[vinceguidry]

The author doesn't want to treat Chan's insistence on his account being an inspirational one and just wants to see it as sad.

I'm reminded of a Quora answer by a guy who loved fighting, one phrase he used stuck out at me. "Great fighters have to kind of like getting hit."

You can't push your body to its very limits without getting injured. Planning and preparing for it is not sad, it's smart. Chan's account should be taken at face value. It is inspirational for all the reasons he thinks it is.

I mean, sure, it would be way better if Hong Kong weren't the colonial hell-hole it was. Chan rose above that and made a noticeable dent in the world. If he could do it in the situation he grew up in, anyone can.

As the Brits like to say, Chan and his story are exactly what it says on the tin. To say it's not demeans Chan and his life and his choices.

[karmelapple]

> "Great fighters have to kind of like getting hit."

I'd generalize it to: "Great craftspeople have to kind of like the part of their craft that is unpleasant to 99% of the population."

Someone who excels at playing violin, writing computer software, public speaking, etc., generally does not find the "unpleasant" part to be "tiring", "boring", or "work". Instead, it's just part of the overall experience, which is a net positive.

When I was younger, I had a classmate who's an excellent violin player. Her practice schedule sounded awful to me, with well over an hour spent even on weekdays. I played musical instruments, too, and I liked a little practice, but rarely more than 30 minutes in a day.

I asked the violin player about this schedule, and the way she answered the question made it clear that practicing didn't seem unpleasant, or like "work," like it would to many other people. It was something she truly enjoyed.

Similar things can be applied to software development and liking the idea of investigating obtuse error messages and things breaking without any clear root cause.

[_hardwaregeek]

Yeah, I'm a little skeptical of CS schools that try to shelter their students from suffering. While schools should obviously not attempt to break students, there should be a reasonable crescendo of difficulty within the program. Because, well, software development can be hard. Students that don't like the hard parts don't like software development. This doesn't mean insanely hard "weed-out" classes, but simply projects that reflect the difficulty and demand of the real world.

[shagie]

At some point I was introduced to "Find The Hard Work You're Willing To Do" - http://www.cs.uni.edu/%7Ewallingf/blog/archives/monthly/2018...

I think this is an important bit that a lot of people getting into programming don't realize. Many enjoy the "playing with computers" aspect. Some even enjoy writing new code. But the real test is do you enjoy fixing broken code?

The article ends with:

> Maybe this is what people mean when they tell us to "find our passion", but that phrase seems pretty abstract to me. Maybe instead we should encourage people to find the hard problems they like to work on. Which problems do you want to keep working on, even when they turn out to be harder than you expected? Which kinds of frustration do you enjoy, or at least are willing to endure while you figure things out? Answers to these very practical questions might help you find a place where you can build an interesting and rewarding life.

> I realize that "Find your passion" makes for a more compelling motivational poster than "What hard problems do you enjoy working on?" (and even that's a lot better than "What kind of pain are you willing to endure?"), but it might give some people a more realistic way to approach finding their life's work.

--

Another article that I love is Programming Sucks ( https://www.stilldrinking.org/programming-sucks )

This one starts with:

> Every friend I have with a job that involves picking up something heavier than a laptop more than twice a week eventually finds a way to slip something like this into conversation: “Bro, you don’t work hard. I just worked a 4700-hour week digging a tunnel under Mordor with a screwdriver.”

> They have a point. Mordor sucks, and it’s certainly more physically taxing to dig a tunnel than poke at a keyboard unless you’re an ant. But, for the sake of the argument, can we agree that stress and insanity are bad things? Awesome. Welcome to programming.

--

This "What kinds of frustration do you enjoy" I believe is a stumbling block for many people looking to enter the work force. I've encountered people in the past who love writing code but hate debugging.

[yesenadam]

I didn't realize anyone likes fixing broken code, debugging, or - from reading HN - what seems like what most professional programmers spend most of their time doing, inheriting a huge broken mess of old software and having to come to understand it and clean it up somewhat. I don't remember reading/hearing anyone say they actually like it.

edit: Nice to hear it!

