6 ms·

>I hate when someone says, "Oh, Schwarzenegger is the perfect example of a self-made man" because I'm not. I'm a creation of my parents. I'm a creation of my co

>I hate when someone says, "Oh, Schwarzenegger is the perfect example of a self-made man" because I'm not. I'm a creation of my parents. I'm a creation of my coaches, my teachers. I have been helped by my training partners, by my friends. Especially when I think about coming to America, it was Joe Wheeler that helped me to come over here, got me the airline ticket, helped me get the apartment and the car. The people of California voted for me to be governor of California. So I didn't become governor because I'm self-made; I became governor because people voted for me. I love this humility and wish more people would have it. Even if you weren't supported by individuals, it is due to the society around you, its infrastructure, its structure, its technology, that you are able to be a "success". We are the product of things we had no control over initially. Yet people still say "self made" ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

jasfi 3y ago
I'm quite sure that was Joe Weider.
- RickJWagner 3y ago
  I think you're right. This seems like a pretty plain blunder.
marginalia_nu 3y ago
This is sort of a crippling mindset though. If we tell ourselves others succeed because of what they were given, that's not really putting yourself in a position where you're likely to take control over your own life. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Whether you tell yourself you're destined for greatness or be a deadbeat and fighting against this destiny is pointless, and you're more than likely to be correct. I don't think this is particularly informative. You gotta play the hand you're dealt and make the most of it. It's not fair in the sense everyone has the same opportunities, but there's still a spectrum of accomplishments that can be achieved by any given person.
- jvalencia 3y ago
  I would argue that true maturity is when someone can take care of themselves, recognize their inputs with gratitude, and ask for help when needed with humility, not expecting that someone else would take care of them AND being grateful even if they don't get it. The polarization of our arguments leads us to pretty shallow poles.
- kaitai 3y ago
  This response, to me, misses the point. Yes, you gotta play the hand you're dealt. It's not crippling at all to acknowledge the cards in your hand. If you don't have any pairs or face cards or whatever, it is not crippling to acknowledge that. Acknowledging the help of other is not telling ourselves we're succeeding because of "what we were given", and acknowledging the role of chance isn't denigratory either. To me, acknowledging what others helped us with, the chance encounters that helped, etc can help us seek out more chance, more help, and then provide that to others as well. Then we can indeed make our own luck and create luck for others. Acknowledging the help of others is just not at all the same as lessening our own contributions. I guess it is true that some folks see it that way, that if you ever thank or acknowledge anyone else then you're weak, there is this pressure to pretend that everything is original and done alone, but... that's just lying.
  - sfink 3y ago
    Both points are valid, and I agree with both. It's ok, they're different points. First, it is a problem that people don't recognize and acknowledge the external factors behind success. It leads to poor decisions, helplessness and other negative feelings, and reactivity ("why didn't you just save more of your minimum wage like I did with the interest from my trust fund?"). Second, it is a problem to see success as only determined by external factors, then you lose agency and are less likely to do as well as your opportunities allow. You are permanently "bad at math", you can only get somewhere if the Man stops pushing you down. It's the opposite of a growth mindset.
- slothtrop 3y ago
  I agree that self-efficacy is a predictor of success and taking initiative. While it's not mutually exclusive with the recognition of social support, I think that rationalization espoused by Arnold is used by some as an instrument for self-defeat/self-pity and a defense mechanism against taking action. Example beliefs: "I probably couldn't become a world champion bodybuilder, because I don't have the support network Arnold had, so I won't bother"; "people who create successful startups all come from rich parents and stable households, I shouldn't even try"; "I'll never lose weight without a super-pill". So I agree with you and somewhat with those who are responding to you.
