Is Success Luck or Hard Work?...

How should society be organised, if at all?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Scott Mayers
Posts: 2446
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am

Re: Is Success Luck or Hard Work?...

Post by Scott Mayers »

RCSaunders wrote: Wed Mar 30, 2022 11:33 am
Scott Mayers wrote: Wed Mar 30, 2022 6:39 am
RCSaunders wrote: Tue Mar 29, 2022 3:24 pm
That's your definition. I didn't know you were an American.

I know a few people in America. None of them define success in terms of money at all. How many Americans do you know who have that opinion?

[Pardon me, but your prejudices are showing.]
Actually, all people do anywhere but the U.S. most signficantly symbolizes success in terms of 'worth' using relative currency, even if one is not actually directly dealing with money....
You too? You define success as, "financial success," but the word success only means achieving what one aspires to achieve. Perhaps you never heard of artistic success, literary success, scientific success, or the success of those who discover new things, achieve what has never been achieved before, or successfully completing a course, building a house, grow a garden, raising a family, or just cooking a mean and enjoying others without ever having a thought about money.

You need to get out of your philosophy/economics classes and live in the world more, I think. Everything is not politics.
I SAID that financial measures is a sufficient and an appropriate measure for 'success'; where 'success' is not representable in terms of some standard of 'currency', it is strictly personal, religious, and has NO AFFECT ON OTHERS.

Please respond to the thread's context by supplying what you believe is the alternative. I know that you are both religious and conservative and that you are deflecting what you don't want others to pay attention to. Given you've only tweeted your disagreement, we all know where you stand. But this is a philosophy site and my topic IS fit for this discussion and DEBATE, if you disagree. voicing your emotional feelings is itself NOT relevant nor necessary; challenge the view. How am I expected to be convinced of "you're wrong" feelings without an argument?
commonsense
Posts: 5115
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: Is Success Luck or Hard Work?...

Post by commonsense »

Scott Mayers wrote: Tue Mar 29, 2022 6:58 am YouTube linked me to Veritasium's video, and I'm forwarding it here: "Is Success Luck or Hard Work?".

For all political discussions that go on here, this video presents a careful look at whether luck or effort matters more to one's success. I already shared this view and have promoted all the ideas in parts of my own arguments everywhere. Veritasium did a better job at summarizing this and explains with scientific rationality.

What are your thoughts? Did you CHANGE any view after watching?
The video changed nothing for me as I already understood the importance of both KSA (knowledge, skills and attitude) and chance or luck in achieving a goal.

Without luck it makes no difference how committed one is to the successful accomplishment of a goal. There are always factors beyond an individual’s control—and even possibly beyond explanation—that are determinants of success or failure.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Is Success Luck or Hard Work?...

Post by RCSaunders »

Scott Mayers wrote: Thu Mar 31, 2022 1:13 am
Please respond to the thread's context by supplying what you believe is the alternative. I know that you are both religious and conservative and that you are deflecting what you don't want others to pay attention to.
Well that's your whole problem. I am not only not religious and totally a-political, I subscribe to no ideology and do not promote or support any program or agenda. Please see my article, "What I Don't Believe," posted on PN just for folks like you who make judgments about my beliefs without having the slightest idea what they are.
Scott Mayers wrote: Thu Mar 31, 2022 1:13 am ... But this is a philosophy site and my topic IS fit for this discussion and DEBATE, if you disagree.
Then I suggest you stick to discussing ideas instead of attempting to psychologize others and judge their motives. Perhaps that's your idea of philosophy.
Scott Mayers wrote: Thu Mar 31, 2022 1:13 am ... voicing your emotional feelings is itself NOT relevant nor necessary; challenge the view. How am I expected to be convinced of "you're wrong" feelings without an argument?
What feelings? Nothing I think, believe, choose, say, or do is ever determined by any feelings. I have no use for feelings as a basis for any behavior or choices, especially not mine, and certainly not anyone else's sentimental nonsense.

It was you who responded to a comment I made to vegetariantaxidermy that expressed a similar view of success, which I regard as based on political prejudice, not an objective or rational understanding of what success is. Financial success is just one kind of success but hardly the whole of what success means. I certainly would not regard someone who had accumulated lots of wealth, but led a miserable and unhappy life a success.
Scott Mayers
Posts: 2446
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am

Re: Is Success Luck or Hard Work?...

Post by Scott Mayers »

RCSaunders wrote: Thu Mar 31, 2022 2:40 am
Scott Mayers wrote: Thu Mar 31, 2022 1:13 am
Please respond to the thread's context by supplying what you believe is the alternative. I know that you are both religious and conservative and that you are deflecting what you don't want others to pay attention to.
Well that's your whole problem. I am not only not religious and totally a-political, I subscribe to no ideology and do not promote or support any program or agenda. Please see my article, "What I Don't Believe," posted on PN just for folks like you who make judgments about my beliefs without having the slightest idea what they are.
Scott Mayers wrote: Thu Mar 31, 2022 1:13 am ... But this is a philosophy site and my topic IS fit for this discussion and DEBATE, if you disagree.
Then I suggest you stick to discussing ideas instead of attempting to psychologize others and judge their motives. Perhaps that's your idea of philosophy.
Scott Mayers wrote: Thu Mar 31, 2022 1:13 am ... voicing your emotional feelings is itself NOT relevant nor necessary; challenge the view. How am I expected to be convinced of "you're wrong" feelings without an argument?
What feelings? Nothing I think, believe, choose, say, or do is ever determined by any feelings. I have no use for feelings as a basis for any behavior or choices, especially not mine, and certainly not anyone else's sentimental nonsense.

