancer 7y ago
      Even worse when people use averages as a method of policymaking for everyone, rather than realize that history is made by the exceptions. Not the averages.
- WalterBright 7y ago
  > Literally all the data agrees with me here. I just quoted several data points that did not agree with "all the data". If they can succeed, why can't you? I also know a Microsoft executive who didn't attend college, and I'm not sure even graduated from high school. His father owned a hole-in-the-wall store. Fortunately for him, he didn't listen to "it's all luck". Most of the people I know don't fit into your "it's all luck" data. For all the people who think it's all luck being a CEO, how many have even read a book on how to run a business?
  - michaelmrose 7y ago
    Your place in life is the intersection of circumstance and merit. Imagine 4 integers (MeritWeight * Merit) * (CircumstancesWeight Circumstances) We can disagree what respective weights ought to be assigned but its pretty clear that it circumstances favor you sufficiently your trajectory is high regardless of merit. If your Merit is high enough your trajectory may be high regardless of merit. I don't think anyone disagrees much even though passionate arguments are passed by all. The thing is that only a minority are gifted by circumstances and most people are neither worthless nor extremely worthy. The merely average are bound for average lives at best in most cases and often for lesser lives depending on how other circumstances of their lives play out. When people say that life is unfair, which it is, and you say but look here is a list of a minority of worthy who made good despite middling or worse circumstances as if this itself were a refutation you are aren't even addressing the same argument, let alone refuting it. For the record. The average small business owners salary is 66-73k in the US. By contrast the median individual income is 40k. A middle class individual whose father owned a "hole in the wall" had a family that probably had more to start with than 70% of their fellows. This example is itself a demonstration of your lack of perspective. You literally think someone who started off better than average started out with substantial disadvantages.
    - WalterBright 7y ago
      > who started off better than average I knew him, and you didn't. The idea he was in the top 30% would certainly make him laugh. Lots of store owners barely scrape by.
kick 7y ago
Jobs was raised by two people middle class-enough to adopt, in the middle of one of the most progressive parts of the United States during one of its most progressive eras. He also wasn't harassed by the law for doing illegal things that would get someone a CFAA-equivalent punishment today (he was a huge phreaker, for instance, and made cash off of it before Apple). Beyond that, I might add, he was in 'audience-testing distance' of Hewlett-Packard back when the namesakes weren't only living, but active, and their company was on top of the world. And he managed to get free parts from one of them, a job, and a pretty important deal of networking, solely by sending Bill Hewlitt a personal phone call as a twelve-year-old. Show me a child in that situation who could get personal audience with, say, Zuckerberg, today. Or Gates. Or any of the Netflix guys. Or anyone running Apple. Or, let's lower the bar, any C-level executive at Microsoft. [Correction without changing the original text, as it's relevant downthread: The first sentence of this was later shown to be false. The rest, to the best of my knowledge, is entirely correct, though.] Edison grew up in walking distance of a college and was able to take classes there. Patents were also significantly cheaper to acquire in his time. Further, the job that effectively launched his career he got via nothing but luck (someone almost died by chance, he played a role in them not dying by chance, that someone's father gave him a job). Bruno Mars's success was pretty much entirely because of his family (not to mention, if you don't see how 'growing up in the safest and richest part of a state known for being safe and rich' might play a big role in things, you've got a very contrarian worldview): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruno_Mars#1985%E2%80%932003:_Early_life_and_musical_beginnings https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruno_Mars#1985%E2%80%932003:_... Barack Obama's mother was highly-educated and relatively influential (his father as well to both of those, along with his stepfather as to the former), and he went to private schooling as a child. The Beatles are the only ones on your list who don't have something heavily-significant going for them prior to success. I respect you a massive amount, but it's really disappointing to see this line of thought coming from someone as intelligent as you. I'm doing really well, myself, but it's not in line with reality to act like reality's meritocratic. There are significant barriers to success for more people than there aren't, and "blaming your parents" is a particularly strange way of phrasing 'structural barriers to opportunity'. EDIT: added a paragraph
- WalterBright 7y ago
thaumasiotes 7y ago
>> the hand you’re given, parents, status, genetics, etc pretty much decide the outcomes in reality. > Did you know that the overwhelming majority of immigrants came to America with nothing but a suitcase? I'm pretty sure they also had genetics.
- kick 7y ago
  The genetic argument doesn't really hold much water. You've got a lot of great ground to argue on, using something that's as contested as an argument in genetics isn't worth it when your argument can stand on its own merits.