chmod600 3y ago
Both concepts can be true. A lot of people, especially in the developed world, have way more opportunities than they realize. Those that take on some (often very modest) risk to exercise those opportunities are self-made. It would be ridiculous to say that Picasso didn't make a painting because someone else supplied the paint. He's the one that saw the paint and the canvas and put them together in a unique way.
- alexvoda 3y ago
  The Picasso analogy really doesn't work, it makes no sense.
- lisper 3y ago
  But Picasso was also lucky enough to be born in a place and time where he had access to enough economic surplus that he could spend time painting rather than having to spend all his time working the fields just to survive. He also had the extra good fortune of being in a situation where those around him had access to enough economic surplus that they could afford to buy his paintings at a pretty substantial markup over the actual cost of production. None of these things are givens.
  - wouldbecouldbe 3y ago
    I don’t even know why people bother argue such things? To not feel bad others have accomplished more?
    - skullone 3y ago
      It makes me feel even better looking at accomplished peoples work. Seeing the whole thing come together, everyone's contributions that lead to works of art, science, engineering, etc. It would make me feel shitty that "accomplished people" were standalone in their works, where no one along their life was ever helpful or interested or supported or bought their works. It takes a village (or a planet/solar system/galaxy/universe worth of everything going right for a single accomplishment to have happened)
    - 3y ago
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
slothtrop 3y ago
We aren't strictly the product of environmental determinism. That has an influence, but we don't all make the same choices. There's a social expectation among public facing individuals to downplay their efforts and investments and chalk everything up to privilege, luck or divine blessing, and they're punished for deviating from that.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
isleyaardvark 3y ago
It reminds me of Mr. Rogers' wonderful lifetime achievement award acceptance speech: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Upm9LnuCBUM#t=1m24s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Upm9LnuCBUM#t=1m24s
MrPatan 3y ago
He's a (successful) politician. I wouldn't expect him to say that of course he's self-made and his listeners (whose votes he may or may not need) are a bunch of not-self-made losers. That sentence doesn't give me a lot of information about what he actually thinks.
suoduandao2 3y ago
In practice, there’s no conflict between feeling gratitude for the positive things in one’s life and having an internal locus of control. In theory, those feelings are hard to express in a single narrative
ralph84 3y ago
Contrast to Vinod Khosla who couldn’t have been anywhere near as successful anywhere other than California. As a thank you he tries to restrict public access to California beaches.
zlg_codes 3y ago
Will you stay consistent and blame failures on society as well? Many are quick to take away one's successes as earned but then make some BS up about all bad things being deserved. The just world fallacy is one of the most harmful.
yibg 3y ago
Maybe it’s the language and phrasing that implies 1 of the 2 extremes. 1. Self made, implying it was solely the efforts of a said persons OR 2. Product of timing, luck, circumstance, implying there was nothing special about what the said person did. Reality is it’s probably often a mix of both. The person had help, the right environment etc but also talent and put in hard work. Maybe there is a better phrase than “self made”. “Through effort and circumstance”, but catchier.
hackernewds 3y ago
There are ample examples of people who are supported similar, if even better (privilege) by society and do not reach that level of success. So I guess if there were a regression model, you would find his own hard work elevated him above the others.

