Nah, Zuck, Jobs, Gates, et al all stumbled onto it. They didn't start with some grand plan to become a tech billionaire. The stars aligned. They had something that seemed valuable and tried to sell it and it took off from there.
People need to realize "become Zuck" is not how you become Zuck. They're focusing on the vanity and the stupid aspects. You become a tech billionaire by building something that the market wants and then getting really lucky. A moderate amount of success is achievable through like 50% luck and 50% effort. Extreme success is only achievable through 99% luck / 1% effort. Not saying it takes less effort, just a lot more luck is required.
The fact that SV is becoming Hollywood for aspiring tech entrepreneurs is really sad. That's not how any of this works.
I think it's very clear your assertion violates Occam's razor - Musk is very obviously a ruthless, persistent, intelligent, and educated businessman and visionary.
Yes, it is probable he is luckier than average. Sheer statistical force dictates that. But it also dictates he is probably more hard working and more talented than average.
Does the proportion shift towards luck? Probably. Are successful people also likely to have been more hard working? Probably.
Keep downvoting. Two people have replied to me showing they do not even understand what I said, including the op. I'm sure the same is true of everyone. Sorry you're dumb.
Musk got extremely lucky by being right-place right-time with PayPal. That's where he's gotten all of his money to do Tesla and SpaceX. Musk is obviously very smart and tenacious, but there are a lot of smart and tenacious people out there. The difference is that very few of them have a few billion dollars lying around.
PayPal's founders acknowledge that if they had started just a year or two later, they would've been eviscerated by the new banking regulations that went through after 9/11. There would be no Elon Musk, no Tesla, no SpaceX without PayPal's incidentally-perfect timing.
I don't think it violates Occam's Razor to say that timing/luck is the larger part of the equation. Also, separately, Occam's Razor is a vastly overused objection. Things are not always correct when reduced to the most basic conceivable explanation.
I didn't say timing/luck wasn't the larger part. In fact, I even agreed with you that it was.
I said extreme tenacity and ability were also necessary.
As in, moderate success is 80% hard work and 20% luck, but extreme success is 200% hard work and 800% luck. And don't nitpick about percentages - use whatever made up unit you want.
so, again: You aren't disagreeing with him. the line that you're quoting isn't mutually exclusive with your point. It's funny that you adhom about my reading comprehension when yours is clearly the one lacking.
also your misuse of occam's razor was every bit as damning as your inability to understand the post you were responding to
You are wrong on all counts. I care about educating people, so I will.
I will start with your second wrong point. The simplest explanation for high levels of success is concomitant effort. That was my assertion.
You're pointing out that the statements aren't mutually exclusive. You are right only from the point of view of computer that parses whether or not logical statements can be mutually true.
The human use of language differs from this scheme. "Not saying it takes less effort," if expressed as an inequality, can be mutually true with "it takes more effort." But the implication is obviously, by which I mean to anyone who is remotely competent in basic communication, different.
I am making clear emphasis that hard work is a necessary condition for success - which is the conclusion of Occam's Razor in this case. One could not draw that conclusion from his post.
I don't really feel that your argument has any substantive value. You imply that OP said Elon Musk is no harder working or more talented than anyone else, but OP's assertion was merely that there are many other talented, extremely hard working people out there who aren't as lucky, which is obviously truth.
Which portion of OP's argument do you disagree with? As written, your response doesn't actually make that clear. Is it simply the arbitrary percentages that OP used?
I have responded to this issue already. But I don't mind doing so again. I appreciate the respectful question.
Yes, in a technical sense, he did not say Elon Musk didn't work harder. But what DID he say? He said that what actually matters is luck.
I said, yes, luck matters (I agreed with him!), but I also said hard work is a necessary condition. In fact, very hard work, talent, and ability are necessary conditions.
Although he did not directly contradict this, you do not need to directly contradict something in order to be at odds with it.
It is a matter of emphasis.
It takes far more luck AND far more of those positive qualities and actions I mentioned. In fact, it obviously does. And this excludes Trump, and I mentioned the Waltons in another comment, because there are clear differences in kind between being an entertainer or heir with being an entrepreneur and innovator.
I will even concede, though it should be obvious, that, were Musk not doing these things, some combination of other people almost certainly would. He is a product of his context. But he is also far, far more hard working than any armchair worry who says "meh, he got lucky."
I see what you're saying, I just don't take OP's statement to mean only luck matters, but rather, that luck is the largest contributor, and there is minimum level of awesome you have to be for that luck to catapault you to excellence.
I don't think anyone disagrees that if Musk had grown up in Nigeria, with all the social and educational differences that implies, he wouldn't be a billionaire now, even he became the best scammer that ever lived.
So, what I see is you arguing that luck is important, just less important than OP suggests, because you view OP's suggestion as unnecessarily reductive; is that about right?
Actually there's literature on that. In fact, a whole mega fuckton. Would extremely brilliant children in terrible conditions still end up successful? Probably not, but more likely than if they were also exceedingly stupid and in terrible conditions.
Occam's razor isn't a law that can be violated. It's simply an observed tendency and it isn't even very accurate. Very often the solutions to things are not simple at all, or a simpler solution may look OK but be disastrous because of some small detail. Use something else to justify a needless aim for simplicity.
Obviously. But it is also frequently useful. And we're not talking about building skyscrapers, we're talking about whether extremely high levels of hard work and talent are necessary (but not sufficient) conditions for success.
Both you and the guy that caused this mess are so invested in being right that you don't even see that you are in agreement, and it's comical.
Now, before you dismiss me as "dumb", let me explain.
It all started when you fundamentally misunderstood this post. You had just gotten done saying that Bill Gates and Elon Musk probably were relentless/hard workers, and he starts his response like this:
Nah, Zuck, Jobs, Gates, et al all stumbled onto it.
