This is pointless drivel. As someone who's met thousands of people writing credit, I can tell you this. All of your points are wrong. Not only do they know, they can tell you what they failed at and overcame. What they still worry about despite their success and a general defensive financial posture to take risks. Suggesting it's luck devalues the planning and decision making of the individual and ignores the fact that those of failed likely didn't have the problem solving skills to overcome. Your outlook is entitled. Which is what everyone who thinks wealth is handed to those who are "Lucky" the reality is wealth comes to those who work hard and focus on the right things.
Pretty harsh to call it "pointless drivel", even if you disagree with the author. It's obviously struck a nerve! What does "thousands of people writing credit" mean, that you were making a decision whether to fund businesses? Kind of hard to parse.
It typically takes a near-delusional level of self-belief to be a successful entrepreneur, musician, thinker, artist, writer, etc. But it's a necessary and not sufficient condition. A Viking warrior needed to *believe* that Valhalla awaits, to be victorious on the battlefield: this isn't evidence that Valkyries were really on the edge of battle.
Let's flip around your assertion: if highly successful people typically *do* understand the components of their success, and it's not a matter of luck but completing certain knowable, repeatable actions... why then can't most people follow their template?
I definitely don't agree that this article is "pointless drivel." I just think point #1 was written inartfully. I think instead of luck -- he should have said opportunity. Opportunity requires both luck and hardwork to be realized. Malcom Gladwell wrote a well sourced book on the subject. He identifies a lot of elements of success and one of the major things he points out is successful people were lucky enough to be born at the right time and place to have the opportunity for their hardwork to pay off. He does case studies on tech billionaires like Bill Gates. There is no doubt that if Bill Gates has been born on the same exact day, to the same parents, etc but grew up in New Mexico, he would not have created Windows. The opportunity just wouldn't have been afforded to him because of luck. However, this doesn't discount the work he put into mastering computer programming at a young age -- he put his 10k hours in when most kids were playing Jacks (or whatever kids did pre-computers).
Yes, successful people can point to why they believe they are successful and can point to failures and potential failures that were avoided. But there is a tendency for everyone to discount factors that were outside of their control, when talking about success. Those factors don't jive with their type A personalities. That is why they can unreliable historians. Their advice can still be helpful but only if taken with a grain of salt.
This is pointless drivel. As someone who's met thousands of people writing credit, I can tell you this. All of your points are wrong. Not only do they know, they can tell you what they failed at and overcame. What they still worry about despite their success and a general defensive financial posture to take risks. Suggesting it's luck devalues the planning and decision making of the individual and ignores the fact that those of failed likely didn't have the problem solving skills to overcome. Your outlook is entitled. Which is what everyone who thinks wealth is handed to those who are "Lucky" the reality is wealth comes to those who work hard and focus on the right things.
Pretty harsh to call it "pointless drivel", even if you disagree with the author. It's obviously struck a nerve! What does "thousands of people writing credit" mean, that you were making a decision whether to fund businesses? Kind of hard to parse.
It typically takes a near-delusional level of self-belief to be a successful entrepreneur, musician, thinker, artist, writer, etc. But it's a necessary and not sufficient condition. A Viking warrior needed to *believe* that Valhalla awaits, to be victorious on the battlefield: this isn't evidence that Valkyries were really on the edge of battle.
Let's flip around your assertion: if highly successful people typically *do* understand the components of their success, and it's not a matter of luck but completing certain knowable, repeatable actions... why then can't most people follow their template?
I definitely don't agree that this article is "pointless drivel." I just think point #1 was written inartfully. I think instead of luck -- he should have said opportunity. Opportunity requires both luck and hardwork to be realized. Malcom Gladwell wrote a well sourced book on the subject. He identifies a lot of elements of success and one of the major things he points out is successful people were lucky enough to be born at the right time and place to have the opportunity for their hardwork to pay off. He does case studies on tech billionaires like Bill Gates. There is no doubt that if Bill Gates has been born on the same exact day, to the same parents, etc but grew up in New Mexico, he would not have created Windows. The opportunity just wouldn't have been afforded to him because of luck. However, this doesn't discount the work he put into mastering computer programming at a young age -- he put his 10k hours in when most kids were playing Jacks (or whatever kids did pre-computers).
Yes, successful people can point to why they believe they are successful and can point to failures and potential failures that were avoided. But there is a tendency for everyone to discount factors that were outside of their control, when talking about success. Those factors don't jive with their type A personalities. That is why they can unreliable historians. Their advice can still be helpful but only if taken with a grain of salt.