[taneq]

Finding and diagnosing bugs is annoying. Actually fixing them is super satisfying though. Same with cleaning up old crusty code, figuring out wtf it's meant to be doing is painful but turning it into clear clean well-factored efficient code is satisfying.

[nkingsy]

Debugging is the best. It feels so good when you stop hitting yourself in the face.

Inheriting a huge mess is harder to love, but refactoring payoffs are huge.

What I will never do again is inherit a huge buggy mess and a boss that wants you to add 5 features to it by the end of the week.

[mcv]

I do. I love hunting down bugs and leaving the code better than it was. I've done some memorable refactorings of terrible code. It feels weird to say I like it, but I kinda do.

[ianmcgowan]

I love debugging, but only with access to the code. It gets frustrating to track a problem to some black box library, and then have to stop.

[notyourwork]

Any program not challenging your ability as an undergrad to implement something beyond your current skill is doing their students a disservice.

[aasasd]

AKA “We hackers do for love what others wouldn't do for money.”

[skookumchuck]

I'm reminded of fighter pilots: "I can't believe I'm being paid to fly!"

[pmarreck]

Can't think of something that must be more thrilling than piloting a fighter aircraft.

Sadly I was too tall/big (I did a stint in the USAF, once...) Most fighter aircraft are designed for small to medium size fit men up to a maximum of 6'... I was 6'3" and slightly overweight

[monk_e_boy]

It does look fun. But there are other sports that push the excitement envelope.

I kitesurf. You can pick up the F1 of kites for around a grand. It's like being tied to an F1 car. Or go surfing, tech and shapes haven't changed for a few decades. So boards are cheap. Paddle out when it's big. That's a lot of water sloshing around. Being trapped out back on a big day is truly terrifying. And the only way in is to surf one of those waves. Makes my bum-hole tingle just thinking about it.

[pmarreck]

> Great craftspeople have to kind of like the part of their craft that is unpleasant to 99% of the population

Fixing bugs and refactoring. They have their perks.

[SmellyGeekBoy]

These are two of my favourite things about programming! I wouldn't consider myself "great" or a "craftsperson" though. Maybe I should.

[pmarreck]

Refactoring is a pleasure for me IF AND ONLY IF there is a decent unit test/functional test suite for whatever I'm working on!

There's a funny perk to bughunting... the amount of time it can take is nondeterministic so you can take breaks during it (they help you find the root cause, anyway, by clearing your head) and nobody will complain. "I'm thinking about the bug! Backburner debugging!"

[the_duke]

One hour is nothing, many professional musicians practice many hours a day, each day.

[NeoBasilisk]

>If he could do it in the situation he grew up in, anyone can.

This is a terrible mindset to have.

[isoskeles]

It's not as if the converse here is, "If a person doesn't succeed, then they did not deserve it." Is that the reason you have a problem with this mindset? I think of most alternatives as being fatalist / victim mentality, where you think you're an object that the universe does things to.

What mindset do you propose people have when they want to achieve something exceptionally difficult?

[Cpoll]

"If I can win the lottery, anyone can" indeed. Does that technically fall under survivorship bias? (Which isn't to say that Chan _just_ got lucky, just that it's a combination of luck, skill, upbringing, disposition, opportunity...)

[grecy]

You forgot the three most important things, which are 10,000 times more important than the ones you listed.

Hard work, hard work and hard work.

[sirmarksalot]

Necessary but not sufficient.

[kkarakk]

what about jackie chan's life story screams luck and people handing him things coz he was handsome to you? literally all he did was hard work

[MagnumOpus]

The part that screams luck is that for every hard working Jackie Chan there are ten -- or more likely a hundred -- people just as talented and working just as hard, who didn't become multimillionaire A-list celebrities.

Which is why the parent poster said hard work is necessary but not sufficient.

[magic_beans]

But it IS sad. Jackie Chan is one -- ONE -- success story in a pool of what must be thousands of boys who will never see success and will always be poor and uneducated.

I was honestly shocked to learn how little Jackie Chan is educated -- and how little he wants to be -- despite his tremendous wealth.

