| Do wealthier people owe their financial success to skill or luck? Your views on this question may be set by your own financial status, at least according to a study of people playing a card game. People’s views in real life are even more likely to be influenced by their personal circumstances, says Bucca. “It’s probably not half as strong as what happens in real life, where there’s less information.” But Richard Wilkinson at the University of York, UK, co-author of The Spirit Level, says people with low-paid jobs also underestimate the role of luck in societal inequalities. “We tend to judge personal worth by people’s external worth.” full reading here https://www.newscientist.com/article/2210263-lifes-winners-think-success-was-earned-even-if-it-was-down-to-luck/ so self-serving bias confirmed again? also luck is the greatest power (Stan Lee) |
| Back in feudalist societies monarchs maintained their power through claims of divine right. Feudalism evolved into capitalism and the same general attitudes in society persisted. These ideas are perpetuated because it plays in favour of the rulers who are just looking to not be dethroned. |
traed said: Back in feudalist societies monarchs maintained their power through claims of divine right. Feudalism evolved into capitalism and the same general attitudes in society persisted. These ideas are perpetuated because it plays in favour of the rulers who are just looking to not be dethroned. thats a good point but at least in those times the poor are not simply called lazy but "unfortunate ones" if i remember right |
| Alternatively: Losers are more likely to attribute their defeat to luck than skill or a lack of hard work. Somebody ought to do a study on that, you know. Seems like the entire world is suddenly looking for excuses to whine and be lazy. |
Thanakos said: Alternatively: Losers are more likely to attribute their defeat to luck than skill or a lack of hard work. Somebody ought to do a study on that, you know. Seems like the entire world is suddenly looking for excuses to whine and be lazy. welp in terms of wealth success its the 1% vs the 99% though (or 90% is more better) |
deg said: Thanakos said: Alternatively: Losers are more likely to attribute their defeat to luck than skill or a lack of hard work. Somebody ought to do a study on that, you know. Seems like the entire world is suddenly looking for excuses to whine and be lazy. welp in terms of wealth success its the 1% vs the 99% though (or 90% is more better) And the 1% is adept at maintaining that wealth. Are you adept at maintaining your income? Let's think about it another way. Incels argue that chads (top 20% of men) can get almost 80% of the women with little to no trouble. The advice we give them is... work on yourself, improve your personality, go to the gym, git gud and so on. It's not like doing any of that shit is going to make them a full-blown chad but it will certainly improve their chances, right? They won't become Brad Pitt or David Beckham but they can certainly land someone they can live happily with. Why don't we apply this mentality to the people who constantly keep whining about the 1%? Why shouldn't I tell you to work smarter and harder so that maybe not the top 1% or even top 20% but certainly you can end up in some place which you can live very happily with? If you tell incels to improve themselves, then you should be telling these whiners -- including yourself -- to improve as well. Because the odds for incels are set at their birth too and luck is the common factor in both situations. Git Gud. |
Thanakos said: And the 1% is adept at maintaining that wealth. Are you adept at maintaining your income? Let's think about it another way. Incels argue that chads (top 20% of men) can get almost 80% of the women with little to no trouble. The advice we give them is... work on yourself, improve your personality, go to the gym, git gud and so on. It's not like doing any of that shit is going to make them a full-blown chad but it will certainly improve their chances, right? They won't become Brad Pitt or David Beckham but they can certainly land someone they can live happily with. Why don't we apply this mentality to the people who constantly keep whining about the 1%? Why shouldn't I tell you to work smarter and harder so that maybe not the top 1% or even top 20% but certainly you can end up in some place which you can live very happily with? If you tell incels to improve themselves, then you should be telling these whiners -- including yourself -- to improve as well. Because the odds for incels are set at their birth too and luck is the common factor in both situations. Git Gud. true i should git gud so easy lol but anyway because of my at least 8-10 years in the workforce i only made failures after failures and now my health got so bad already thats why i relate to the losers more and i see a lot of incels having jobs or more employable so meh its different to people that are jobless |
deg said: Thanakos said: And the 1% is adept at maintaining that wealth. Are you adept at maintaining your income? Let's think about it another way. Incels argue that chads (top 20% of men) can get almost 80% of the women with little to no trouble. The advice we give them is... work on yourself, improve your personality, go to the gym, git gud and so on. It's not like doing any of that shit is going to make them a full-blown chad but it will certainly improve their chances, right? They won't become Brad Pitt or David Beckham but they can certainly land someone they can live happily with. Why don't we apply this mentality to the people who constantly keep whining about the 1%? Why shouldn't I tell you to work smarter and harder so that maybe not the top 1% or even top 20% but certainly you can end up in some place which you can live very happily with? If you tell incels to improve themselves, then you should be telling these whiners -- including yourself -- to improve as well. Because the odds for incels are set at their birth too and luck is the common factor in both situations. Git Gud. true i should git gud so easy lol but anyway because of my at least 8-10 years in the workforce i only made failures after failures and now my health got so bad already thats why i relate to the losers more and i see a lot of incels having jobs or more employable so meh its different to people that are jobless You see, that's why you should stop encouraging the losers to indulge in loser habits. You couldn't git gud, that's no reason to hate the winners, you know. Grapes aren't sour. |
Thanakos said: deg said: true i should git gud so easy lol but anyway because of my at least 8-10 years in the workforce i only made failures after failures and now my health got so bad already thats why i relate to the losers more and i see a lot of incels having jobs or more employable so meh its different to people that are jobless You see, that's why you should stop encouraging the losers to indulge in loser habits. You couldn't git gud, that's no reason to hate the winners, you know. Grapes aren't sour. err ok but its not my intention to encourage being a loser just sharing news? but ye you made me realize that i maybe encouraging loser mentality so i will keep that in mind to lessen making threads like this although im not hating the winners btw i just want to tax more the 1% |
| Yeah a lot of popular mangakas attribute their success to luck or miracles as well. I think it's a nice way of saying "Just because you're not famous doesn't mean you can't be this good." There's many ways to be a winner in life. I believe it comes down to the power of one's own heart :) |
