I think that substantially underweights the role of luck. But, I will admit, these conversations often strike me with what I see as two clearly different menta

I think that substantially underweights the role of luck. But, I will admit, these conversations often strike me with what I see as two clearly different mental models. The first is what I might call the Bayesian (or perhaps "Rawlsian", or "anthropic") model, where the thinker assumes, "I am unlikely to be much different from anyone else", and thus takes overall success rates to be a sort of guidance: "Most startups fail; the expected value of a startup is negative; therefore I won't start a startup." The alternative mentality I see here seems to be more of an egocentric one: "I'm special, I believe in my ideas, and I can make it." It seems to me the egocentric view is certainly a necessary condition for wild success, but obviously an insufficient one: people who are special need to identify their specialness to avoid a fate of what might be called "elite mediocrity". But plenty of people who aren't special think they are, and achieve worse outcomes as a result of their unrealistic goals. Unfortunately, the prescription here seems to be to simply "be clear-eyed", which is easier said than done.