[oarabbus_]

>I'm reminded of a Quora answer by a guy who loved fighting, one phrase he used stuck out at me. "Great fighters have to kind of like getting hit."

Floyd Mayweather disputes this.

[jdietrich]

It's not always terribly exciting to watch, but Mayweather's pathological aversion to getting punched is certainly effective.

[mac01021]

Never thought I'd hear an aversion to being punched described as pathological.

[dmoy]

Most boxers will trade punches a lot more. Floyd just apparently figured out that total defense is better.

[MisterOctober]

Indeed -- taking into account the recent revelations about CTE and related issues, Mayweather's "I believe in taking as little punishment as is possible" approach seems to me well-considered.

[SmellyGeekBoy]

Who'd have thought that being repeatedly punched in the head would have negative long-term health implications?

[stcredzero]

I mean, sure, it would be way better if Hong Kong weren't the colonial hell-hole it was.

In what sense is Hong Kong a colonial hell-hole? (Take this not as a challenge, but as a question from someone who is unfamiliar with the idea.) Is there an underclass trapped there? Do the people in it feel trapped?

[k9s9]

I am glad you used the word trapped - https://www.nationalgeographic.com/photography/proof/2017/07...

[the_af]

Wow! Eye-opening. Thanks for posting it.

[snapetom]

That photo essay is from 2017 and addresses the ridiculously high real estate prices of Hong Kong. Colonialism isn't to blame for that. Globalism is.

Colonial Hong Kong certainly wasn't all rosy. There was certainly vast inequity, but that had to do with global trends of poverty and essentially being almost a second-world economy at the time. Growing up in colonial Hong Kong was alright. Definitely not a "colonial hell-hole" which I find to be incredibly offensive.

[dwd]

Maybe not Hong Kong as a whole, but the Kowloon Walled City might fit the bill. Make's Rio's favelas look positively open and airy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kowloon_Walled_City

It was the most densely populated place in the world prior to being demolished and dubbed the "City of Darkness".

[stcredzero]

essentially being almost a second-world economy at the time

The original meaning of "second-world" was "behind the iron curtain." Hong Kong's being physically close to communist China might have had certain effects.

Growing up in colonial Hong Kong was alright. Definitely not a "colonial hell-hole" which I find to be incredibly offensive.

As far as I know, Hong Kong is simultaneously wonderful and horrible in the same way New York City and SF are simultaneously wonderful and horrible, only more so in both directions. Given my experiences apartment hunting in SF, and other information, I'd guess that some SF housing would go almost to the same place, were it not for regulations. I've heard of a former housing regulator using his inside knowledge to convert entire houses into tiny "almost" studio apartments, which are technically still rooms.

The article reads like a subliminal hit piece against Jackie Chan.

[the_af]

Thanks for the clarification. I didn't think this was caused by colonialism (for the record, I think it's caused by unchecked capitalism rather than "globalism").

> Definitely not a "colonial hell-hole" which I find to be incredibly offensive.

It does sound offensive. The article doesn't even try to argue this, either. Those aren't my words either, since I know next to nothing about colonial Hong Kong.

[stcredzero]

More housing regulation would prevent some of the coffin sized bedrooms. I'm not sure if human dignity would be increased or decreased in that case, if such regulation would cause more homelessness.

[vinceguidry]

It was described in the article. A lot of economic activity there is only a few steps removed from human trafficking. And I'm sure a lot of that goes on there as well, but it's hard to track for obvious reasons.

[stcredzero]

I just read the article, and I didn't see any mention of human trafficking. The Hong Kong opera school is described as indentured servitude.

And I'm sure a lot of that goes on there as well, but it's hard to track for obvious reasons.

I think that summarizes the constant emotional undertones in this article. This article strikes me as a deliberate re-spinning of a story meant to be triumphal, making it the sneakiest hit piece, ever, disguised as a think piece. I would think better of it, were it not for its reliance on such common knowledge preconceptions about "what the Chinese are like."

(Also the French and the British. But that is just what upper-crusty people are like. Human beings are highly hierarchical, and this expresses itself in even the most hardline Marxist states. Even some of the west coast philosopher kings and queens who hang out in places like Big Sur can look down their noses at people with almost no information to prompt it.)