| I CELEBRATE myself, And what I assume you shall assume, For every atom belonging to me as good belongs to you. |
| Not everyone has opportunity to get a small loan of million dollars and be successful. Hard work that has to be a joke, most of them never had to work hard a day in their life. If capitalism reworded hard work sweat shop workers would be billionaires. It's mostly down to luck and how much money has your daddy left you. |
  Never explain, Never retract, Never apologize Just get the thing done And let them howl |
AnimeFeminist said: Not everyone has opportunity to get a small loan of million dollars and be successful. Hard work that has to be a joke, most of them never had to work hard a day in their life. If capitalism reworded hard work sweat shop workers would be billionaires. It's mostly down to luck and how much money has your daddy left you. ^ this is basically the case in a lot of places. Most today's billionaires are people born from people who worked there way up rather then being people who worked hard. Thanakos said: deg said: true i should git gud so easy lol but anyway because of my at least 8-10 years in the workforce i only made failures after failures and now my health got so bad already thats why i relate to the losers more and i see a lot of incels having jobs or more employable so meh its different to people that are jobless You see, that's why you should stop encouraging the losers to indulge in loser habits. You couldn't git gud, that's no reason to hate the winners, you know. Grapes aren't sour. Or you know you could set up a fair and balanced system so the entire 99% who out number you dont do what every single citizen in the feudal age did and murder the feudal lord. you cant be a winner if your dead. History shows that dragons get killed. |
GrimAtramentJul 20, 2019 4:23 PM
| "among monsters and humans, there are only two types. Those who undergo suffering and spread it to others. And those who undergo suffering and avoid giving it to others." -Alice “Beauty is no quality in things themselves: It exists merely in the mind which contemplates them; and each mind perceives a different beauty.” David Hume “Evil is created when someone gives up on someone else. It appears when everyone gives up on someone as a lost cause and removes their path to salvation. Once they are cut off from everyone else, they become evil.” -Othinus  |
basically social capitalism #YangGang2020 since human labor is literally becoming worthless due to automation and globalization (offshoring/outsourcing/immigrants - oversupply of workers) here in the philippines one of the newer middle class jobs are call centers or BPOs in general and news are saying here that will be automated in a few years, same with factory work well factories are being automated for decades now anyway so it will continue to shrink when robots become more cheaper than 3rd world cheap labor, same with customer service like those on malls (there are lots of it here) but online shopping is rising too like with lazada or even amazon if they decided to venture here too, those are in the top of head right now |
Thanakos said: You're post paints the world in a funny pink light it seems. It attribute wealth retention on skill when its more policy that allows the retention, and the acquirement. Not saying there are not those you describe but to attribute all that lose (not successful) under such seems a stretch, like implying Warren Buffet level wealth (winners) was earned through skill by the holders.And the 1% is adept at maintaining that wealth. Are you adept at maintaining your income? Let's think about it another way. Incels argue that chads (top 20% of men) can get almost 80% of the women with little to no trouble. The advice we give them is... work on yourself, improve your personality, go to the gym, git gud and so on. It's not like doing any of that shit is going to make them a full-blown chad but it will certainly improve their chances, right? They won't become Brad Pitt or David Beckham but they can certainly land someone they can live happily with. Why don't we apply this mentality to the people who constantly keep whining about the 1%? Why shouldn't I tell you to work smarter and harder so that maybe not the top 1% or even top 20% but certainly you can end up in some place which you can live very happily with? If you tell incels to improve themselves, then you should be telling these whiners -- including yourself -- to improve as well. Because the odds for incels are set at their birth too and luck is the common factor in both situations. Git Gud. traed said: Easier to take psychology's approach: Just-world theory (usually held by those that believe heavily in individualism). The haves are good so it explains why the bad have little, but really just a way of making the complication of external forces irrelevant by pretending they don't exist-- The idea aims to simplify the world to the person, cause the truth would be too much to handle by forcing them to come to terms their personal traits may not be as good as they thought and they are. I would argue people that believe some objective moral force exists are more likely to identify with this mindset, as we see around MAL. Back in feudalist societies monarchs maintained their power through claims of divine right. Feudalism evolved into capitalism and the same general attitudes in society persisted. These ideas are perpetuated because it plays in favour of the rulers who are just looking to not be dethroned. I could see how your explanation works, you really got to account for historical points though and i'm too lazy for that. Even so, this perspective has been seen since antiquity (Herodotus) and disproven-those writings all have the same blind spot that modern academics try not to leave unnoticed. |
SilverstormJul 20, 2019 7:15 PM
| "In the end the World really doesn't need a Superman. Just a Brave one" |
Silverstorm said: traed said: Easier to take psychology's approach: Just-world theory (usually held by those that believe heavily in individualism). The haves are good so it explains why the bad have little, but really just a way of making the complication of external forces irrelevant by pretending they don't exist-- The idea aims to simplify the world to the person, cause the truth would be too much to handle by forcing them to come to terms their personal traits may not be as good as they thought and they are. I would argue people that believe some objective moral force exists are more likely to identify with this mindset, as we see around MAL. Back in feudalist societies monarchs maintained their power through claims of divine right. Feudalism evolved into capitalism and the same general attitudes in society persisted. These ideas are perpetuated because it plays in favour of the rulers who are just looking to not be dethroned. I could see how your explanation works, you really got to account for historical points though and i'm too lazy for that. Even so, this perspective has been seen since antiquity (Herodotus) and disproven-those writings all have the same blind spot that modern academics try not to leave unnoticed. The reason for that comparison is to highlight how society is structured influences the views people have. The just-world view is not inherently inborn but something learned and influenced by an individual's role in society. |
traedJul 20, 2019 7:59 PM
| Mostly skills but sometimes, you need to rely on luck too. Success 90% = skills 10% = luck |
