Yes, but for people claiming there's no self-made man, when you ask them, when they would define them ("What person would you accept as self-made man?"), they u

Yes, but for people claiming there's no self-made man, when you ask them, when they would define them ("What person would you accept as self-made man?"), they usually create absolutely artificial cutoff. Like if there were no public education or infrastructure and you still suceeded (in whatever, science, business), you are self-made. But why? Still, such a person didn't have to invent their own DNA, so they aren't really self-made. "Society matters, not DNA, not personal initiative, not discipline, not habits..." is a form of bias. And I just refuse this bias. All this matters. You can be self-made as a seventh child of poor Burmese farmer. Then, you could be maybe as rich as an average developer in Facebook. It is self-made. Or you can be a child of someone rich, inherit $1B and decades later leave the world with 1/10 and it not self-made, even when you still will be way better off that the child of that Burmese farmer. Self-made is relative, not absolute. Also, you can grow a lot just by luck. Winning a lottery ticket is luck. But picking a career in IT is not. Thirty years ago, everyone knew computers are going to be ultra important. So not every vertical mobility is self-made. It's complex, but they exist. People who decide to grow in their field. People with right habits, posessing great decision making skills, problem solvers, energetic people.