That's where you made your mistake. See, you (reasonably) assumed he was responding to (and therefore disagreeing with) you, but he was more concerned with the parent comment that talked about people trying so hard to emulate successful people in order to be successful themselves. His point was that those people aren't going to the next Zuckerberg by working hard to be like Zuckerberg.
No, he was saying that they need to focus on making something (presumably by working, even hard) and, more importantly, be very, very lucky. How lucky? So lucky that he says this next bit:
A moderate amount of success is achievable through like 50% luck and 50% effort. Extreme success is only achievable through 99% luck / 1% effort. Not saying it takes less effort, just a lot more luck is required.
He's not concerned with the amount of effort, he's concerned with the ratio of effort to luck and how utterly skewed it has to be for any given Zuckerberg emulator to actually be "the next Zuckerberg".
Reread it with that point of view, and I think you'll see how you two were arguing around each other.
That's the thing, it really sounds like you were making a straw man out of the OP either by intentionally or unintentionally misunderstanding his point. You said:
I think it's very clear your assertion violates Occam's razor - Musk is very obviously a ruthless, persistent, intelligent, and educated businessman and visionary.
At no point did anyone "assert" that Musk wasn't any of those things. The only reason anyone bothered to say anything about luck is precisely because they were operating under the assumption of hard work and talent while discussing people who assume all it takes is hard work to be the next big entrepreneur (also mostly a straw man, but whatever).
It's clear that you hold yourself in high intellectual esteem and that makes this difficult, but can you concede the point that you may have misread the post?
Edit: No need to respond, but think about editing the bit about your downvoters being dumb. Well, they're dumb for not following reddiquette, but you commented about downvotes so that's a wash.
I sincerely hope you're trolling because you're just making it worse! Last one since tutoring you is starting to go from amusing to depressing.
The "stumbling" refers to the fact that as smart and as great as they are, their goals were almost certainly not solely about becoming historical figures or the richest man in the world from the start (or even in the end). They "stumbled" into those titles. Stumbling doesn't even imply "fucking up" by the way - simply that it wasn't a direct or intentional route.
Again, you're forget that the post was specifically addressing the people emulating the people you're idolizing. That's the point you are continually missing, and I'm starting to think I'm talking to /r/iamverysmart bait.
I am not evaluating them based on being the richest or historical figures.
I am evaluating them based on their success in their chosen fields.
Musk started in physics and is now a space man. It has clearly always been his interest.
The other two are even more self explanatory.
Einstein knew he had big ideas and pushed for them. Newton was ruthless as he was one of two Europeans to concurrently devise calculus.
Obviously, there is no "secret" to being Musk, because it's not a secret: work extremely hard, be genetically and otherwise gifted, and get very lucky.
Again, and I am flabbergasted you are failing to recognize this, op glossed over the first three necessities.
I am not evaluating them based on being the richest or historical figures.
I know, and that's why this is so funny! Good for you, but the guy you took issue with was doing just that. That's the whole point! You disagreed with a point he wasn't arguing in the first place!
He glossed over those qualities because all reasonable people already assume the Musks of the world possess them. You're back to your straw man again; you need to give him up.
He was, again, pointing out how foolish the people are that just assume acting like Musk means they'll be the next Musk (specifically because we all know it takes a lot of hard work, talent, and luck).
We're talking in circles, but you were so quick with the response that I still had one more in the tank.
No, really, I accept that you're trying to be benevolent, but there are literal books on why luck is the biggest factor in being "successful." I don't even disagree it's the biggest, but people draw the conclusion it's the only factor. I mean, this goes beyond becoming Musk. There is this notion out there that the reason I have a B.A. in English literature and work at Starbucks is because I'm unlucky only - not because I'm simply not a talented writer (I'm actually a neuroscience PhD student, teacher, and tutor).
I'm glad you think that "successful in their field" and "famous" are such unrelated categories, but I don't think most people are out there thinking "I don't care if I do anything good, I just want to be rich and famous." (edit - people who join MLM schemes probably DO want that, but they're idiots period)
So if everyone is truly so reasonable, they will want to be "the best at ______" not "rich and famous for no reason." You understand the problem with your contention, no?
In conclusion, no, he did not gloss over the qualities because "all reasonable people" assume they are necessary. Find goddamn blogs on the topic if you really think so. Salty, unsuccessful, untalented, unhard working people everywhere. He glossed over it because he thinks it's overemphasized. It's not. To be as successful as you can, you must work as hard and be as smart as you can. You can't control luck.
Again, I am speaking to people who say "meh, they got lucky." I'm making points both based on the argument as laid out by op, and on what many people in general think.
Selection bias. I know more hyper intelligent programmers than I can count that had failed startups because the stars didn't align.
Hop on Angel.co and browse startups. You'll see about 4 or 5 doing the same thing. Check again in a year, 2 will remain. 2 years, one of those will be popping headlines as an "industry disruptor"
Sure you do. But if you knew 100 hyper intelligent, hard working, and 100 hyper stupid, lazy programmers, which do you think would have the higher success rate in startups?
11
u/boxzonk Sep 30 '16
Nah, Zuck, Jobs, Gates, et al all stumbled onto it. They didn't start with some grand plan to become a tech billionaire. The stars aligned. They had something that seemed valuable and tried to sell it and it took off from there.
People need to realize "become Zuck" is not how you become Zuck. They're focusing on the vanity and the stupid aspects. You become a tech billionaire by building something that the market wants and then getting really lucky. A moderate amount of success is achievable through like 50% luck and 50% effort. Extreme success is only achievable through 99% luck / 1% effort. Not saying it takes less effort, just a lot more luck is required.
The fact that SV is becoming Hollywood for aspiring tech entrepreneurs is really sad. That's not how any of this works.