Once you see the extent of the Matthew Effect [1], it's hard to unsee it.
Once you see the extent of the Matthew Effect [1], it's hard to unsee it.
In that friend's view - and I think mine too - that's the reason why 'how I succeeded' books by people like Warren Buffett or Bill Ackman almost always turn out to be total dross. Not because they don't want to share their secrets (after all, their secrets would require so much capital to apply as to be impracticable for most) – just that they have no idea.
They do know it, at least on some level. For many of them, they could do it again if they had to. They simply aren't consciously aware. (Like Auden once said: "I knew it all the time, but I never realised it before!")
On the other hand, if you can find the person that _isn't_ naturally good at the skill but was somehow able to get decent at it, even if they're not the best at it, they're more likely to have beneficial advice.
This reminded me of the advice to learn how to run a marathon, don't look at what most people in the race were doing to train, look at the person who's doing well despite looking like they shouldn't be there.
I.e., don't look at the 140 lbs guys at the front of the pack for advice, look to the 280 lb guy in the middle of the pack.
Not sure how sage that advice is, but it was an interestingly different way to frame the problem.
People I've known who are financially successful (some massively so) tend to fall into two categories though. Some will say that this and this and that happened just so, and they wouldn't begin to know how someone else could replicate it. Others will say it's just a matter of perseverance and not making stupid mistakes and anyone can do it if they just bothered to, despite ample evidence to the contrary.
May be they are both right, since surely there's both a repeatable process [0] and a non-repeatable process [1] to get rich?
[0] acquire skill that's highly paid (doctors?); acquire skill needed by rapidly-growing sectors (crypto? biotech?)
[1] right place at the right time
Even unattractive people can do a lot to improve their looks with clothing, diet, and a fitness regimen.
While studying older students would start talking, how they get a good grade/easy questions because they gave cookies/whatever or how some prof was super cool for them in some way.
Of course thing was they probably were in a group that prof liked, they had a good connection, maybe someone from the group had good jokes that made that prof laugh. Maybe they were showing up with whole group to his classes and no one made a fuss or other silly stuff at his lectures.
Then freshmen would pick up the story and would try to "trick their way" with the prof that would of course backfire as they totally missed the context of why for the older guys prof was happy with some cookies to ask them "easy" questions.
Just being in shape without any context - like how much in shape - might backfire when some girls think you are a buff so probably aggressive and get scared instead of interested. So just trying to talk up a girl on the street while buffed might scare her much more.
I would not focus on "natural skill" but I would focus on understanding that there is infinite amount of details to life and whole context is missing if someone gives high level advice.
To turn left, I turned the handlebars ever so slightly to the right. This caused the bike to lean to the left, then I turned the handlebars left.
After all, it nets you lots of extra money in book sales, with no real concern that anyone will genuinely read your book and then supplant you.
He was watching the news and they interviewed the richest man in Canada. The interviewer asked, "How did you make your fortune?"
"Well, when I came to Canada, I had nothing but five cents. I used those five cents to buy an apple. I sold the apple for ten cents, and then bought two apples to sell. I sold those apples for twenty cents, and then I got a telegram that my uncle had died and left me three billion dollars."
I know its overly simplistic but isn't the reason why the Matthew effect exists that we deny opportunities to poor people? If there are opportunities that make people not poor then shouldn't we allocate them to the poor first?