[vinceguidry]

> The Hong Kong opera school is described as indentured servitude.

Which is considered by many to be a form of human trafficking. Just because you signed a contract doesn't mean you shouldn't be able to get out of it. I'm not entirely certain where to draw the line.

[alistairSH]

Particularly in the case of a minor, who has no say in the contract. Chan was sold into servitude while most of were still in primary school. The way I read it, he wasn't able to break free until his early-20s.

[stcredzero]

Particularly in the case of a minor, who has no say in the contract.

Wasn't the contract entered into by his parents?

The way I read it, he wasn't able to break free until his early-20s.

Was he kept under lock and key by armed guards willing to main or kill him to keep him from escaping? Or did he primarily think of it as working through a contract his parents had signed him up for?

[stcredzero]

> The Hong Kong opera school is described as indentured servitude.

Which is considered by many to be a form of human trafficking.

My own family history has a lot to do with indentured servitude. If you watch Korean historical dramas, you'll find the condition described as being a "servant" but at other times, the same condition will be described as being a "slave."

In terms of being signed up as minors, exactly how do you draw the line? I went to a boarding school where they didn't let us off school grounds without getting leave.

Just because you signed a contract doesn't mean you shouldn't be able to get out of it. I'm not entirely certain where to draw the line.

How about physical coercion? Did 19 year old Jackie Chan consider himself a slave? Was he kept in a place through physical coercion and torture? Did he dream of jailbreaking himself out of his barracks and wire-cutting the fence and running to freedom while being chased by guards prepared to main or shoot him? Or was he thinking of it as working through a contractual debt?

The line should be firmly held at physical coercion. As always, there will be people who skirt the lines by coming up with things that have the same effect, but which are "technically not coercion."

[vinceguidry]

> In terms of being signed up as minors, exactly how do you draw the line?

I think minors need to be free to follow the wishes of their parents who are free to exercise authority as guardians. Interfering with that should be a human rights violation. But if the parents wish to send their kids to a boarding school, that has a long history of being a successful way of providing children with an education.

If Chan was sold into servitude by his parents, I think that's de facto slavery, you can't sell the personal autonomy of another person, not even your children.

> How about physical coercion?

Certainly. But there might be trickery involved as well, which should be considered criminal. If I offered you a well-paying job in Dubai, then when you got there told you you were only going to get paid a tenth and further charged you exorbitant rates for food and lodging, that should absolutely be considered trafficking.

I don't have all the answers. But certainly there's more to it than what we'd call kidnapping.

[phs318u]

> The line should be firmly held at physical coercion.

I disagree. Mental coercion is a thing. Also, children (and often adults too) don't have the knowledge that there exist alternatives i.e. that they have choices. Denying people that knowledge removes their agency. In the case of children they look to their parents as providers - not just of nurture but of knowledge. They trust them and often accept without question. Should instinct be seen as a failure on the child's part or a conscious agreement/submission to the conditions they are subjected to? If so, then whole areas of jurisprudence concerning minors will have to be re-written.

EDIT: spelling: their/there

[Hasknewbie]

"This article strikes me as a deliberate re-spinning of a story meant to be triumphal"

^ This right here.

There are many things to say about the damages caused by colonialism, but complaining that it's not covered in a book about Chan (who got immensely successful), in Hong Kong (which became very wealthy) in the 1960/70s (while the rest of China was basically burning down) misses the mark. There is a historical context that is quite specific to Hong Kong: the majority of its population actually moved there post-WW2 to escape the troubles on the mainland. Moreover before its decades of unrest, China had been ruled by the Qing, whom most Chinese considered to also be colonisers (the Qing were Manchus who imposed their customs on the Han Chinese majority), so in that regards the British were not some sort of uniquely evil rulers, they were yet another bunch of invaders, who happened to be slightly less violent than the other ones next door.