traed said: Historically contingent ways of thinking and producing people by society's influence--some might start saying you're a Sociologist around here lolSilverstorm said: Easier to take psychology's approach: Just-world theory (usually held by those that believe heavily in individualism). The haves are good so it explains why the bad have little, but really just a way of making the complication of external forces irrelevant by pretending they don't exist-- The idea aims to simplify the world to the person, cause the truth would be too much to handle by forcing them to come to terms their personal traits may not be as good as they thought and they are. I would argue people that believe some objective moral force exists are more likely to identify with this mindset, as we see around MAL. I could see how your explanation works, you really got to account for historical points though and i'm too lazy for that. Even so, this perspective has been seen since antiquity (Herodotus) and disproven-those writings all have the same blind spot that modern academics try not to leave unnoticed. The reason for that comparison is to highlight how society is structured influences the views people have. The just-world view is not inherently inborn but something learned and influenced by an individual's role in society. That's why I went with Psychology's perspective. It explains the parts that some the usual users who respond like to emphasize on (individual agency over structural influences); not sure it does the job. |
| "In the end the World really doesn't need a Superman. Just a Brave one" |
Silverstorm said: traed said: Historically contingent ways of thinking and producing people by society's influence--some might start saying you're a Sociologist around here lolThe reason for that comparison is to highlight how society is structured influences the views people have. The just-world view is not inherently inborn but something learned and influenced by an individual's role in society. That's why I went with Psychology's perspective. It explains the parts that some the usual users who respond like to emphasize on (individual agency over structural influences); not sure it does the job. It's both really. There is both an inborn and a learned psyche. |
| Poor people have an excuse for everything. And they let those excuses dictate the rest of their life. People in worst circumstances than you have become wealthy, and it wasn't through luck. |
SpamuraiSensei said: Poor people have an excuse for everything. And they let those excuses dictate the rest of their life. People in worst circumstances than you have become wealthy, and it wasn't through luck. Yeah sure thing I see homeless people becoming billionaires all the time.  |
Never explain, Never retract, Never apologize Just get the thing done And let them howl |
Kyotosomo said: Certainly luck is a major factor, there's a lot of undeserving assholes out there who got rich because of who they were born to, but most studies show somewhere between 80% to 90% of millionaires are self made so it's safe to say the idea that success is earned is pretty fair. But even if it were the opposite that's no excuse for not accomplishing anything with your life. If a quadriplegic with mental disabilities who can only move their head AND a single mom raising her baby in her car while working three jobs (both of these people pursuing extremely difficult STEM majors) can transfer from my community college to Stanford; there's literally no excuse for just about anybody not to achieve great things in life. As long as you are of slightly below average intelligence or higher, you can accomplish almost anything purely through hard work. Only catch is unless you come up with a brilliant business idea, you have to do all this hard work before your mid twenties when you're no longer pursing an education (time's up after that, you're stuck where you are). Alot of those studies are inaccurate and misleading. They count people who come from rich families and CEOs who receive multi million dollar salaries as self made. What a joke they even count trump as self maid even though he got money from his family and benefited from all the connections that his family had. He even bankrupted multiple companies and is still a billionaire why cause he can afford to loose if normal people go bankrupt that is game over but not for the rich. I wonder how many people who are born in poor broken families in crime ridden neighborhood have became millionaires. |
AnimeFeministJul 21, 2019 5:57 AM
Never explain, Never retract, Never apologize Just get the thing done And let them howl |
| It's down to skill, but those without it like to believe that it's cause of luck in order to justifie their own failures. |
 |
hazarddex said: Or you know you could set up a fair and balanced system so the entire 99% who out number you dont do what every single citizen in the feudal age did and murder the feudal lord. you cant be a winner if your dead. History shows that dragons get killed. Why should I do your job? I like the unfair system. It gives me an advantage. If you have a problem with it, take charge and change it yourself. But if you could do that, you wouldn't be complaining. deg said: basically social capitalism #YangGang2020 since human labor is literally becoming worthless due to automation and globalization (offshoring/outsourcing/immigrants - oversupply of workers) here in the philippines one of the newer middle class jobs are call centers or BPOs in general and news are saying here that will be automated in a few years, same with factory work well factories are being automated for decades now anyway so it will continue to shrink when robots become more cheaper than 3rd world cheap labor, same with customer service like those on malls (there are lots of it here) but online shopping is rising too like with lazada or even amazon if they decided to venture here too, those are in the top of head right now Read 'The Richest Man in Babylon' and 'Rich Dad Poor Dad' and tell me what you've learned. Silverstorm said: You're post paints the world in a funny pink light it seems. It attribute wealth retention on skill when its more policy that allows the retention, and the acquirement. Not saying there are not those you describe but to attribute all that lose (not successful) under such seems a stretch, like implying Warren Buffet level wealth (winners) was earned through skill by the holders. To cut to the chase, let's say it was 90% luck and 10% skill. Surely, you'll allow that much? At least in your case if not in Buffet's. So, are you absolutely certain that you have that 10% skill at retaining your wealth that Buffet did? Are you absolutely sure that you're as good at earning and retaining wealth as Warren Buffet is? What you're saying is exactly what I'm arguing against: I don't care if the system is unfair, random, unjust, whatnot, the point is: the loser mindset is to ask the system to adjust to myself while the winner mindset is how I can adjust myself to the system to take advantage of it. If you were really as good as Buffet but had a different RNG at your birth, maybe then it was quite unfortunate; but I'm pretty sure you can still find a way out of that RNG by trying not to copy Buffet. But yeah I'm wasting my time here because those who know, they know. "It was good luck'' is a great way to brush off other's accomplishments; it always applies, I've seen people argue ''Well he was lucky he was a born hard-worker!'' unironically. "It was bad luck" is a great way to brush aside all your failures. |
| You don't need to be wealthy to have a fulfilling life, you just need to live within your means. Even medieval serfs found happiness in their lives, and the things even the poorest westerner has access to would make them envious. |
