Hacker News Reader

Comment by WalterBright | Hacker News Reader

How does your theory explain The Beatles, Steve Jobs, Bruno Mars, Thomas Edison, Barack Obama, etc.?

Did you know that the overwhelming majority of immigrants came to America with nothing but a suitcase? I know a modern immigrant who came with a suitcase and recently retired with his fu money.

It's never been easier for someone to get a free college-level education, start an internet business, reach a global network of suppliers, and a global marketplace, for FREE.

Blaming your parents might be fun, but is totally unproductive.

View on HN

Jobs was raised by two people middle class-enough to adopt, in the middle of one of the most progressive parts of the United States during one of its most progressive eras. He also wasn't harassed by the law for doing illegal things that would get someone a CFAA-equivalent punishment today (he was a huge phreaker, for instance, and made cash off of it before Apple).

Beyond that, I might add, he was in 'audience-testing distance' of Hewlett-Packard back when the namesakes weren't only living, but active, and their company was on top of the world. And he managed to get free parts from one of them, a job, and a pretty important deal of networking, solely by sending Bill Hewlitt a personal phone call as a twelve-year-old. Show me a child in that situation who could get personal audience with, say, Zuckerberg, today. Or Gates. Or any of the Netflix guys. Or anyone running Apple. Or, let's lower the bar, any C-level executive at Microsoft.

[Correction without changing the original text, as it's relevant downthread: The first sentence of this was later shown to be false. The rest, to the best of my knowledge, is entirely correct, though.] Edison grew up in walking distance of a college and was able to take classes there. Patents were also significantly cheaper to acquire in his time. Further, the job that effectively launched his career he got via nothing but luck (someone almost died by chance, he played a role in them not dying by chance, that someone's father gave him a job).

Bruno Mars's success was pretty much entirely because of his family (not to mention, if you don't see how 'growing up in the safest and richest part of a state known for being safe and rich' might play a big role in things, you've got a very contrarian worldview):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruno_Mars#1985%E2%80%932003:_...

Barack Obama's mother was highly-educated and relatively influential (his father as well to both of those, along with his stepfather as to the former), and he went to private schooling as a child.

The Beatles are the only ones on your list who don't have something heavily-significant going for them prior to success.

I respect you a massive amount, but it's really disappointing to see this line of thought coming from someone as intelligent as you. I'm doing really well, myself, but it's not in line with reality to act like reality's meritocratic. There are significant barriers to success for more people than there aren't, and "blaming your parents" is a particularly strange way of phrasing 'structural barriers to opportunity'.

EDIT: added a paragraph

So Jobs was lower middle class, and led Apple to be the biggest company in the world.

You've made my point beautifully.

> made cash off of it

Yeah, a few bucks. So much money that he started Apple by selling his Beetle. A sorry state that probably 95% of Americans are above.

> Edison grew up in walking distance of a college and was able to take classes there.

And you can take MIT classes FOR FREE on youtube!

The word "college" does not appear in Edison's biography by Josephson until after he invented the light bulb. From page 42:

"The path of self-instruction and self-improvement was, for him, prolonged by many detours; even after years had passed, without money, without friends, it was not easy to enter upon the true vocation he already dreamed of for himself. His "university" was the rough, workaday world; it was nightwork in shabby telegraph or railroad offices during a turbulent era of war and reconstruction; it was made up also of solitude and study in squalid rooming houses. He might have lost his way or gone downhill, like so many others, in that long-drawn-out, often unhappy interlude of his youth. Yet when these "arduous years" (as he called them) were gone and he had come to manhood, something of iron had entered into him. What he had seen and learned, how he had learned it all, at so much effort, marked him with sharply individual traits of character and mind, setting him apart from those whose youth had been passed in sheltered ease, under wise and solicitous mentors."

I'm going to need to see a cite for your Edison claim that he was a privileged youth.

> it's really disappointing to see this line of thought coming from someone as intelligent as you

You'd have never heard of me if I'd believed that getting somewhere was not under my control, and if I'd believed the endless stream of people telling me I had zero chance.

So Jobs was lower middle class, and led Apple to be the biggest company in the world.

Middle class is different from someone in the actual lower-class, which more Americans are than in the middle.

Yeah, a few bucks. So much money that he started Apple by selling his Beetle. A sorry state that probably 95% of Americans are above.

