3 ms·

Rockefeller still had some privileges that allowed him to navigate the world easier while carrying his ambition with him—being male and Caucasian—and that’s not

Rockefeller still had some privileges that allowed him to navigate the world easier while carrying his ambition with him—being male and Caucasian—and that’s not to speak of the people that he collaborated with along the way. I’m not interested in discussing race or gender politics here, but it’s worth pointing that out since your comment comes off as completely dismissive of systemic advantages, environmental factors, and personal networks that all contribute to success, as if to say that any personal success is the product of a single factor alone: grit.

mc32 4y ago
Genghis Khan was pretty successful I'd say; and he came from humble means, as they say. But in modern times Masayoshi Son, Steve Jobs as well.
- rTX5CMRXIfFG 4y ago
  Did they do things alone? Where did their collaborators come from?
  - mc32 4y ago
    No, not alone, but no one but those guys would have done what they did. There were many other barefoot boys tending to horses but it was Genghis who got up there and took over half the world. It wasn't the other kids, it was him. And later on it wasn't his generals, but he who oversaw the conquests. They all could have raised armies instead, but, it was actually him with the vision and singular aim. Same with Jobs and Masayoshi, other people also knew the people they knew, but only they did do what they ended up doing.
    - rTX5CMRXIfFG 4y ago
      So those are facts, but what is the point that you’re getting at? Are you making the case that their successes were inherent in them, or that their motivations were shaped by some experience unique to them, or were they just destined to be such by history?
jimmaswell 4y ago
Of course your starting point makes it easier or harder. I'm just contesting "how much privilege it [necessarily] takes"
- rTX5CMRXIfFG 4y ago
  I mean, can you measure that or draw a direct causation? I’m also just contesting how much is inherent to an individual, and whether it is any worth bringing up that point against the idea that external factors have a significant impact to success, which is already nuanced enough not to say that external factors are the sole indicators?

mc32 4y ago

Genghis Khan was pretty successful I'd say; and he came from humble means, as they say. But in modern times Masayoshi Son, Steve Jobs as well.

rTX5CMRXIfFG 4y ago
Did they do things alone? Where did their collaborators come from?
- mc32 4y ago
  No, not alone, but no one but those guys would have done what they did. There were many other barefoot boys tending to horses but it was Genghis who got up there and took over half the world. It wasn't the other kids, it was him. And later on it wasn't his generals, but he who oversaw the conquests. They all could have raised armies instead, but, it was actually him with the vision and singular aim. Same with Jobs and Masayoshi, other people also knew the people they knew, but only they did do what they ended up doing.
  - rTX5CMRXIfFG 4y ago
    So those are facts, but what is the point that you’re getting at? Are you making the case that their successes were inherent in them, or that their motivations were shaped by some experience unique to them, or were they just destined to be such by history?

jimmaswell 4y ago

Of course your starting point makes it easier or harder. I'm just contesting "how much privilege it [necessarily] takes"

rTX5CMRXIfFG 4y ago
I mean, can you measure that or draw a direct causation? I’m also just contesting how much is inherent to an individual, and whether it is any worth bringing up that point against the idea that external factors have a significant impact to success, which is already nuanced enough not to say that external factors are the sole indicators?