5 ms·

If you don't think there are actors right now trying just as hard as anyone in history to get a break, and not getting it, I don't know what to tell you. I gue

by drblast 12y ago

If you don't think there are actors right now trying just as hard as anyone in history to get a break, and not getting it, I don't know what to tell you. I guess the point is that looking at the .01% of successful people and ignoring all others who didn't succeed will give you a very biased view of what's necessary to succeed.

poolpool 12y ago
People, especially with the libertarian thinking so popular on hn, don't like to admit that maybe they had little or nothing to do with their success. No one lives in a bubble.
- danielweber 12y ago
  "Little or nothing to do with their success" is a bit far in the other direction. NPR has this segment where they say there were only about 1000 people in the world who were in a position to start Microsoft like Gates was. He's very lucky in be in that 1000. But of those 1000 only 2 founded Microsoft. The rest didn't want or bother or care or see it.
  - larrys 12y ago
    Did that NPR report account for the fact that his mother knew the head of IBM from the Red Cross? Had that not been the case it's really a stretch to think that Gates would have made it to where he is today. (He would have been successful no doubt but on a much smaller scale.).
- aaronem 12y ago
  People, especially with the socialist thinking so popular on HN, don't like to admit that maybe human beings aren't fungible. Vacuous rhetoric is a waste of everyone's time.
- larrys 12y ago
  The collective "HN" is really obsessed with the topic of success and intelligence. Almost in the same way that I would imagine teenage girls are obsessed with why some girls are popular and they aren't.
aaronem 12y ago
I'm not sure what studying failure can tell you about what's necessary to succeed. "Don't do this", maybe.
- mrow84 12y ago
  If you examine those who have failed alongside those who have succeeded, and are unable to find an explanatory variable, related to personal contribution, that cleanly distinguishes the two groups, then you might conclude that external factors (i.e. "luck") have a role to play in success. If you don't examine the failures then you can't determine if this is the case, and you might fall foul to the logical error of survivorship bias, as has already been mentioned. edit: changed "an important role" to "a role", given that lack of a "clean" distinction could be of any magnitude.

by drblast 12y ago

poolpool 12y ago

People, especially with the libertarian thinking so popular on hn, don't like to admit that maybe they had little or nothing to do with their success. No one lives in a bubble.

danielweber 12y ago
"Little or nothing to do with their success" is a bit far in the other direction. NPR has this segment where they say there were only about 1000 people in the world who were in a position to start Microsoft like Gates was. He's very lucky in be in that 1000. But of those 1000 only 2 founded Microsoft. The rest didn't want or bother or care or see it.
- larrys 12y ago
  Did that NPR report account for the fact that his mother knew the head of IBM from the Red Cross? Had that not been the case it's really a stretch to think that Gates would have made it to where he is today. (He would have been successful no doubt but on a much smaller scale.).
aaronem 12y ago
People, especially with the socialist thinking so popular on HN, don't like to admit that maybe human beings aren't fungible. Vacuous rhetoric is a waste of everyone's time.
larrys 12y ago
The collective "HN" is really obsessed with the topic of success and intelligence. Almost in the same way that I would imagine teenage girls are obsessed with why some girls are popular and they aren't.

aaronem 12y ago

I'm not sure what studying failure can tell you about what's necessary to succeed. "Don't do this", maybe.

mrow84 12y ago
If you examine those who have failed alongside those who have succeeded, and are unable to find an explanatory variable, related to personal contribution, that cleanly distinguishes the two groups, then you might conclude that external factors (i.e. "luck") have a role to play in success. If you don't examine the failures then you can't determine if this is the case, and you might fall foul to the logical error of survivorship bias, as has already been mentioned. edit: changed "an important role" to "a role", given that lack of a "clean" distinction could be of any magnitude.