It was you who responded to a comment I made to vegetariantaxidermy that expressed a similar view of success, which I regard as based on political prejudice, not an objective or rational understanding of what success is. Financial success is just one kind of success but hardly the whole of what success means. I certainly would not regard someone who had accumulated lots of wealth, but led a miserable and unhappy life a success.
My bad on the mixup of who you are. I know you are presenting a biased stance against discussing 'success' as some other(s) have. So I know you are not exactly being cordial by your derailment. How does it matter whether one excludes trivial emotional evaluation about what one interprets is 'success'? Everyone knows that monetary value IS at least THE major measuring units describing one's WORTH and by the implicit value of very meaning of "worth" as it is used in economics describes 'success' in terms of dollars. Thus, Forbes describes Bill Gate's "worth" as 134.1 billion USD, and is the standard of 'success' that Veritasium's host was understood to be talking about. [Note that as of yet, there is no thumbs down to 440K "likes". If it was a contentous political argument rather than fact, we'd at least see SOME disagreement. But we don't and you are the one in opposition.

As to the topic's derailment, you are expressing 'feelings' when you merely assert something you believe without substance or proof. You merely expressed your disagreement as though it were matter-of-factly obvious. So what function are you serving other than to smear any debate by an innoculous insult to ward off anyone daring to take this serious? YOU are thus being 'political' restrictively, not caring about the context of the actual presentation's argument one way or the other.
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 13983
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Is Success Luck or Hard Work?...

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

RCSaunders wrote: Thu Mar 31, 2022 2:40 am
Scott Mayers wrote: Thu Mar 31, 2022 1:13 am
Please respond to the thread's context by supplying what you believe is the alternative. I know that you are both religious and conservative and that you are deflecting what you don't want others to pay attention to.
Well that's your whole problem. I am not only not religious and totally a-political, I subscribe to no ideology and do not promote or support any program or agenda. Please see my article, "What I Don't Believe," posted on PN just for folks like you who make judgments about my beliefs without having the slightest idea what they are.
Scott Mayers wrote: Thu Mar 31, 2022 1:13 am ... But this is a philosophy site and my topic IS fit for this discussion and DEBATE, if you disagree.
Then I suggest you stick to discussing ideas instead of attempting to psychologize others and judge their motives. Perhaps that's your idea of philosophy.
Scott Mayers wrote: Thu Mar 31, 2022 1:13 am ... voicing your emotional feelings is itself NOT relevant nor necessary; challenge the view. How am I expected to be convinced of "you're wrong" feelings without an argument?
What feelings? Nothing I think, believe, choose, say, or do is ever determined by any feelings. I have no use for feelings as a basis for any behavior or choices, especially not mine, and certainly not anyone else's sentimental nonsense.

It was you who responded to a comment I made to vegetariantaxidermy that expressed a similar view of success, which I regard as based on political prejudice, not an objective or rational understanding of what success is. Financial success is just one kind of success but hardly the whole of what success means. I certainly would not regard someone who had accumulated lots of wealth, but led a miserable and unhappy life a success.
You are definitely not 'apolitical'. Nearly all your comments are political. You are deluding yourself if you think otherwise.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Is Success Luck or Hard Work?...

Post by RCSaunders »

Scott Mayers wrote: Tue Mar 29, 2022 6:58 am
To begin the discussion on the question: Is Success Luck or Hard Work?, which is actually an interesting question, philosophically relating several fundamental views regarding the nature of man (what is success for a human being and what is required to achieve it?) the nature of values (what determines success relative to what objective or purpose?) and what is work? I think the question is intriguing.

But apparently the objective of the poster of the question is not to pursue an objective discussion of the question as stated at all. The poster begins the discussion with these words:
For all political discussions that go on here, ...
and obviously the purpose of the thread is not to discuss the question suggested by the title at all, but to promote a particular social/political view based on apecific social/ecomomic theory.

There is nothing wrong with anyone promoting their views on poliitics or economics. It is dishonest to present one's personal specific view of an issue or question as though it were the whole or only view. It is dishonest, for example, for a Muslim to talk about religion by which he only means Islam, or a Vegan to talk about diet but by that word only refer to a vegan diet (automatically excluding all others), or for an ethicist to talk about ethics meaning altruism implying altruism is the only ethical view, and it is wrong to talk about success or work while defining them only in the context of one's own private social/political views.

The very first question on this thread was, "How are you defining 'success'? because that was the obvious question and the one to be discussed. Unfortunately I have been informed that my interest in an objective discussion of the question is not welcome. That's too bad.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Is Success Luck or Hard Work?...