 |
Lost_Viking said: You don't need to be wealthy to have a fulfilling life, you just need to live within your means. Even medieval serfs found happiness in their lives, and the things even the poorest westerner has access to would make them envious. true but a lot of people today even in USA supports populist like Bernie Sanders and Trump because they promise to help the poor that are getting more poorer and there is such a thing as "relative poverty" @Thanakos are those books? err not gonna bother since your previous reply that has the word Alu Akbar reminds me of the Arab Spring that was cause by the poor getting more poorer |
| its too much of an ego blow to admit it was luck for them rich normies. |
Thanakos said: Forces like the exchange of capital in the stock exchange (outside Buffets skill to control) has no effect other than being a game Buffet-esque figures control, which implies they control over how others decide to spend/interact with system? Maybe not but we can agree on a mix number as you said.hazarddex said: Or you know you could set up a fair and balanced system so the entire 99% who out number you dont do what every single citizen in the feudal age did and murder the feudal lord. you cant be a winner if your dead. History shows that dragons get killed. Why should I do your job? I like the unfair system. It gives me an advantage. If you have a problem with it, take charge and change it yourself. But if you could do that, you wouldn't be complaining. deg said: basically social capitalism #YangGang2020 since human labor is literally becoming worthless due to automation and globalization (offshoring/outsourcing/immigrants - oversupply of workers) here in the philippines one of the newer middle class jobs are call centers or BPOs in general and news are saying here that will be automated in a few years, same with factory work well factories are being automated for decades now anyway so it will continue to shrink when robots become more cheaper than 3rd world cheap labor, same with customer service like those on malls (there are lots of it here) but online shopping is rising too like with lazada or even amazon if they decided to venture here too, those are in the top of head right now Read 'The Richest Man in Babylon' and 'Rich Dad Poor Dad' and tell me what you've learned. Silverstorm said: You're post paints the world in a funny pink light it seems. It attribute wealth retention on skill when its more policy that allows the retention, and the acquirement. Not saying there are not those you describe but to attribute all that lose (not successful) under such seems a stretch, like implying Warren Buffet level wealth (winners) was earned through skill by the holders. To cut to the chase, let's say it was 90% luck and 10% skill. Surely, you'll allow that much? At least in your case if not in Buffet's. So, are you absolutely certain that you have that 10% skill at retaining your wealth that Buffet did? Are you absolutely sure that you're as good at earning and retaining wealth as Warren Buffet is? What you're saying is exactly what I'm arguing against: I don't care if the system is unfair, random, unjust, whatnot, the point is: the loser mindset is to ask the system to adjust to myself while the winner mindset is how I can adjust myself to the system to take advantage of it. If you were really as good as Buffet but had a different RNG at your birth, maybe then it was quite unfortunate; but I'm pretty sure you can still find a way out of that RNG by trying not to copy Buffet. But yeah I'm wasting my time here because those who know, they know. "It was good luck'' is a great way to brush off other's accomplishments; it always applies, I've seen people argue ''Well he was lucky he was a born hard-worker!'' unironically. "It was bad luck" is a great way to brush aside all your failures. You're arguing against what I said. I just don't see how the loser who carries this mindset can't change a system when collectively many are losing and few win so want to change, when its individuals that created it. If 'the system' which is created by people (and sustained) is only working for a few and becomes unable to change cause a few are happy with the results, then that system becomes repressive. It becomes something people take as default (winners and losers) because it no longer looks like something created by people. The idea 'raise your bootstraps' to become successful denies that others are always there with varying powers to limit or aid in that rise. It focuses solely on the person's agency to pursue their goal (a good thing for the person, yes). It denies human biases as a variable. Atleast Gates, Buffet, Iger and others have admitted their success was due to things outside their control. As you said, luck has been attributed to alot, but the idea of luck (Or Fortune) is still limited in its scope because it is a human creation--it is a way of not thinking critically cause its easier not to, whether placing blame on bad luck or assigning success to good luck. The only truth is there is a system people created, that they are now unable to get out of. We can agree that we disagree, but thank you for shedding more light on your opinion. |
SilverstormJul 21, 2019 5:54 PM
| "In the end the World really doesn't need a Superman. Just a Brave one" |
SpamuraiSensei said: Poor people have an excuse for everything. And they let those excuses dictate the rest of their life. People in worst circumstances than you have become wealthy, and it wasn't through luck. If poor people keep making excuses for themselves then why do conservatives keep getting elected? The statistics show that most people don't leave the class that they were born into. It's true that you can beat circumstances but not most people. |
Thanakos said: I learned that anyone can become a Rich Dad by saving and investing. If you're a Poor Dad, it's either because you don't know how to be a Rich Dad or you do know, but you're too lazy/dumb to follow through. I learned that life is a series of individual choices and individual lives can be evaluated based on the quality of those choices.Read 'The Richest Man in Babylon' and 'Rich Dad Poor Dad' and tell me what you've learned. In other words, I learned to be an individualist who ignores that 99% of human reality is social in nature. I learned to not ask why the number of Rich Dads and Poor Dads varies greatly over time and space, or where passive investment income comes from, or how our economic system works and how it might be improved. I learned to shut up and get in line. |
LoneWolf said: @Josh makes me sad to call myself Canadian. |
| Humans in ego-trip shocker. |
 |
Josh said: Thanakos said: I learned that anyone can become a Rich Dad by saving and investing. If you're a Poor Dad, it's either because you don't know how to be a Rich Dad or you do know, but you're too lazy/dumb to follow through. I learned that life is a series of individual choices and individual lives can be evaluated based on the quality of those choices.Read 'The Richest Man in Babylon' and 'Rich Dad Poor Dad' and tell me what you've learned. In other words, I learned to be an individualist who ignores that 99% of human reality is social in nature. I learned to not ask why the number of Rich Dads and Poor Dads varies greatly over time and space, or where passive investment income comes from, or how our economic system works and how it might be improved. I learned to shut up and get in line. ok thanks for the summary of those books good luck! kidding aside the answers on this thread reminds of agency vs structure in sociology |
