4 ms·
It is odd to point out the relatively minor failures of massively successful people. It is only because they are successful that they are able to afford to tak
by doctor_eval 3y ago
It is odd to point out the relatively minor failures of massively successful people.
It is only because they are successful that they are able to afford to take these risks and the fact that these failures did not materially diminish their wealth speaks to the truth of the archetype.
- dvt 3y ago> speaks to the truth of the archetype The archetype claims that success breeds success, and this is categorically false, apart from a few exceptions (e.g. monopolies, collusion, etc.). The fact that even literally the richest person on the planet couldn't make a cellphone project (that he himself spearheaded) successful is a clear counter-example to the archetype. Your point that he didn't go broke afterwards is imo unrelated. I will agree that success definitely lowers risk profiles, but does not necessarily impact future success.
- doctor_eval 3y agoI disagree. Having wealth lets you spread risk. That’s one of the big reasons that success breeds success. At least when success is measured in dollars, not projects. This is why so many wealthy people are VCs. The failure of the fire phone, Blue Origin (TBD), Virgin Galactic etc simply reinforce the notion that successful people aren’t necessarily smarter than anyone else. But if they only make $10 billion from every billion they invest in crazy schemes… well they are still some way ahead of most of us.