I think that's why Chan ignored the colonialist angle: it's kind of hard to hate on a city if your family willingly moved there. And yes there is hardship and injustice, but in the rest of China people are either getting purged or are literally dying of hunger. I believe his apolitical view of that era is quite common amongst his generation: yep HK was ruled by some foreigners for a while, next chapter please.

There are some Brits who would tell you that HK developed "thanks to" the UK (I am of the opinion that when a colonised city surpasses even the UK's GDP without being granted any meaningful democratic rights, they succeeded despite your rule, not because of it). This article takes the opposite position but still implies the same thing, that Hong-Kongers were victims with little agency, which I find patronizing when in reality they where a city of refugees who brilliantly navigated a difficult era. Likewise presenting Chan's physical trauma as representative of Hong-Kong's development strikes me as completely off. Lots and lots of people accessed the middle and upper class in the 70s and 80s. Most of them were not stuntmen, it turns out. I must say this is the first Western review I see of this book, and it's the first one that brings colonialism up seemingly out of nowhere. There is a little bit of "Chan's story is not really about him, it's about... us! the Western people" euro-centrism here, IMHO.

Also, since everyone is naming their favourite Jackie Chan movie, have a look at Project A and Project A2, they're a lot of fun (A2 actually tackles some colonialism-related topics in passing).

[darkpuma]

> "I am of the opinion that when a colonised city surpasses even the UK's GDP without being granted any meaningful democratic rights, they succeeded despite your rule, not because of it)."

Democracy is often cited as economically advantageous, but as Singapore demonstrates, authoritarian dictatorships are not necessarily fated to economic ruination. Sometimes authoritarian dictatorships do better than they would have under democratic rule. The trick to democracy is the results are more consistently in the middle; it's not as likely to go catastrophically wrong, but it's also not as likely to go spectacularly well. That's why we generally prefer it; it's the same reason we generally prefer compensation in the form of paychecks instead of lottery tickets. Sometimes people who play the lottery win, and sometimes authoritarian governments are effective governments.

Hong Kong during the colonial era might be another example of an non-democratic regime actually performing well. Or maybe not, I don't really know. It's hard to run a "parallel Hong-Kong experiment" to find out for sure.

[kelnos]

I read it perhaps a little simpler: the author likes Chan as a performer, but is disappointed that Chan has turned out to be a vocal, anti-democratic supporter of the Chinese Communist Party, and a critic of present-day Hong Kong (as well as Taiwan, which is of course no surprise given where his loyalties lie). I sympathize and agree with that disappointment -- the quoted jab Chan makes at Taiwan especially bothered me, as it's one of my favorite countries to visit -- but agree that twisting Chan's memoir the way he has just goes too far.

[scrumbledober]

i think the language was ambiguous but he was referring to hte past of Hong Kong, not currently.

[the_af]

He is referring to the colonial Hong Kong described in the article, where there was indeed an underclass and racial discrimination and problems (even if, as the article claims, the British employed a "lighter touch" in Hong Kong than in India).

[larrydag]

I've often heard of BUDS Navy Seal training that its not IF you break a bone or get hurt its WHEN. I agree it takes a certain personality.

[darkpuma]

I've heard people say similar things about SERE school (e.g. "they're allowed to break one of your bones"). It's not true.

[madeuptempacct]

Anyone who thinks you can go through BUDS/RASP/RIP/Q-Course/whatever injured and "fight through it" is a delusional fanboy. The reality is that it has very little to do with willpower and everything to do with your physical condition before the course and your genetic potential.

If you get hurt, you are out, and you are checking gates for 12 hours a day or go regular infantry. Yes, there are second chances, but that's another story.

[fao_]

all of your stuff for at least the last month has been shadowbanned. idk why.

[yesenadam]

It seemed to start after sctb said "We've banned this account for repeatedly breaking the guidelines and ignoring our requests to stop." 37 days ago.

[fao_]

Makes sense. I missed that when I was skimming through their history :c

[madeuptempacct]

Thanks for the heads up. I have no idea why either, but I appreciate knowing.

[dwd]

Chan mentions the great Sammo Hung who was also in the troupe and credits him with getting him out and started in films. The two of them hired many of their fellow students over the years.