You're ignoring the 'punishment' aspect of that sentence. The 'cash' comment was meant to highlight that people (brighter people than Jobs, at that) have been driven to suicide for non-commercial unauthorized access to systems, let alone selling ways of exploiting them.

You're also entirely ignoring that access to the brightest, richest, and most-influential people in an industry isn't something your average youth can get in the modern age. Along with the location aspect.

The word "college" does not appear in Edison's biography by Josephson until after he invented the light bulb. [...] I'm going to need to see a cite for your Edison claim that he was a privileged youth.

I double-checked the last biography I've read of him (Conot's, which is exceptional, although you might dislike it), and I misremembered on the count of it being in his childhood that he attended college. However, it was before he invented the lightbulb (citations [1] [2]), and you didn't try to contest that his career's beginning was based on a single lucky event.

And you can take MIT classes FOR FREE on youtube!

You went to Caltech, and talk about it frequently. Surely you realize the value of being able to have a conversation with professors, peers & (especially) the libraries, resources and networking available in universities? Do you see it as just a strange coincidence that a significant amount of people you shared dorms and classes with went on to be incredibly influential?

Surely your view isn't biased in that Caltech was heading a revolution in computing during your years of attendence (mainly at the end of them, where it saw perhaps the single most revolutionary change in how computing was done since it happened), with some of the absolute brightest people in the field? That you and your peers were in spitting-distance of Carver Mead couldn't have played a role in your view (and your/your peers' successes)?

You'd have never heard of me if I'd believed that getting somewhere was not under my control, and if I'd believed the endless stream of people telling me I had zero chance.

I've heard of a lot of people who've achieved little commercial success, and I've heard of a lot of people who achieved little commercial success while also having some of the most impressive technical achievements across the board. I've also seen the reverse; people who've achieved significant amounts of commercial success while having relatively few people knowing of them.

As a counterexample on the extreme edge of things, similar to your examples, what about Terry Davis? He had more determination than just about anyone could claim. He had technical chops as well. He died impoverished and mentally insane. Kildall died rich yet virtually-unknown and heavily-ridiculed.

Oh, here's a good one! Iverson died with incredible technical achievements yet little wealth and little influence. Despite what are arguably more impressive achievements than your own, Iverson is probably known by less people than you are, and his goals were never accomplished, despite a lifelong-dedication to them. I'm not sure how you started out, but Iverson started out poor enough to where he never finished high school.

All things considered, if you're right, then why isn't free software running the world? Stallman's probably more determined than anyone else in the industry, was arguably incredibly-competent at his peak, and...lost, failing at most of his goals.

Chuck Moore tried over and over and over again. Came up with things that could undeniably be called best-in-class, both in the hardware realm and in the software one. Normal guy with no strange habits, intense personality-quirks, or foot-gunning idealism. Born poor in Flint, Michigan. Failed every single time due to little more than luck.

I'm not (nor is anyone in this thread, to my knowledge) trying to claim your success was all luck. Surely it's not. However, I do think there's a significant amount of luck involved for all commercial success, and that individual effort isn't the largest factor in whether or not a person finds it.

I think you're drawing the wrong conclusions. I imagine I can't change your mind, but I'm confounded as to why that's the case. Thanks for humoring me with a conversation, though; I do appreciate it!

[1] http://faculty.cooper.edu/topper/general/edison.html

[2] https://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/30/for-sesquicent...

> why isn't free software running the world?

Isn't it?

As for luck, the details of one's life is luck. But success comes from those who develop a plan, learn what they need to, and execute that plan. Nothing good is going to happen to you if you spend your spare time drinking, if you fritter away your money, etc. Luck finds people who are out there ready to recognize it and take advantage.

> Carver Meade

I've never met him, nor took a class from him. In fact, my degree is in Mechanical Engineering, not CS. I did know Dan O'Dowd, but he didn't think much of me, with good reason. I am not in business nor partnered with anyone from Caltech.

Edison enrolling in a class at Cooper was after he was well established. As for his luck, he put himself in a position where luck could find him.

I know nothing about many of your examples. But I do know a bit about Kildall. Luck came looking for him, and he spurned it or simply did not recognize it. That's on him - the stars aligned for him and he blew it. Gates nearly made the same mistake.

