The difference is one person tried to do something, and the other didn't try at all. The one who tried succeeded. Which makes the whole point irrelevant and i

The difference is one person tried to do something, and the other didn't try at all. The one who tried succeeded. Which makes the whole point irrelevant and illogical. If you want to prove that a "winning attitude" is the key to success, you'd want to compare people who actually tried to do something and who had opposing attitudes and see how they ended up. Extra points if you do this with enough people to make the results statistically significant. Please, everyone realize that this argument is logically identical to the original blog post: I have two friends, one who has blond hair and the other is a redhead. The blond guy always talks about hunting lions in Africa but has never gone on safari. My redhead friend, on the other hand, went to Africa and shot a lion on his first try. It just goes to show you how important it is to have red hair. That's a BS argument, no? But if you said, "I did a study of 10,000 people who went to Africa and tried to shoot a lion, and red hair correlated with a successful kill more than any other characteristic by a wide margin," then you might want to consider dying your hair with henna before you go try to shoot a lion.