Post by RCSaunders »

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Thu Mar 31, 2022 4:09 am
RCSaunders wrote: Thu Mar 31, 2022 2:40 am
Scott Mayers wrote: Thu Mar 31, 2022 1:13 am
Please respond to the thread's context by supplying what you believe is the alternative. I know that you are both religious and conservative and that you are deflecting what you don't want others to pay attention to.
Well that's your whole problem. I am not only not religious and totally a-political, I subscribe to no ideology and do not promote or support any program or agenda. Please see my article, "What I Don't Believe," posted on PN just for folks like you who make judgments about my beliefs without having the slightest idea what they are.
Scott Mayers wrote: Thu Mar 31, 2022 1:13 am ... But this is a philosophy site and my topic IS fit for this discussion and DEBATE, if you disagree.
Then I suggest you stick to discussing ideas instead of attempting to psychologize others and judge their motives. Perhaps that's your idea of philosophy.
Scott Mayers wrote: Thu Mar 31, 2022 1:13 am ... voicing your emotional feelings is itself NOT relevant nor necessary; challenge the view. How am I expected to be convinced of "you're wrong" feelings without an argument?
What feelings? Nothing I think, believe, choose, say, or do is ever determined by any feelings. I have no use for feelings as a basis for any behavior or choices, especially not mine, and certainly not anyone else's sentimental nonsense.

It was you who responded to a comment I made to vegetariantaxidermy that expressed a similar view of success, which I regard as based on political prejudice, not an objective or rational understanding of what success is. Financial success is just one kind of success but hardly the whole of what success means. I certainly would not regard someone who had accumulated lots of wealth, but led a miserable and unhappy life a success.
You are definitely not 'apolitical'. Nearly all your comments are political. You are deluding yourself if you think otherwise.
It's a good thing we have you to read minds and straighten everyone out about what their views are. Exactly what politcal views do I have? It would help if you could identify just one, or as many others as you can. Thanks!
Scott Mayers
Posts: 2446
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am

Re: Is Success Luck or Hard Work?...

Post by Scott Mayers »

RCSaunders wrote: Thu Mar 31, 2022 1:43 pm
Scott Mayers wrote: Tue Mar 29, 2022 6:58 am
To begin the discussion on the question: Is Success Luck or Hard Work?, which is actually an interesting question, philosophically relating several fundamental views regarding the nature of man (what is success for a human being and what is required to achieve it?) the nature of values (what determines success relative to what objective or purpose?) and what is work? I think the question is intriguing.

But apparently the objective of the poster of the question is not to pursue an objective discussion of the question as stated at all. The poster begins the discussion with these words:
For all political discussions that go on here, ...
and obviously the purpose of the thread is not to discuss the question suggested by the title at all, but to promote a particular social/political view based on apecific social/ecomomic theory.

There is nothing wrong with anyone promoting their views on poliitics or economics. It is dishonest to present one's personal specific view of an issue or question as though it were the whole or only view. It is dishonest, for example, for a Muslim to talk about religion by which he only means Islam, or a Vegan to talk about diet but by that word only refer to a vegan diet (automatically excluding all others), or for an ethicist to talk about ethics meaning altruism implying altruism is the only ethical view, and it is wrong to talk about success or work while defining them only in the context of one's own private social/political views.

The very first question on this thread was, "How are you defining 'success'? because that was the obvious question and the one to be discussed. Unfortunately I have been informed that my interest in an objective discussion of the question is not welcome. That's too bad.
I AM the author of this thread! This IS also a discussion used to relate to POLITICAL discussions elsewhere that many of us participate in or watch. But this discussion is NOT based upon politics directly but to the logic and social-psychology that lends force to why we pick particular political ideologies. This argument then demonstrates that those who self-declare themselves as "successful" tend to delude themselves into thinking they live in a fantastically independent bubble in which they OWN their achievements without any help from others. THAT is a delusion and the one to which the conservative of capitalist-prioritized systems falsely self-interpret themselves.

I did NOT ask how you define 'success' because it is implicit from the linked video that it is comparing the POLITICAL ECONOMIC predispositions we share and so the concern withing politics regards those who are wealthy at one extreme versus those who are impoverished. The 'conservative' wealthy will argue that they 'earned' their success and so diminish the significance of inheritance factors even though they actually DO depend upon such inheritance.

In contrast, the poor defend "social" justice for this INHERENT factor's tendency to bias against those who initiate from impoverished states (inherit poverty....which is equivalent to inheriting DEBT!) Because deluding ourselves is social-psychologically sound practice for all animals in motivation, the video also argues how and why contrary to the facts of inherent imbalances, both extremes require 'deluding' themselves pychologically but differ upon the significance of one's perspective: For the wealthy, they delude themselves for falsely interpreting that their predisposed advantages as unrelated to their wealth; For the poor, they HAVE to delude themselves that there is 'hope', at least for motivation or the reflected doom of their statistical odds of likely failure could cripple their lottery odds for refusing to buy a ticket!

The point then is that this video demonstrates how and why it is true that we succeed more by the 'luck' as referencing one's predisposed advantages, often relatable by looking at their roots, such as one's parents' wealth they are born into, the neighborhood they grew up in, whether one's guardian class is made up of generations of poverty or wealth, including any social biases attributed to race or sex that amplify their likelihood to fail when poor but to succeed when richer.

He logically demonstrated this by beginning with a pool of presumed equivalent candidates for an example space program position in which there are far more applicants but few positions. When all candidates are equally qualified, those deciding who gets to BE hired will then require using some other standard to narrow this down. They COULD use a lottery (and some do) or, more often, they use their own personality biases to determine who gets to 'succeed' (get the job). The bias proves favorable then to the quality of those hiring the astronauts. If you are a Jew from a nice neighborhood and economically 'independent' relative to an applicant, the ones who match to being Jewish and from a similar neighborhood with shared familiar economic backgrounds will then be favored for the limited positions available.