jasfi 3y ago

I'm quite sure that was Joe Weider.

RickJWagner 3y ago
I think you're right. This seems like a pretty plain blunder.

marginalia_nu 3y ago

This is sort of a crippling mindset though. If we tell ourselves others succeed because of what they were given, that's not really putting yourself in a position where you're likely to take control over your own life. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Whether you tell yourself you're destined for greatness or be a deadbeat and fighting against this destiny is pointless, and you're more than likely to be correct. I don't think this is particularly informative. You gotta play the hand you're dealt and make the most of it. It's not fair in the sense everyone has the same opportunities, but there's still a spectrum of accomplishments that can be achieved by any given person.

jvalencia 3y ago
I would argue that true maturity is when someone can take care of themselves, recognize their inputs with gratitude, and ask for help when needed with humility, not expecting that someone else would take care of them AND being grateful even if they don't get it. The polarization of our arguments leads us to pretty shallow poles.
kaitai 3y ago
This response, to me, misses the point. Yes, you gotta play the hand you're dealt. It's not crippling at all to acknowledge the cards in your hand. If you don't have any pairs or face cards or whatever, it is not crippling to acknowledge that. Acknowledging the help of other is not telling ourselves we're succeeding because of "what we were given", and acknowledging the role of chance isn't denigratory either. To me, acknowledging what others helped us with, the chance encounters that helped, etc can help us seek out more chance, more help, and then provide that to others as well. Then we can indeed make our own luck and create luck for others. Acknowledging the help of others is just not at all the same as lessening our own contributions. I guess it is true that some folks see it that way, that if you ever thank or acknowledge anyone else then you're weak, there is this pressure to pretend that everything is original and done alone, but... that's just lying.
- sfink 3y ago
  Both points are valid, and I agree with both. It's ok, they're different points. First, it is a problem that people don't recognize and acknowledge the external factors behind success. It leads to poor decisions, helplessness and other negative feelings, and reactivity ("why didn't you just save more of your minimum wage like I did with the interest from my trust fund?"). Second, it is a problem to see success as only determined by external factors, then you lose agency and are less likely to do as well as your opportunities allow. You are permanently "bad at math", you can only get somewhere if the Man stops pushing you down. It's the opposite of a growth mindset.
slothtrop 3y ago
I agree that self-efficacy is a predictor of success and taking initiative. While it's not mutually exclusive with the recognition of social support, I think that rationalization espoused by Arnold is used by some as an instrument for self-defeat/self-pity and a defense mechanism against taking action. Example beliefs: "I probably couldn't become a world champion bodybuilder, because I don't have the support network Arnold had, so I won't bother"; "people who create successful startups all come from rich parents and stable households, I shouldn't even try"; "I'll never lose weight without a super-pill". So I agree with you and somewhat with those who are responding to you.

chmod600 3y ago

Both concepts can be true. A lot of people, especially in the developed world, have way more opportunities than they realize. Those that take on some (often very modest) risk to exercise those opportunities are self-made. It would be ridiculous to say that Picasso didn't make a painting because someone else supplied the paint. He's the one that saw the paint and the canvas and put them together in a unique way.

alexvoda 3y ago
The Picasso analogy really doesn't work, it makes no sense.
lisper 3y ago
But Picasso was also lucky enough to be born in a place and time where he had access to enough economic surplus that he could spend time painting rather than having to spend all his time working the fields just to survive. He also had the extra good fortune of being in a situation where those around him had access to enough economic surplus that they could afford to buy his paintings at a pretty substantial markup over the actual cost of production. None of these things are givens.
- wouldbecouldbe 3y ago
  I don’t even know why people bother argue such things? To not feel bad others have accomplished more?
  - skullone 3y ago
    It makes me feel even better looking at accomplished peoples work. Seeing the whole thing come together, everyone's contributions that lead to works of art, science, engineering, etc. It would make me feel shitty that "accomplished people" were standalone in their works, where no one along their life was ever helpful or interested or supported or bought their works. It takes a village (or a planet/solar system/galaxy/universe worth of everything going right for a single accomplishment to have happened)
  - 3y ago

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

slothtrop 3y ago

We aren't strictly the product of environmental determinism. That has an influence, but we don't all make the same choices. There's a social expectation among public facing individuals to downplay their efforts and investments and chalk everything up to privilege, luck or divine blessing, and they're punished for deviating from that.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

isleyaardvark 3y ago

It reminds me of Mr. Rogers' wonderful lifetime achievement award acceptance speech: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Upm9LnuCBUM#t=1m24s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Upm9LnuCBUM#t=1m24s

MrPatan 3y ago

He's a (successful) politician. I wouldn't expect him to say that of course he's self-made and his listeners (whose votes he may or may not need) are a bunch of not-self-made losers. That sentence doesn't give me a lot of information about what he actually thinks.

suoduandao2 3y ago

In practice, there’s no conflict between feeling gratitude for the positive things in one’s life and having an internal locus of control. In theory, those feelings are hard to express in a single narrative

ralph84 3y ago

Contrast to Vinod Khosla who couldn’t have been anywhere near as successful anywhere other than California. As a thank you he tries to restrict public access to California beaches.

zlg_codes 3y ago

Will you stay consistent and blame failures on society as well? Many are quick to take away one's successes as earned but then make some BS up about all bad things being deserved. The just world fallacy is one of the most harmful.

yibg 3y ago

Maybe it’s the language and phrasing that implies 1 of the 2 extremes. 1. Self made, implying it was solely the efforts of a said persons OR 2. Product of timing, luck, circumstance, implying there was nothing special about what the said person did. Reality is it’s probably often a mix of both. The person had help, the right environment etc but also talent and put in hard work. Maybe there is a better phrase than “self made”. “Through effort and circumstance”, but catchier.

hackernewds 3y ago

There are ample examples of people who are supported similar, if even better (privilege) by society and do not reach that level of success. So I guess if there were a regression model, you would find his own hard work elevated him above the others.