Yep. This is what I took away from it. Let's be honest: the predominant socioeconomic class among hackers and entrepreneurs is a set who have a relatively larg

Yep. This is what I took away from it. Let's be honest: the predominant socioeconomic class among hackers and entrepreneurs is a set who have a relatively large set of advantages, many of which are unexamined. This comment thread is a textbook reaction to an accusation that maybe, just maybe, some people have advantages which have directly or indirectly contributed to their success, perhaps as much as any other factor. Some people call this "loser" talk, when I'd say, aggregated across not just our own extremely narrow cross-section of society, it's pretty realistic. As he says, the corollary to "just do it" is that if you didn't succeed, it's because you weren't trying. That may not be what anyone here is suggesting (or it may!), but it's undeniable that there's an entire political party in the US which takes this as an article of faith. If you're wealthy, it's because you earned it; if it's poor, you're not working hard enough. See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actor%E2%80%93observer_asymmetry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actor%E2%80%93observer_asymmetr... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_phenomenon http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_phenomenon I do think there is something to the idea of XX% of success is just showing up. It's just that "showing up" elides plenty of complexity and it's not often I see people acknowledge that.