This is logical but Derrick (sp?), the author, took some extra step in showing how even BEGINNING with 'luck' factors undefined, like inherent wealth or good neighborhoods, etc, when selection is randomized, that seemingly trivial component to success in contrast to the 'earned' percentage OF EACH candidate STILL favors statistically those with better luck. The logical example is clear and his guesses about why this occurs pychologically are both sound and highly plausible.


If you still disagree, then tell me, if given two candidates seeking a job have EQUAL qualifications for a job, say, as an electrician, which one of these would you hire?

Given the candidates are equally qualified, these are the secondary factors:

Candidate One:
-- owns a car
-- presently lives in a nice part of the city
-- expresses love for his mom referencing stable background
-- where's nice clothes and smells nice and clean
-- is tall

Candidate Two:
-- doesn't own a car
-- lives in a 'ghetto'-like neighborhood.
-- expresses being from a broken home
-- where's worn down unstylish clothes but smells like smoke
-- is short

This is oversimplified and although normally not 'legal' nowadays in most places to ask these questions in a formal written application, any interviewer would be capable of getting these pieces of information in the first meet without even necessarily intending to. I chose a variety of inherent factors, both genetic and environmental.

Which candidate would you hire and why NOT the other?
Scott Mayers
Posts: 2446
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am

Re: RCSaunders beliefs; offtopic aside...

Post by Scott Mayers »

RCSaunders wrote: Thu Mar 31, 2022 1:50 pm
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Thu Mar 31, 2022 4:09 am
RCSaunders wrote: Thu Mar 31, 2022 1:50 pm ...
Please see my article, "What I Don't Believe," posted on PN just for folks like you who make judgments about my beliefs without having the slightest idea what they are.
...
It's a good thing we have you to read minds and straighten everyone out about what their views are. Exactly what politcal views do I have? It would help if you could identify just one, or as many others as you can. Thanks!
Your apparent beliefs are resistant to interpretation. They are scattered claims of dissociation from ANY opinion. But you clearly have them in context to discussions that if compared to your listed lack of beliefs it is sure to be contradicted. We are thus forced to look at your particular posts in context to active discussions to judge from because your declared 'beliefs' are just themselves pychological means to dissociate your opinions by making them as 'formless' as possible (undeterminable and unpredictable.) I won't comment further since it should be done elsewhere if it wasn't done by others at your linked thread.
commonsense
Posts: 5115
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: Is Success Luck or Hard Work?...

Post by commonsense »

As an example of success, examine the professionals who practice medicine.

There are at least two kinds of individuals who go into medicine for a living: those who intend to make a lot of money so that they can buy nice things; and those who intend to treat as many patients as they can in impoverished areas.

They have the same career but different goals. Both would surely define success as the accomplishment of their individual goals, yet the specifics of success differ for each of them. The former’s success can be measured in dollars, the latter in the number of patients treated.

Their definitions of success depend on the goals each of them have set for themselves. There is no specific definition of success that can be applied to all individuals, just as there is no specific and universal set of goals.
Age
Posts: 20194
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Is Success Luck or Hard Work?...

Post by Age »

Scott Mayers wrote: Wed Mar 30, 2022 8:56 am
Age wrote: Tue Mar 29, 2022 9:01 am
Scott Mayers wrote: Tue Mar 29, 2022 6:58 am YouTube linked me to Veritasium's video, and I'm forwarding it here: "Is Success Luck or Hard Work?".

For all political discussions that go on here, this video presents a careful look at whether luck or effort matters more to one's success.
Is EVERY individual case of so-called 'success' the EXACT SAME, are they ALL DIFFERENT, or are there SOME cases that are the EXACT SAME and DIFFERENT?

One would HAVE TO PICK one example of so-called 'success', and then LOOK AT ALL of the circumstances that led up to that, perceived, 'success'.
Did Donald Trump 'succeed' in winning the last presidential election? According to him and his followers, he'd say "yes".
What has this got to do with the clarifying question I posed to you and/or to what I said and wrote here?

From as far as I can see and ascertain, what you said and wrote here has absolutely NOTHING AT ALL to do with what I just said and wrote here.
Scott Mayers wrote: Wed Mar 30, 2022 8:56 am But this discussion isn't talking about the illusion or delusion of 'success' but the illusion or delusion of one thinking they earned real success versus one's luck.
I KNOW. And, absolutely NOTHING AT ALL in what I was discussing even suggested otherwise, let alone said otherwise.