Sammo starred as the master in a film about the school

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Painted_Faces

[maldusiecle]

Man, believe whatever you like, but it's pretty obvious that there are a lot of people who were in Chan's miserable situation--indentured servitude, endless hours, extreme poverty--and worked hard and weren't able to become, you know, Jackie Chan.

It sort of stands to reason that it has to be that way, too, for the whole system to work. Chan is able to be the celebrity that he is, specifically because there's only one of him; if there were dozens or hundreds of people like him, he wouldn't have the same kind of fame. Celebrity depends on singularity.

It's absolute nonsense to say that "If he could do it...anyone can"; it's demeaning and cruel to the many people who were, like him, stuck in a terrible situation, but didn't have his good luck in getting out.

[vinceguidry]

It's not demeaning and cruel to his fellow countrymen. They are what sustain him. Chan is somewhat popular in the West, but he's a veritable god in the East, like Manny Pacquiao is to Filipinos.

You are the one demeaning the people there. Chan is the one inspiring them.

It's silly to think that everybody in Hong Kong is going to compare themselves to Jackie Chan and lament that they won't be able to do what he does. He's inspirational because he shows that you don't have to define yourself by your station in life and can change it. Chan is just the most visible symbol of it, but you can see similar stories all across the country.

Your daughter getting inspired by princesses isn't cruel because she'll never be able to be a princess. She can become more like a particular princess she likes, adopting personality traits and learning to think like her.

[dbingham]

I think what the previous commenter was reacting to in your post was not your defense of Chan an his memoir as inspirational, per se, but rather the specific phrase "If he can do it anyone can" as ignoring the fact that Chan -- and celebrities like him -- are extreme outliers, and extremely lucky for their success. Yes, Chan worked his ass off. But to have the success he did, he also had to have an insane amount of luck.

Using phrases like that excuses a system that keeps people oppressed by pointing to the outliers who manage to escape them. It's the old "lift yourself up by your bootstraps" argument.

We should recognize and change the system, not point people to the outliers and say "See, you can do it too!"

Chan's memoir can be inspirational, but we can also read into it - as the article does - and recognize the oppressive system and his luck in escaping it.

[ethbro]

The greatest challenge to overcome is disbelief that you can do something.

Heroes have a place, precisely because they inspire.

I get what you're saying, but in any system having an aspirational role model is a benefit!

[throwawaymath]

> The greatest challenge to overcome is disbelief that you can do something.

I'm deeply skeptical of this. I don't want to assume your background, so please don't take offense to this. But I can only imagine someone is able to seriously believe this if they've never had anything more challenging than their own self-actualization and ambition.

You can (and should) believe in yourself as fiercely as you'd like! But the blunt reality is that hunger, poverty, disease and a lack of familial support structure will break you down unless you're astronomically lucky. If the most difficult thing stopping you from achieving your goals is your own belief in your ability to do it, you're in an exceptionally privileged position.

I think we miss the forest for the trees on HN quite a lot. The modal commenter here is most likely to be affluent with respect to their local environment and wealthy with respect to the world. We don't often have people commenting here to share experiences of the real obstacles someone like Jackie Chan had to deal with growing up.

[ethbro]

I would argue the opposite (that self-belief is the hardest challenge in those in objectively bad circumstances), precisely because of what you phrase as '[these things] will break you down unless you're astronomically lucky.'

The manner in which they break most people down is by circumscribing ambition and self confidence.

A large part of my family goes into the hills of dirt poor mining Appalachia, so I wouldn't say I'm speaking to this from a privileged position.

When no one in your family has ever gone to college, why would you even think you could? Or have a different profession than your father? Or start a business? Or move to another town? Etc. etc.

There are certainly structural roadblocks that make things easier or harder, but I have yet to see someone succeed in something they never start. And a large reason they never start is because they don't believe they could ever succeed.

And that was my point. That heroes help us dare to believe, moreso that we otherwise would.

[rifung]

> I get what you're saying, but in any system having an aspirational role model is a benefit!

I will say there is a benefit but whether it's a net benefit is not always true as we can't ignore the downsides.