Myself, I could have been a billionaire multiple times. The opportunities were there. I missed them. It's 100% my fault - it's not bad luck.

As for Caltech, many very successful people have come from there. A number of sad failures, too. Caltech provides opportunities, not guarantees. It's up to the students to choose what to do about those opportunities.

I've been around a long time, long enough to see patterns in successful people. 100% of the ones I know do not share your opinion that it's luck. 100% believe they are in charge of their future. They make it happen. They have their sail up when the wind blows their way. I know one fellow who made and lost two seven figure fortunes. This doesn't dismay him in the slightest, he's cheerfully working on his third.

I can guarantee you that these people are a lot of fun to be around. They're always off doing something exciting. Sometimes it blows up in their face. Sometimes it's wildly successful. It's always fun, though. They're always on their grind. None of them watch TV.

Ya know what's cool? Taking responsibility for your fate is empowering. It means you can do something about it. A piece of advice - the next time something bad happens to you, instead of blaming fate, take a good hard look at what decisions you made that got you into that pickle. Learn from it, and don't do that again.

For example, I have poor genes for teeth. It's a constant struggle for me, and unfair that other people do nothing and have great teeth. But by the time most people are my age, they've lost a bunch of teeth. I've lost one. It's because I constantly pester my dentist for how I can take better care of my teeth. If I didn't I'd be wearing dentures. It's a choice I make.

(Sorry for the late response; had to sleep and then forgot about it.)

Isn't it?

I don't think so. Windows and Mac rule the desktop, proprietary Android and iOS rule the mobile space. Your average person's computer is running more proprietary software than not, and Stallman's goal was always to get the average user's computer free of proprietary software. Even Web browsers are proprietary for your average user, and it's impossible to have a spec-compliant one with only free software.

Plenty of people don't drink, waste currency, (to cite a later example of yours:) watch television, etc. I don't think this is as common as it used to be, though I'm not sure what modern equivalents are.

Would you find it fair to say that 'success comes from those who develop a plan, learn what they need to, execute that plan, and have luck on their side'?

Caltech provides opportunities, not guarantees.

Certainly. Would you agree that most people do not get the substantial volume of opportunities the average person at Caltech during the late 1970s received?

Ya know what's cool? Taking responsibility for your fate is empowering. It means you can do something about it. A piece of advice - the next time something bad happens to you, instead of blaming fate, take a good hard look at what decisions you made that got you into that pickle. Learn from it, and don't do that again.

I'm doing more than fine myself. I just don't agree that 'none of it's luck' is an accurate way to look on this.

I've seen my share of unsuccessful people. On average, they don't seem substantially different from the examples you cite as successful in terms of mindset or determination.

> Iverson died with incredible technical achievements yet little wealth and little influence.

Technical achievement by itself is not good enough. One must also be good at business and marketing. I know nothing about Iverson, but I know many people who are technical geniuses but refuse to deal with the necessary business and marketing aspects. They often wind up angry and bitter. Is that bad luck? No. It's refusal to deal with how things work. It's a choice. Nobody gets lucky in business without learning how to do business and marketing.

As you well know, it is very hard to get into the creative mode while also dealing with the arbitrary and stupid business rules.

There's a reason that people like Ken Thompson or John Tukey worked for companies.

Many people find business to be fun.

> There's a reason that people like Ken Thompson or John Tukey worked for companies.

Then they chose their fate.

Anyway,

1. What do you want?

2. Do you have a plan to get it?

3. Are you working regularly and consistently on that plan?

If the answer is not "yes" to all three of those, luck is not going to find you.

I know many people who are technical geniuses but refuse to deal with the necessary business and marketing aspects.

Surely you've known people who are/were technical geniuses, dealt with both of those, and still failed? It seems to be a common pattern.

Learning business and marketing skills improves your odds, it offers no guarantee. But avoiding learning and applying those skills makes your odds very remote.

We're essentially in agreement, then.

>> the hand you’re given, parents, status, genetics, etc pretty much decide the outcomes in reality.

> Did you know that the overwhelming majority of immigrants came to America with nothing but a suitcase?

I'm pretty sure they also had genetics.

The genetic argument doesn't really hold much water. You've got a lot of great ground to argue on, using something that's as contested as an argument in genetics isn't worth it when your argument can stand on its own merits.