I even left it up to 'YOU' to provide examples of so-called 'success'. SEE, what 'one' refers to as 'success' is NOT 'success' to "another". Now, besides this POINT and OBVIOUS Fact, I have NOT said absolutely ANY 'thing' that you are thinking NOR believing here. In fact I was NOT even contemplating it. So, I will, ONCE AGAIN, suggest that instead of just ASSUMING I am saying or meaning some 'thing' you GAIN CLARITY FIRST.
Scott Mayers wrote: Wed Mar 30, 2022 8:56 am
Scott Mayers wrote: Tue Mar 29, 2022 6:58 am I already shared this view and have promoted all the ideas in parts of my own arguments everywhere. Veritasium did a better job at summarizing this and explains with scientific rationality.
What were 'your ideas' and 'arguments' regarding 'this'?
Scott Mayers wrote: Tue Mar 29, 2022 6:58 am What are your thoughts?
The human being known as "derek muller" comes across as confident in what 'it' is SAYING and CLAIMING. But, is this because "derek muller" ONLY does what 'it' does on 'youtube videos' for money and/or fame, which some class as and call 'success', or for other reasons or a combination of reasons?
Scott Mayers wrote: Tue Mar 29, 2022 6:58 am Did you CHANGE any view after watching?
Not really, but watching that video just made me recall those occurrences, which I had already previously realized were because of luck, of not being lucky, from what I had actually done/achieved, and/or from what I had actually not done/achieved.
That last sentence is confusing to me and your mental disassociation with humanity you seem to jump to when lacking anything valid to say is offputting.

Would you like to KNOW what I find 'off putting'?

Either way, it is when 'you', human beings, MAKE ASSUMPTIONS and JUMP to CONCLUSIONS BEFORE you GAIN ACTUAL CLARITY of what thee ACTUAL Truth IS FIRST.

Could it EVER be a POSSIBILITY that you PRECONCEPTION that I "LACK absolutely ANY thing AT ALL valid to say" is NOT ALLOWING you to LOOK AT and READ what I am CLEARLY WRITING, and ACTUALLY SAYING and MEANING here?

Could you be MAKING the ASSUMPTIONS and JUMPING to the CONCLUSIONS that I "have a mental disassociation with humanity"?

You even SAID that you found my last sentence CONFUSING. So, what this ACTUALLY MEANS IS, if you DO NOT ASK FOR CLARITY, then that last sentence of mine will FOREVER REMAIN CONFUSING to you, ALONE.

LOOK, 'you' ASKED; "Did you CHANGE ANY view after watching?"

I ANSWERED; 'Not really'.

THEN, I just EXPLAINED that watching that video just REMINDED me of past experiences WHEN I HAS ALREADY PREVIOUSLY NOTICED that the 'success' (or unluck) that I WAS having, at that THOSE moments, WAS because of my PREVIOUS 'luck' or my PREVIOUS 'hard work'.

That was ALL I was saying.

In, other words, I had ALREADY PREVIOUSLY 'thought' ABOUT what was being mentioned in that video. Thus, MY ANSWER of 'Not really'.

Really, how could you "find" that so CONFUSING.
Scott Mayers wrote: Wed Mar 30, 2022 8:56 am But....


As to MY shared agreement to Derek's, I've had a lifetime of living in a world that tells its children that anything and everything is literally possible and, where one's will is concerned, assured if one remains persistent, they CAN acheive anything. contradicts reality when people actually DO try but fail.
The REASON WHY they so-call "fail" is because they were NOT 'persistent' ENOUGH and/or did NOT REALLY WANT 'it' ENOUGH.

Name the 'things' that you would TELL children is NOT 'possible' to 'them'.

If you do NOT provide those EXAMPLES here, then there is, literally, NOTHING to discuss here.

Also, 'you', human beings, REALLY do NEED TO LOOK AT the ACTUAL WORDS that 'you' and 'I' USE here.

'you' wrote; "But this religious fantasy is the delusion that effectively contradicts reality when people actually DO try but fail."

NOW, I will leave it up to ANY of 'you' to NOTICE, and THEN POINT OUT, WHERE in that sentence, and thus WHY that sentence of 'yours' here, itself, CONTRADICTS its OWN 'self'.

Until then at least we now KNOW what your BELIEFS are, which is what 'you' are 'TRYING TO' 'argue' and 'fight' for here.
Scott Mayers wrote: Wed Mar 30, 2022 8:56 am The argument can be made identically by asking,
"Is Failure due to Bad Luck or to one Unwilling to Work for it?''
But to ask such a 'thing' could just BE ABSURD.

ALSO, WITHOUT EXAMPLES, which are VERY RARE from 'you', posters, here by the way, there is REALLY, and literally, NOTHING WHATSOEVER to LOOK AT and DISCUSS.
Scott Mayers wrote: Wed Mar 30, 2022 8:56 am While certainly if one is lazy, they are going to be less likely to succeed from earning it unless being lazy itself was the goal. But the presumption by those who 'win', as comparable to the thread on Putin's War against Ukraine, the winner alone decides what the 'facts' are.
Do you have ANY examples of when the so-called "winner" PRESUMED that the "winner" alone decides what the 'facts' ARE?

'Facts' to, well me anyway, are AGREED UPON and ACCEPTED. 'Facts', to me, have NEVER been DECIDED UPON by these so-called and alleged "winners". WHOEVER they may be?
Scott Mayers wrote: Wed Mar 30, 2022 8:56 am For those who 'win' (a type of 'success') the war, they get to decide what 'crimes' of their enemy exist.
Do 'they'?