For example, if everyone believes that you can just work hard and succeed, then they may choose to ignore the great disadvantages certain people have. Indeed this isn't just a philosophical issue as this is the reality even in American politics with regard to having social programs.

I think this is actually even true of people whose stories qualify them to become "heroes". Often because they were able to do something they think it must be possible for everyone else without realizing how many things were working in their favor. There's a psychological phenomenon describing how people who went through the same experience as you are actually less likely to help you because for whatever reason, they seem to remember it was being easier than it was.

[ethbro]

Granted it's a dual edged sword.

The issue I had, and why I originally commented, is it seemed people were being intellectually dishonest in denying any benefits of aspirational heroes, because they felt doing so would lend approval to an unjust system.

Which seemed... incomplete and unfair. Both to the heroes (Chan deserves better than to have some New Republic writer denying Chan's opinion of his own life's work) and to the people whose life might be changed by having a hero.

In reality, we can work towards both greater equality of opportunity AND highlight aspirational heroes.

I don't want to ascribe motivation, but I wonder how many people casting stones have ever been so down and out that they can't even imagine any success in their lives. Because I feel that's the reality for a lot of people in truly bad situations. And when you've given up trying to improve your life...?

[vinceguidry]

This is why I added the daughters and princesses aside. The people of Hong Kong are not going to use Chan's example to try to be Jackie Chan. That's not the point. They're going to look carefully at their hero and decide that certain traits of his, like extreme courage and willingness to be brave, and choose to adopt them, just like a child does with their heroes.

If you or I went over to Hong Kong, and told them to work hard and they'll succeed, then get in my private jet and fly back to the US, they'd just roll their eyes. But Jackie Chan is one of them. He understands the culture and the challenges. All famous people do for their audiences.

[AchieveLife]

Hey Vince

I think we agree with you regarding the inspiration that Chan brings to his people.

There is more than inspiration, sweat, tears, and blood that plays the part of viral success as Chan has achieved. Luck and opportunity are the missing pieces.

The phrase "if Chan can do it then anyone can" is victim to survivorship bias (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias)

To conclude: Chan achieved awesome things, he's an inspiration, it's good for others to strive for success, success is not determined on hard work alone.

[vinceguidry]

Hi. I'll admit to getting a bit frustrated because I seem to need to repeat the same point over and over again, and the responses aren't addressing the point made.

Yes, you need luck and opportunity to become Jackie Chan. But there's more ways to be successful than becoming Jackie Chan. He can inspire them to be themselves and not let their situations get them down.

That's what is meant by "anyone can do it." Not anyone can be Jackie Chan. But anybody can use the same inner tools that Chan did that got him famous, and chart the course of their own life. That's what's inspirational.

[baxtr]

Oh man, I wish more comments started like yours. “Hey Vince” sounds nice and respectful, and, even personal on an anonymous platform

[geggam]

This word "luck" is used quite often yet every time I see it applied it there is always someone who "seizes opportunity when it comes and does what it takes to succeed"

I suppose it is easier to write and also easier to dismiss other people doing something you simply don't want to put in the effort to do so or are too scared to do.

of course this is just my observation

[smacktoward]

> This word "luck" is used quite often yet every time I see it applied it there is always someone who "seizes opportunity when it comes and does what it takes to succeed"

Of course you do, that's called survivorship bias: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias

You see the one person who tried to seize the opportunity and succeeded, because by succeeding they became famous. You don't see all the people who tried just as hard to seize the opportunity and failed, because by failing they remained obscure.

[nvusuvu]

How many tried just as hard to seize the opportunity?

[darkarmani]

> This word "luck" is used quite often yet every time I see it applied it there is always someone who "seizes opportunity when it comes and does what it takes to succeed"

So your observation is that because they seized the opportunity and did what it takes to succeed means luck wasn't involved?

[geggam]

I mean luck seems to mean "something that person did that others seem reluctant or incapable of doing"

[vhjcvnnb]

You can create luck by being prepared and being at the right place at the right time. One without the other; you can’t seize the opportunity.