| @Mendelssohn i can understand the individualistic approach too since for them it maybe like a game where the players should master it and find ways to win with it but ye as they say do not hate the player but hate the game lol and it just happens that todays game/system/structure is getting hard since human labor is becoming worthless more due to various factors especially automation |
Josh said: Thanakos said: I learned that anyone can become a Rich Dad by saving and investing. If you're a Poor Dad, it's either because you don't know how to be a Rich Dad or you do know, but you're too lazy/dumb to follow through. I learned that life is a series of individual choices and individual lives can be evaluated based on the quality of those choices.Read 'The Richest Man in Babylon' and 'Rich Dad Poor Dad' and tell me what you've learned. Great. In other words, I learned to be an individualist who ignores that 99% of human reality is social in nature. I learned to not ask why the number of Rich Dads and Poor Dads varies greatly over time and space, or where passive investment income comes from, or how our economic system works and how it might be improved. I learned to shut up and get in line. Irrelevant. deg said: ok thanks for the summary of those books good luck! kidding aside the answers on this thread reminds of agency vs structure in sociology It's not a summary. Do yourself a favor and read those. If you're smart enough, you can make something out of those. Good luck. Mendelssohn said: Even in the most "egalitarian" societies in the world like Denmark, Norway and Sweden, have social mobility trends that closely resemble those seen even in hyper capitalist countries like the United States or China. Honestly anyone who pertains to the individualistic point of view of life has no idea how most wealth and success is actually transferred within their country (it's through inheritance), and how much external factors like public facilities in your neighborhood or your parents' health play a role in your childhood behavioral development and performance as an adult. In other words, you're a misinformed idiot. In simple words, you're a pseudo-intellectual. Your position ends where mine starts. You conclude with pointing out the difficulties of the game and I start with talking about how to tackle them. Now I realize not everyone wants to be a winner, majority just want the social brownie points of appearing realistic, cynical, and hence intellectual, but the fact is, with that mindset you're never getting far in life and if that's fine with you, that's great with me. More opportunities for me. Silverstorm said: You're arguing against what I said. I just don't see how the loser who carries this mindset can't change a system when collectively many are losing and few win so want to change, when its individuals that created it. If 'the system' which is created by people (and sustained) is only working for a few and becomes unable to change cause a few are happy with the results, then that system becomes repressive. It becomes something people take as default (winners and losers) because it no longer looks like something created by people. The idea 'raise your bootstraps' to become successful denies that others are always there with varying powers to limit or aid in that rise. It focuses solely on the person's agency to pursue their goal (a good thing for the person, yes). It denies human biases as a variable. Atleast Gates, Buffet, Iger and others have admitted their success was due to things outside their control. As you said, luck has been attributed to alot, but the idea of luck (Or Fortune) is still limited in its scope because it is a human creation--it is a way of not thinking critically cause its easier not to, whether placing blame on bad luck or assigning success to good luck. The only truth is there is a system people created, that they are now unable to get out of. We can agree that we disagree, but thank you for shedding more light on your opinion. Has there ever been any system which didn't work surprisingly well for a few while the others were on a scale from fine to meh? Fact is, the financially responsible people will always be richer. It doesn't matter if you leave them millions in inheritance, if they can't retain it they'll lose it. We talk about rich people inheriting money from their parents a lot and then going on to be even richer, but what about the rich people who inherited and lost? But of course, since they are now poor, it was just bad luck in their case. |
Kyotosomo said: AnimeFeminist said: Alot of those studies are inaccurate and misleading. They count people who come from rich families and CEOs who receive multi million dollar salaries as self made. What a joke they even count trump as self maid even though he got money from his family and benefited from all the connections that his family had. He even bankrupted multiple companies and is still a billionaire why cause he can afford to loose if normal people go bankrupt that is game over but not for the rich. I wonder how many people who are born in poor broken families in crime ridden neighborhood have became millionaires. Haha no they're not lol you're literally just pulling random made up bullshit out of your ass just because it upsets you these studies disprove your world view. In reality, the truth of the matter is if anything, these studies LOWBALL the number of self made millionaires because in a fair amount of them if you live in a place where houses cost a million or more dollars (which here in Silicon Valley is basically EVERY house even a crappy little shack like mine) and you inherit it from your parents later in life you're automatically disqualified from being self made even though you may be poor (even though someone like myself will receive no help from my parents and make all their money just working a normal white collar job). People can claim the American dream is dead, and it's certainly true you're basically fucked if you didn't do all your hard work when you were young (a time when we're all too dumb to realize how important doing well in school is); but it has long been known it's alive and well and studies like these have been consistently showing 80% - 90% for a while (tech industry certainly helped though in regards to making starting a lucrative business easier since you can do everything from a computer at home now). And lol no what the hell are you smoking at no point have I ever seen any of these studies mention Trump lol why the hell would they? More bullshit pulled out of your ass? I feel really bad for the people so obsessed with Trump they have to drive literally every conversation they're in into a dig at Trump. Talk about pathetic, get a life. You know who are the kind of people who don't become self-made millionaires? People who obsess over and blame others rather than fixing their own lives. If you inherited money from your parents or you come from rich background you're not self made period I thought that was common knowledge but apparently not. Many trump voters and right wing media are considering trump self made. https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/01/17/many-voters-think-trumps-a-self-made-man-what-happens-when-you-tell-them-otherwise-224019 And I ask you again how many of those self maid millionaires come from poor families? |
Never explain, Never retract, Never apologize Just get the thing done And let them howl |