And, WHO 'lets' 'them' DECIDE?
Scott Mayers wrote: Wed Mar 30, 2022 8:56 am In the same way, the 'successful' place no or little significance upon their own flaws and so intepret their 'wins' as EARNED and justified in the same way they would interpret the 'loser' as losing due to DESERVING it (That is, earning their demise).
Although there may be great deal of Truth in the way those human beings who class "themselves" as being so-called "successful" place no or little significance upon their own flaws and interpret their so-called "wins" or "success" as EARNED and "justified" in the same way they would interpret the so-called "loser" as losing due to DESERVING it (That is, earning their demise), I do NOT SEE 'this' as being the SAME WAY as what you were SAYING and CLAIMING in regards to so-called "winners" 'getting to decide' on what 'crimes' of the so-called "enemy" exist.

To me, these are two VERY DIFFERENT SPECIFIC 'things'.
Scott Mayers wrote: Wed Mar 30, 2022 8:56 am That is, they do not interpret the outcomes of all people involved as 'earning' it! Is that logically rational or sound?
ONCE AGAIN, it would ALL DEPEND UPON the VERY SPECIFIC DETAILS in EVERY SPECIFIC CASE, as OBVIOUSLY there would NOT BE and would NEVER BE two CASES that were EXACTLY the SAME.
Scott Mayers wrote: Wed Mar 30, 2022 8:56 am By contrast, the loser, like if Ukraine fails to Russia, would rationally recognize that the precondition of Russia's larger force due to better weapons of mass destruction was what made Russia 'win'.
WHERE is the PRESUMPTION that there IS a "loser" like if "ukraine falls to "russia"?

'you', adult human beings, REALLY DO HAVE the MOST NARROWED field of views.

WHO are 'you' going to SAY ARE "the losers" here?
Scott Mayers wrote: Wed Mar 30, 2022 8:56 am This is the "LUCK" factor. Or would you interpret whomever wins the war as 'earning' their success?
I have NEVER observed a human being NOR human beings EVER so-call "winning" ANY WAR.

To me TALKING ABOUT 'winning' or 'losing' in regards to 'WAR' is just IDIOTIC and downright ABSURD.

Thinking of 'success' in relation to 'WAR', to me, is just BEYOND ABSOLUTE STUPIDITY.

How could ANY human being SEE that human beings KILLING human beings, or KILLING just one human being, as being 'success'?
Scott Mayers wrote: Wed Mar 30, 2022 8:56 am Is Ukraine not 'unlucky' for lacking the same muscle power that Russia has? If so, is Russia's success not relatively 'lucky' by contrast?
I would be VERY SURPRISED if the one who was presenting that video EVER had 'war' in 'their' thinking in regards to 'success', and 'luck' OR 'hard work'.
Scott Mayers wrote: Wed Mar 30, 2022 8:56 am Also, the Ukrainians are still 'working hard' to win (not lose) even against the odds.
What could the people of "ukraine" possibly 'win' here, in YOUR examples here?
Scott Mayers wrote: Wed Mar 30, 2022 8:56 am So if (or 'when') they lose, would it be due to their LACK of 'working hard'?
REALLY, was there absolutely ANY 'thing' in that video, which STARTED this DISCUSSION, absolutely ANY 'thing' in regards to 'WAR' and 'winning/success'?

If yes, then WHERE was 'that part'?
Scott Mayers wrote: Wed Mar 30, 2022 8:56 am No doubt the Russians would nevertheless interpret their 'hard work' as futile afterthefact. And what will you think Putin would think once he wins?
I NEVER 'think' ANY one 'wins' IN WAR.

So, I could NOT 'think' what will "vladimir putin" think " once "he" so-call "wins" ". Do you UNDERSTAND 'this'. Or, do you "find" 'this' CONFUSING ALSO?
Scott Mayers wrote: Wed Mar 30, 2022 8:56 am Would he chalk it up to just 'luck'? Or do you think he 'earned' the right to rule over Ukraine?
Absolutely NO one has a 'right' to BLOW UP and KILL "other" human beings. Just as absolutely NO one has a 'right' to BLOW UP and DESTROY 'property'.

This is my view anyway. But, if 'you', adult human beings, THINK or SEE DIFFERENTLY, then so be it.
Age
Posts: 20194
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Is Success Luck or Hard Work?...

Post by Age »

RCSaunders wrote: Tue Mar 29, 2022 3:24 pm
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Tue Mar 29, 2022 7:33 am How are you defining 'success'? Would that be the American definition i.e. how much money you have?
That's your definition. I didn't know you were an American.

I know a few people in America. None of them define success in terms of money at all. How many Americans do you know who have that opinion?
How do those human beings actually define 'success' then?
RCSaunders wrote: Tue Mar 29, 2022 3:24 pm [Pardon me, but your prejudices are showing.]
Age
Posts: 20194
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Is Success Luck or Hard Work?...

Post by Age »

Scott Mayers wrote: Wed Mar 30, 2022 6:12 am
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Tue Mar 29, 2022 7:33 am How are you defining 'success'? Would that be the American definition i.e. how much money you have?
The linked youTube video wasn't sufficient context? "Success" is understood to be to acheive ones' personal goals, regardless of what they are. Given money, or rather, 'worth', is the most common measure we can share, "success" is often related to it and suffices as a standard to measure other forms of success in general.
Thus, the REASON WHY adult human beings, in the days when this was being written, REALLY did have a SKEWED, TWISTED, and DISTORTED view and perception of 'things'.
Scott Mayers wrote: Wed Mar 30, 2022 6:12 am People who generally 'succeed' by some predisposed economic advantage ('luck' in the video) tend to tell others that 'success' is earned by one's virtue (hard work). But they are projecting what they want you to think of their own success: as though it is unrelated to accident nor their predisposed wealth.
Absolutely ANY one who 'thinks' or 'believes' that they have become 'rich', 'wealthy', or 'successful' from so-called ''hard work'', when their WHOLE job is to just 'think', then they have NOT only DELUDED "themselves" ABSOLUTELY, but they have also MANIPULATED and DELUDED ANY one else who 'thinks' or 'believes' the same.