[sundar4344]

Noam Chomsky once said something like this .The hardest part in liberating people is to make them understand they are being oppressed.

Most of the times people who advocate for oppression are the people who benefits out of it. Like the caste system in India or slavery elese where

[Arn_Thor]

Except Hong Kongers aren't inspired by Jackie Chan. He's widely hated for selling out to become a communist party shill. Sure, he was revered when he was younger, but after Hong Kong's handover to China when he begun spouting pro-mainland talking points he got the proverbial boot. Bruce Lee is still adored here, though

[j-c-hewitt]

This is absurd to say. China is the biggest Horatio Alger story of the 20th century. During my parents' lifespan alone, millions of people in China died of starvation and it is now one of the world's leading industrial powers.

China was extremely poor and now it is extremely rich as a mass phenomenon. It is not like a Gulf power in which a tiny elite of owners presiding over an army of imported indentures. Like any society in history there is inequality, but you have to be an insane ideologue to deny the reality of mass advancement in standard of living in China during the 20th and 21st century so far.

[failrate]

Samo Hung was a fellow student of Jackie's. Other students at that Academy had careers in the fulm industry. It wasn't just luck: the ones who succeeded also worked harder and smarter.

[ethbro]

Or as my father quipped, "It's surprising how much luckier people who prepare are."

[fredgrott]

reminds me of Lee's story from my time period...same HongKong hellhole but he got out at an early age

[PakG1]

"Great fighters have to kind of like getting hit."

Unrelated, but I suppose this is why there is so much controversy and disagreement as to whether Floyd Mayweather actually is the greatest boxer ever (which he himself has claimed multiple times he is), as he puts so much effort into not getting hit (and some say he runs away from opponents, only fights them before or after their prime, never during their prime). But he does have that 50-0 record.

[cribbles]

> "Great fighters have to kind of like getting hit."

This is almost tautologically true. Who starts fighting because they want to avoid getting hit at all costs?

The author wants to examine _why_ Chan drives himself, over and over, to the brink of life-threatening injuries, while we HN commenters - most of us anyway - do not. He fairly persuasively argues that it's a mix of extreme C-PTSD, childhood abandonment, economic destitution, and a near total lack of alternative opportunities.

Can that still be inspiring? To whom? To do what? These are the questions the author wants to ask. We can quibble over the answers. But either way, I find this type of critical perspective more intellectually provocative than taking Chan's plain-faced recollection for granted.

[vinceguidry]

Could it just be because he likes it?

[Vicktree]

liking something is important but you have to ask why they liked it in the first place. The reason for their desire matters. Professional football player might "like" football even though it takes a heavy physical toll (brain damage, joint damage, etc.) but notice the people becoming professional football players are usually from disadvantaged neighborhoods who see the sport as one of the few ladders they can use to climb to a better future. Its not going to be the sons of university professors who become football players. The reason Jackie Chan took all of those risks and "liked it" is because of his economic status.

[vinceguidry]

> The reason Jackie Chan took all of those risks and "liked it" is because of his economic status.

I think you have this exactly backward. He took the risks not knowing they would make him an international star. I submit that he only could have done that if he enjoyed not just the fruits, but the process. Several times he describes volunteering for things others wouldn't do. You wouldn't do that if you weren't at least indifferent, if not eager, to confront the danger.

[yawaramin]

I see I misread your comment earlier. But you say:

> Several times he describes volunteering for things others wouldn't do.

But he also describes several times in the book about worrying what others think of him. He worries about how he will be perceived by his director, how he'll be judged by the public.

> You wouldn't do that if you weren't at least indifferent, if not eager, to confront the danger.

He literally describes in the book how he doesn't want to die.

Probably neither of us has the full measure of Jackie Chan, but I for one find it hard to believe in the picture of the happy-go-lucky daredevil action star.

[yawaramin]

So you're saying that Jackie Chan did extreme stunts–that stunt professionals refused to do–early in his Hong Kong career, because he thought to himself, 'This will make me an international star'? And not because 'This will prove my worth to this director and the audiences'?

[vinceguidry]

No, I'm saying he did it because he enjoyed it.