I’m not sure what your examples have to do with anything. Do you think people can will themselves to success independent of their circumstances? It’s obvious factors outside of your control determine 99.99% of your outcomes.

Literally all the data agrees with me here. Don’t know what you’re arguing for exactly. That some people get lucky and some of those lucky people worked hard?

It's easier to believe we live in a just world than to think critically about the societies we live in.

It's easier to make excuses than learn what needs to be done, make a plan, and execute it.

Particularly when these excuses aren’t subject to rigorous outcome testing or any feedback process at all.

A wrong, convenient excuse is slightly less useful but is much more satiating than a correct excuse.

Unfortunately many people have a poor understanding of statistics and cherry pick examples to fit their agenda.

Even worse when people use averages as a method of policymaking for everyone, rather than realize that history is made by the exceptions. Not the averages.

> Literally all the data agrees with me here.

I just quoted several data points that did not agree with "all the data".

If they can succeed, why can't you?

I also know a Microsoft executive who didn't attend college, and I'm not sure even graduated from high school. His father owned a hole-in-the-wall store. Fortunately for him, he didn't listen to "it's all luck".

Most of the people I know don't fit into your "it's all luck" data.

For all the people who think it's all luck being a CEO, how many have even read a book on how to run a business?

Your place in life is the intersection of circumstance and merit.

Imagine 4 integers

(MeritWeight * Merit) * (CircumstancesWeight Circumstances)

We can disagree what respective weights ought to be assigned but its pretty clear that it circumstances favor you sufficiently your trajectory is high regardless of merit. If your Merit is high enough your trajectory may be high regardless of merit.

I don't think anyone disagrees much even though passionate arguments are passed by all.

The thing is that only a minority are gifted by circumstances and most people are neither worthless nor extremely worthy. The merely average are bound for average lives at best in most cases and often for lesser lives depending on how other circumstances of their lives play out.

When people say that life is unfair, which it is, and you say but look here is a list of a minority of worthy who made good despite middling or worse circumstances as if this itself were a refutation you are aren't even addressing the same argument, let alone refuting it.

For the record. The average small business owners salary is 66-73k in the US. By contrast the median individual income is 40k. A middle class individual whose father owned a "hole in the wall" had a family that probably had more to start with than 70% of their fellows. This example is itself a demonstration of your lack of perspective.

You literally think someone who started off better than average started out with substantial disadvantages.

> who started off better than average

I knew him, and you didn't. The idea he was in the top 30% would certainly make him laugh. Lots of store owners barely scrape by.

I don't think you understand what the term scraping by even means.

It's not worth arguing with a frequentist mindset to success. It is clear that better starting positions in life lead to better outcomes. It's even unfair and getting worse. This isn't genius level analysis.

The issue is that using averages, making blanket statements, and dismissing exceptions to the averages as pure luck and statistical happenstance is a pretty common form of frequentist bias and leads to even worse policy, if used as justification for a remedy.

Exceptions are routinely waved away as statistical noise or survivorship bias, rather than taking a more nuanced and Bayesian look at the exceptions.

For all the libertarian bias Hacker News is accused of, this particular issue is exceptionally neoliberal/socialist in nature and persists on the site for some odd reason.

> It's even unfair

Life is not fair, and you can't fix it. Play the cards you're dealt. The good news is every hand can be a winner in life (as in poker), it's all how you play. You get to choose.

Me, I will never be tall or handsome or muscular or have depth perception or have hand-eye coordination. I'm only good at one thing, and I take advantage.

No, I don't expect to change your mind. But I'm happy to try.

> Life is not fair, and you can't fix it.

I don't think the fatalistic attitude towards changing the system is any more (or, as much as I hate to admit it, less) reasonable than the "you could be Steve jobs too." Odds for both are pretty bleak, albeit non zero.

As advice to an individual in a rotten system, "make the most of what you've got" is fair enough. But when folks talk about politics they're not usually fishing for personal career advice. So when you bring this up in that context, either you've missed the point, or you're trying to distract folks from the issue at hand.

I use the Steve Jobs example because everybody knows about him, and his life is well documented.

You don't have to build a trillion dollar company to be nicely successful, but using a nicely successful person as an anecdote is impractical because they are not public figures. But they are still all over the place, in plain sight. It's well within an ordinary person's ability to become one.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com