Thanakos said: It's irrelevant that those books are detached from reality and therefore their contents are trivial at best, misleading and counterproductive at worst? Fair enough, lol. I think the "loser mentality" in this discussion is the mentality that you can only change yourself and collective change isn't worth trying or even thinking about. It doesn't get much more cynical and myopic than that, imo.Josh said: Great.I learned that anyone can become a Rich Dad by saving and investing. If you're a Poor Dad, it's either because you don't know how to be a Rich Dad or you do know, but you're too lazy/dumb to follow through. I learned that life is a series of individual choices and individual lives can be evaluated based on the quality of those choices. In other words, I learned to be an individualist who ignores that 99% of human reality is social in nature. I learned to not ask why the number of Rich Dads and Poor Dads varies greatly over time and space, or where passive investment income comes from, or how our economic system works and how it might be improved. I learned to shut up and get in line. Irrelevant. |
LoneWolf said: @Josh makes me sad to call myself Canadian. |
Thanakos said: Alternatively: Losers are more likely to attribute their defeat to luck than skill or a lack of hard work. Somebody ought to do a study on that, you know. Seems like the entire world is suddenly looking for excuses to whine and be lazy. an alternative explanation comes from behavioral finance: it is possible that the "rich" are overconfident with their money management skills and downplay the role of chance, while the poor exaggerate the role of chance partly due to regret with their past financial decisions. as Malkiel put it, "investors find it very difficult to admit, even to themselves, that they have made a bad stock-market decision" (A Random Walk Down Wall Street, pg 241) in the same manner, the poor may also have regrets with their past financial decisions that led them to poverty and choose to attribute their poverty to "luck". People are prone to attribute any good outcome [such as becoming rich] to their own abilities. They tend to rationalize bad outcomes [such as becoming poor or staying poor] as resulting from unusual external events [i.e. "luck"] - Burton G Malkiel |
DreamingBeatsJul 23, 2019 8:00 PM
| You can buy lossless digital music from your favorite Japanese artists on https://ototoy.jp/. The songs are all DRM-free and you can re-download your purchased albums as you wish. Show your support to your favorite artist if you can! ps. if you are looking for Japanese albums, you have to search it in Japanese (not romaji). Just copy and paste the name. For those who want to learn Japanese through anime Resources for learning the language |
Thanakos said: A few, but that is tribal or pre-modern, so we wouldn't include those. And that suggest a defeatist attitude, just cause a system doesn't work humans can't improve it? Rhetorical question. Silverstorm said: You're arguing against what I said. I just don't see how the loser who carries this mindset can't change a system when collectively many are losing and few win so want to change, when its individuals that created it. If 'the system' which is created by people (and sustained) is only working for a few and becomes unable to change cause a few are happy with the results, then that system becomes repressive. It becomes something people take as default (winners and losers) because it no longer looks like something created by people. The idea 'raise your bootstraps' to become successful denies that others are always there with varying powers to limit or aid in that rise. It focuses solely on the person's agency to pursue their goal (a good thing for the person, yes). It denies human biases as a variable. Atleast Gates, Buffet, Iger and others have admitted their success was due to things outside their control. As you said, luck has been attributed to alot, but the idea of luck (Or Fortune) is still limited in its scope because it is a human creation--it is a way of not thinking critically cause its easier not to, whether placing blame on bad luck or assigning success to good luck. The only truth is there is a system people created, that they are now unable to get out of. We can agree that we disagree, but thank you for shedding more light on your opinion. Has there ever been any system which didn't work surprisingly well for a few while the others were on a scale from fine to meh? Fact is, the financially responsible people will always be richer. It doesn't matter if you leave them millions in inheritance, if they can't retain it they'll lose it. We talk about rich people inheriting money from their parents a lot and then going on to be even richer, but what about the rich people who inherited and lost? But of course, since they are now poor, it was just bad luck in their case. But this whole topic side tracked what was discussed; financial responsibility covers everyone in our topic, both losers and winners, cause you'd be assuming everyone that wins is financially responsible--regardless of luck. So what are you talking about? Financially frugal people can still become bankrupt or lose significant amounts of their wealth. Those examples don't show that it is more skill than policy driven factors. The relationship between politics and the economy; Generates wealth and capital plus are tied cause politics buttresses (US) Capitalism. It provides the legal support and space for there to be a market so the economy can exist. Policies vis a vis, are what effects the economy, like trades wars, regulations, "socialism"--proof is current events. Skill is a component but definitely not luck is involved. CEOs are allowed to vote in the board on their own pay packages. You also mask that when people (millionaires in your words) lose out its not all but few that weren't "responsible" and its usually the ones that got there by luck (chance-actual luck). The others are allotted a soft (corporate) bankruptcy while others with less have a hard (personal) bankruptcy. Most on that list were able to avoid actually suffer the actual ramifications of bad financial decisions but by policy decisions, usually with those vested in trying to control "chance" and reducing skill. This of course goes up the more capital (dislike using that word) one has. These emphasize my point not luck (fortune- unnatural skill) nor skill in the way you describe.So the strong division you have between equality or how you can't see that what you label as chance is just the result of the interaction of people and their system (in which all involved save the system lose) trying to place luck (chance) in non-randomized ways in the world. Retention is more policy than luck or skill-- Actual luck (chance) like the lottery is the closest thing and even that has an algorithm it follows. |
| "In the end the World really doesn't need a Superman. Just a Brave one" |
i almost forgot about that lol since we are talking about economics more and ye capitalism has inequality built-in so its funny people defending that its a fair system not saying to go full socialism or communism since the technology is not here yet for those but social capitalism can be a good improvement today |
| Life’s losers think success is down to luck even if it was earned |
| Help stop the spread of Korean propaganda (KPrOP) and sign this petition! http://chng.it/Yw8Vzwk4Tg |
| It's a psychological thing I guess. I mean if a winner said it was due to luck he'd lower himself/his own worth. People want to be consistent in their behaviour and want to keep up their own worth. A similar thing happens with sports and attributing the wins of your favorite team to yourself (using "we" when you actually didn't belong to the team and contributed nothing) and using "they" when they failed cause you don't want to belong to them then. https://www.units.miamioh.edu/psybersite/fans/bc.shtml |