'thinking' is NOT, and I will repeat, IS NOT 'hard work'.

In fact, human beings who run companies from just 'thinking' should get FAR LESS monetary rewards than the human beings who ACTUALLY ARE DOING ALL of the (real) WORK.

Building and creating 'things' CAN BE 'hard work'. Creating IDEAS is NOT 'hard work' AT ALL. Just like creating IDEAS of HOW TO build and create 'things' is NOT 'hard work'.

While we are here talking about the monetary rich and wealthy, absolutely ANY one who 'thinks' or 'believes' that those people with unfathomable amounts of money are also NOT greedy because they 'give away' millions of dollars, for example, in "donations", they they too have been ABSOLUTELY MANIPULATED and are also absolutely DELUDED.

If ANY one CAN live on $2 a day, then absolutely EVERY one CAN. So, ANY one who HAS more than $2 every day CAN 'give away' ALL of that extra money and this does NOT make 'them' a generous person. After all 'they' did NOT 'need' it ANYWAY.

In fact, if ANY person KEEPS MORE than the $2 that they NEED to live, then that MAKES that person a GREEDY and SELFISH person.
Scott Mayers
Posts: 2446
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am

Re: Is Success Luck or Hard Work?...

Post by Scott Mayers »

commonsense wrote: Thu Mar 31, 2022 8:08 pm As an example of success, examine the professionals who practice medicine.

There are at least two kinds of individuals who go into medicine for a living: those who intend to make a lot of money so that they can buy nice things; and those who intend to treat as many patients as they can in impoverished areas.

They have the same career but different goals. Both would surely define success as the accomplishment of their individual goals, yet the specifics of success differ for each of them. The former’s success can be measured in dollars, the latter in the number of patients treated.

Their definitions of success depend on the goals each of them have set for themselves. There is no specific definition of success that can be applied to all individuals, just as there is no specific and universal set of goals.
You cannot rule out those doctors who appear to be merely compassionate as not interested in the money OR they would demonstrate this. More often, however, those who EXCEED with MORE excess wealth than normal will tend to make so much money with such ease that their POWER to BE compassionate is something they feel guilty about. Thus, you get someone like Bill Gates' volunteering to give away half his wealth afterthefact. What RISK does a wealthy person have to NOT be philantrophic to some degree.

Note that...
New York University (NYU) NYU's School of Medicine was a pioneer among medical schools to offer tuition-free initiatives. It announced in August 2018 that it would become the first nationally-ranked program to waive tuition and fees for all students, regardless of their financial situation or academic record.
This was based upon a recognition of excess profiteering in medicine directly or indirectly and their recognition of bias to things like biases in the field to favor the children of wealthy families who pass on the same only to their own kind. The compassion is worthy of encouraging but note that this SAVES wealthy parents the tuition also where needed.

How could you determine which people are doing so out of mere 'compassion'? They should have some statistic demonstrating such doctors who 'succeed' in their degree who are intentionally 'poor' or who gives all they gain away to NON-family related people and causes.

If this isn't enough, interpret this debate to be, "Are the Wealthy Lucky or Deserving (Earned their wealth)"
I don't get the distraction to the definiton of 'success' as though the context wasn't sufficiently clear. But if you think that this more particular statement doesn't IMPLY 'success', then reinterpret and respond to this as,

"Do the Poor Earn their poverty or are they just simply Unlucky"

It's the same fucking question. Who cares if Grandma's idea of 'success' is to pull weeds in her garden? And if some professional VOLUNTEERS their services as you gave for an example, it is equally irrelevant other than to note that they are most likely sufficiently wealthy beyond the normal person INHERENTLY.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Is Success Luck or Hard Work?...

Post by RCSaunders »

Scott Mayers wrote: Thu Mar 31, 2022 5:23 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Thu Mar 31, 2022 1:43 pm
Scott Mayers wrote: Tue Mar 29, 2022 6:58 am
To begin the discussion on the question: Is Success Luck or Hard Work?, which is actually an interesting question, philosophically relating several fundamental views regarding the nature of man (what is success for a human being and what is required to achieve it?) the nature of values (what determines success relative to what objective or purpose?) and what is work? I think the question is intriguing.

But apparently the objective of the poster of the question is not to pursue an objective discussion of the question as stated at all. The poster begins the discussion with these words:
For all political discussions that go on here, ...
and obviously the purpose of the thread is not to discuss the question suggested by the title at all, but to promote a particular social/political view based on specific social/economic theory.

There is nothing wrong with anyone promoting their views on politics or economics. It is dishonest to present one's personal specific view of an issue or question as though it were the whole or only view. It is dishonest, for example, for a Muslim to talk about religion by which he only means Islam, or a Vegan to talk about diet but by that word only refer to a vegan diet (automatically excluding all others), or for an ethicist to talk about ethics meaning altruism implying altruism is the only ethical view, and it is wrong to talk about success or work while defining them only in the context of one's own private social/political views.