| "Success" to me, and hopefully everyone, would not be how much money they earn or how much fame they have, but to how hard they work on things and their commitment and dedication. If someone just sells rip-off shirts for a living and gains millions out of it, then they're not really successful at all. |
 |
Thanakos said: or you just check the statistics, recognize that a very significant fraction of all wealth is simply inherited, realize that the biggest factor in how well you do in life is how well your parents did, and fall into despair.Alternatively: Losers are more likely to attribute their defeat to luck than skill or a lack of hard work. Somebody ought to do a study on that, you know. Seems like the entire world is suddenly looking for excuses to whine and be lazy. We live in a world that is very unkind to poor people. Unless you can convince yourself that the children of rich people are usually hardworking (they aren't), and the children of poor people are usually lazy (they aren't), you're barking up the wrong tree. In truth, it's rather easy to win if you get a massive headstart, which really shouldn't surprise anyone. |
| "my life at this state could be transposed into a pretty massive biography" - Cneq, "the guy who was literally using BTC in 2012 to make deals in the first main instance of a digital itemized economy forming naturally in all human history (also the precursor of NFTs) and who had 20k+ total trades.", 23 years old MAL's most prolific antivaxxer, Noboru. |
Railey2 said: Thanakos said: or you just check the statistics, recognize that a very significant fraction of all wealth is simply inherited, realize that the biggest factor in how well you do in life is how well your parents did, and fall into despair.Alternatively: Losers are more likely to attribute their defeat to luck than skill or a lack of hard work. Somebody ought to do a study on that, you know. Seems like the entire world is suddenly looking for excuses to whine and be lazy. We live in a world that is very unkind to poor people. Unless you can convince yourself that the children of rich people are usually hardworking (they aren't), and the children of poor people are usually lazy (they aren't), you're barking up the wrong tree. In truth, it's rather easy to win if you get a massive headstart, which really shouldn't surprise anyone. People keep missing the point that I'm not arguing the system is fair or equal for everyone, I'm arguing a step further than that: on what sort of mindset you ought to have to succeed in an unfair system. @Silverstorm brings up policy as if it's a factor no one can foresee and therefore we're living in a black box where a bad hand might be dealt to us at any time, while in reality the best and most experienced investors/businessman keep a close watch on political movements and how that might affect their business down the road. Do they get it right? No, but as J.M Keynes said, ''I'd rather be roughly right than precisely wrong''. @Josh brings up situational factors that vary from place to place; what he says might not be true for @deg (who's from Philippines) or myself (from Pakistan) but regardless of whatever system you're living in, what I'm arguing for applies nonetheless: find a way for yourself in your own system. If someone could get rich by luck or otherwise it means there really is a way and you can find it. Strawmanning is easy. It's easy to assume that I'm a dumbfuck who thinks the system is fair for everyone and everyone's got an equal chance (which couldn't be further from the truth as you can't even become a successful investor in Pakistan without security threats to your person). It's also very easy to assume that I'm arguing that it's not worth trying to change the system (which I don't remember mentioning anywhere). It's a very generic argument that I'm making; it's not economical, but psychological. Yes, the odds are bad, systems are bad, society's bad, everything's bad, but are you good enough? Do you really think you can go on a crusade against a system and actually accomplish it while being an absolute failure by its standards? Can you point me to a single person on this planet who ever influenced economic policy without being financially successful? If there really is a person like that, go ahead knock yourself out and follow that guy, because as far as I can see, to break the system you have to win it in the first place. |
Thanakos said: if that wasn't your intention, then I apologize. Sadly, it is just a very common talking point nowadays to blame the poor for being lazy while commending the rich on their excellent work ethic, even when the opposite is too often the case. Perhaps I should have read your other comments, but that's exactly what your first comment read like. You can see that too, no?Railey2 said: or you just check the statistics, recognize that a very significant fraction of all wealth is simply inherited, realize that the biggest factor in how well you do in life is how well your parents did, and fall into despair. We live in a world that is very unkind to poor people. Unless you can convince yourself that the children of rich people are usually hardworking (they aren't), and the children of poor people are usually lazy (they aren't), you're barking up the wrong tree. In truth, it's rather easy to win if you get a massive headstart, which really shouldn't surprise anyone. People keep missing the point that I'm not arguing the system is fair or equal for everyone, I'm arguing a step further than that: on what sort of mindset you ought to have to succeed in an unfair system. Strawmanning is easy. It's easy to assume that I'm a dumbfuck who thinks the system is fair for everyone and everyone's got an equal chance (which couldn't be further from the truth as you can't even become a successful investor in Pakistan without security threats to your person). It's also very easy to assume that I'm arguing that it's not worth trying to change the system (which I don't remember mentioning anywhere). We disagree on one point though. I think it is absolutely fair to hate the winners. There's this saying that goes "hate the game, not the player", but I disagree. I say you should absolutely hate both, not equally maybe, but at least 10% of your hatred should be reserved for the players who shamelessly take advantage of their starting position and win comfortably. 100% for the players who do that and rub it into your face. I want to see heads on pikes, I'm serious. Whatever hatred is left is for the game. If you win even though the odds were stacked against you, though.. good on you. |
| "my life at this state could be transposed into a pretty massive biography" - Cneq, "the guy who was literally using BTC in 2012 to make deals in the first main instance of a digital itemized economy forming naturally in all human history (also the precursor of NFTs) and who had 20k+ total trades.", 23 years old MAL's most prolific antivaxxer, Noboru. |
Thanakos said: All that and no direct reply to my posts? Or am I to take the entirety of that as a reply to me as well as the other users? In either respect, I hope you didn't see my post as flagging you as a dumbfuck--I merely thought we were exchanging how we view something. My view is what you're calling skill isn't merit based skill, nor fortunate as it relates to retention--not even a mindset. How can there be when all discussed depends highly on policy and those that create the policy happen to be vested with them (there no need for someone to not see a policy when they can influence its implement). That the mindset to lose/win is really just false set and used to justify the existence of this arrangement. Bad, maybe--but a mindset that determines losing or winning has little role in the actual way things are done; especially retention of wealth (our topic). Strawmanning-- My post hasn't been about a system that needs replacing; nor agency v structure. Its about ideology (the psychology) and the illusionary belief there are individual win/lose mindsets that dominantly guide people. If you thought that then yes, our conversation went over our heads.Railey2 said: or you just check the statistics, recognize that a very significant fraction of all wealth is simply inherited, realize that the biggest factor in how well you do in life is how well your parents did, and fall into despair. We live in a world that is very unkind to poor people. Unless you can convince yourself that the children of rich people are usually hardworking (they aren't), and the children of poor people are usually lazy (they aren't), you're barking up the wrong tree. In truth, it's rather easy to win if you get a massive headstart, which really shouldn't surprise anyone. People keep missing the point that I'm not arguing the system is fair or equal for everyone, I'm arguing a step further than that: on what sort of mindset you ought to have to succeed in an unfair system. @Silverstorm brings up policy as if it's a factor no one can foresee and therefore we're living in a black box where a bad hand might be dealt to us at any time, while in reality the best and most experienced investors/businessman keep a close watch on political movements and how that might affect their business down the road. Do they get it right? No, but as J.M Keynes said, ''I'd rather be roughly right than precisely wrong''. @Josh brings up situational factors that vary from place to place; what he says might not be true for @deg (who's from Philippines) or myself (from Pakistan) but regardless of whatever system you're living in, what I'm arguing for applies nonetheless: find a way for yourself in your own system. If someone could get rich by luck or otherwise it means there really is a way and you can find it. Strawmanning is easy. It's easy to assume that I'm a dumbfuck who thinks the system is fair for everyone and everyone's got an equal chance (which couldn't be further from the truth as you can't even become a successful investor in Pakistan without security threats to your person). It's also very easy to assume that I'm arguing that it's not worth trying to change the system (which I don't remember mentioning anywhere). It's a very generic argument that I'm making; it's not economical, but psychological. Yes, the odds are bad, systems are bad, society's bad, everything's bad, but are you good enough? Do you really think you can go on a crusade against a system and actually accomplish it while being an absolute failure by its standards? Can you point me to a single person on this planet who ever influenced economic policy without being financially successful? If there really is a person like that, go ahead knock yourself out and follow that guy, because as far as I can see, to break the system you have to win it in the first place. |
SilverstormJul 24, 2019 11:32 AM
| "In the end the World really doesn't need a Superman. Just a Brave one" |
Silverstorm said: All that and no direct reply to my posts? Or am I to take the entirety of that as a reply to me as well as the other users? In either respect, I hope you didn't see my post as flagging you as a dumbfuck--I merely thought we were exchanging how we view something. My view is what you're calling skill isn't merit based skill, nor fortunate as it relates to retention--not even a mindset. How can there be when all discussed depends highly on policy and those that create the policy happen to be vested with them (there no need for someone to not see a policy when they can influence its implement). That the mindset to lose/win is really just false set and used to justify the existence of this arrangement. Bad, maybe--but a mindset that determines losing or winning has little role in the actual way things are done; especially retention of wealth (our topic). Strawmanning-- My post hasn't been about a system that needs replacing; nor agency v structure. Its about ideology (the psychology) and the illusionary belief there are individual win/lose mindsets that dominantly guide people. If you thought that then yes, our conversation went over our heads. I gave you a number: 90% luck, 10% skill. And I was very generous with that. I didn't try to make any excuses for a system that only allowed 10% skill but I did try to argue, and am still arguing, that if you want to go up against this system or at the very least want to not be a complete loser (by this system's standards) then you ought to have that 10% skill. I even gave a very simple metric to measure it: Are you able to maintain your savings from your present income? That's literally just the first step towards.. maybe not becoming the top 1% but at least top 20% of the world (the wealth chads, if you allow me that). If neither of that, then at the very least you'll have ample means to live by. If that doesn't separate the winners from the losers, I don't know what would. You'd be surprised at how many people fail to do just this. Railey2 said: if that wasn't your intention, then I apologize. Sadly, it is just a very common talking point nowadays to blame the poor for being lazy while commending the rich on their excellent work ethic, even when the opposite is too often the case. Perhaps I should have read your other comments, but that's exactly what your first comment read like. You can see that too, no? We disagree on one point though. I think it is absolutely fair to hate the winners. There's this saying that goes "hate the game, not the player", but I disagree. I say you should absolutely hate both, not equally maybe, but at least 10% of your hatred should be reserved for the players who shamelessly take advantage of their starting position and win comfortably. 100% for the players who do that and rub it into your face. I want to see heads on pikes, I'm serious. Whatever hatred is left is for the game. If you win even though the odds were stacked against you, though.. good on you. Hating the winners is impractical. To maximize your chances of winning, you want contacts with the winners. You can't maintain those if you hate them. I might hate a professor but if I know he's got a sweet internship for me I'll have to suck up to him because that's the only way I can ever get into a position where I can exact any kind of revenge. |
ThanakosJul 24, 2019 1:41 PM
More topics from this board
Sticky: » The Current Events Board Will Be Closed on Friday JST ( 1 2 3 4 5 ... Last Page )Luna - Aug 2, 2021 |
272 |
by traed
»»
Aug 5, 2021 5:56 PM |
|
» Third shot of Sinovac COVID-19 vaccine offers big increase in antibody levels: study ( 1 2 )Desolated - Jul 30, 2021 |
50 |
by Desolated
»»
Aug 5, 2021 3:24 PM |
|
» Western vaccine producers engage in shameless profiteering while poorer countries are supplied mainly by China.Desolated - Aug 5, 2021 |
1 |
by Bourmegar
»»
Aug 5, 2021 3:23 PM |
|
» NLRB officer says Amazon violated US labor lawDesolated - Aug 3, 2021 |
17 |
by kitsune0
»»
Aug 5, 2021 1:41 PM |
|
» China Backs Cuba in Saying US Should Apply Sanctions To ItselfDesolated - Aug 5, 2021 |
10 |
by Desolated
»»
Aug 5, 2021 1:36 PM |