The very first question on this thread was, "How are you defining 'success'? because that was the obvious question and the one to be discussed. Unfortunately I have been informed that my interest in an objective discussion of the question is not welcome. That's too bad.
I AM the author of this thread! This IS also a discussion used to relate to POLITICAL discussions elsewhere that many of us participate in or watch. But this discussion is NOT based upon politics directly but to the logic and social-psychology that lends force to why we pick particular political ideologies. This argument then demonstrates that those who self-declare themselves as "successful" tend to delude themselves into thinking they live in a fantastically independent bubble in which they OWN their achievements without any help from others. THAT is a delusion and the one to which the conservative of capitalist-prioritized systems falsely self-interpret themselves.

I did NOT ask how you define 'success' because it is implicit from the linked video that it is comparing the POLITICAL ECONOMIC predispositions we share and so the concern withing politics regards those who are wealthy at one extreme versus those who are impoverished. The 'conservative' wealthy will argue that they 'earned' their success and so diminish the significance of inheritance factors even though they actually DO depend upon such inheritance.

In contrast, the poor defend "social" justice for this INHERENT factor's tendency to bias against those who initiate from impoverished states (inherit poverty....which is equivalent to inheriting DEBT!) Because deluding ourselves is social-psychologically sound practice for all animals in motivation, the video also argues how and why contrary to the facts of inherent imbalances, both extremes require 'deluding' themselves pychologically but differ upon the significance of one's perspective: For the wealthy, they delude themselves for falsely interpreting that their predisposed advantages as unrelated to their wealth; For the poor, they HAVE to delude themselves that there is 'hope', at least for motivation or the reflected doom of their statistical odds of likely failure could cripple their lottery odds for refusing to buy a ticket!

The point then is that this video demonstrates how and why it is true that we succeed more by the 'luck' as referencing one's predisposed advantages, often relatable by looking at their roots, such as one's parents' wealth they are born into, the neighborhood they grew up in, whether one's guardian class is made up of generations of poverty or wealth, including any social biases attributed to race or sex that amplify their likelihood to fail when poor but to succeed when richer.

He logically demonstrated this by beginning with a pool of presumed equivalent candidates for an example space program position in which there are far more applicants but few positions. When all candidates are equally qualified, those deciding who gets to BE hired will then require using some other standard to narrow this down. They COULD use a lottery (and some do) or, more often, they use their own personality biases to determine who gets to 'succeed' (get the job). The bias proves favorable then to the quality of those hiring the astronauts. If you are a Jew from a nice neighborhood and economically 'independent' relative to an applicant, the ones who match to being Jewish and from a similar neighborhood with shared familiar economic backgrounds will then be favored for the limited positions available.

This is logical but Derrick (sp?), the author, took some extra step in showing how even BEGINNING with 'luck' factors undefined, like inherent wealth or good neighborhoods, etc, when selection is randomized, that seemingly trivial component to success in contrast to the 'earned' percentage OF EACH candidate STILL favors statistically those with better luck. The logical example is clear and his guesses about why this occurs pychologically are both sound and highly plausible.


If you still disagree, then tell me, if given two candidates seeking a job have EQUAL qualifications for a job, say, as an electrician, which one of these would you hire?

Given the candidates are equally qualified, these are the secondary factors:

Candidate One:
-- owns a car
-- presently lives in a nice part of the city
-- expresses love for his mom referencing stable background
-- where's nice clothes and smells nice and clean
-- is tall

Candidate Two:
-- doesn't own a car
-- lives in a 'ghetto'-like neighborhood.
-- expresses being from a broken home
-- where's worn down unstylish clothes but smells like smoke
-- is short

This is oversimplified and although normally not 'legal' nowadays in most places to ask these questions in a formal written application, any interviewer would be capable of getting these pieces of information in the first meet without even necessarily intending to. I chose a variety of inherent factors, both genetic and environmental.

Which candidate would you hire and why NOT the other?
If you don't want my comments, stop throwing your collectivist political swill at me.

There is no such thing as an honest politician (and I believe there is a mental defect in anyone who takes any aspect of politics seriously), especially when they cannot think of anything except in terms of politics or some political ideology. Who the hell is this, "we," you keep talking about. It does not include me.

Every individual is what they choose to be and make of themselves. Nothing, "makes," anyone choose anything, not their genetics, culture, ethnic background, gender, education, economic status, or anything else. If one is a crook (such as a politician or any other government employee living on other people's money confiscated from them by taxes, including every, law enforcement agent and school teacher) it's what they chose to be.

I know you'll see that as a judgement, but I only meant it as an honest description of what someone is. Most people love the crooks who steal their money and tell them what to do, go to rallies to support them and send them money to support the campaigns, which is fine with me. I do not choose to have anything to do with such people, personally, because is see no advantage whatsoever in supporting anyone whose only interest in me is stealing my money and telling me how to live my life. I have no objection to you, or anyone else doing that if you like and would never attempt to interfere in your choice to do so. I suspect, if you were able, you would prevent me from explaining why I wouldn't do that, however; but I would never stop you from promoting your absurd political agenda.
Post Reply