[SandersAK]

“In many cases, the person is way overqualified. Someone with multiple graduate degrees might be running the CEO’s laundry because that’s the most important thing at the moment.“

These sort of ideas telegraph that the author knows they got rich but don’t actually understand how they got there.

[tyre]

I think this is generally true of Naval.

He tweets these vague pseudo-philosophical koans, things that look fine as 280 character retweets. It's fine for self-branding and he's certainly played the genre well.

But that middle ground between advice directly relevant to a practical question and a nuanced, deeply investigated ethical framework isn't as self-helpful as marketed.

It's those things people read and _feel_ like they've done some life-work today (and perhaps that's what people really want.)

As you point out, much content by well-known, materially successful people is a post-hoc constructed narrative to explain why they are where they are.

[dang]

Ok, but please don't post shallow dismissals to Hacker News.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

[SandersAK]

This isn’t a shallow dismissal. I’m literally quoting a part of the piece that is absurdly bad.

Would it be edifying for you and others if I explained why I think suggesting that a smart startup employee should not be doing the CEO’s laundry?

[dang]

It's not edifying to cherry-pick the most sensational detail in an article in order to hammer it. What you wrote is shallow because you haven't engaged with the core idea of the post at all. That's exactly what that guideline is supposed to discourage.

You seized on "CEO's laundry" because it sounds absurd; no doubt the fact that it sounds absurd is exactly why he included it. If you reduce his argument to that, you're breaking another site guideline too: "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."

What would be more edifying is if you delivered on the claim your comment makes for yourself, that you know how someone got rich better than they themselves do. How?

[SandersAK]

It's hard to edify and spend that time when you routinely flag and kill my comments.

You claim that HN is "better than this" but Naval's post is totally devoid of insight. It is hackneyed and the commentary responding to it is a reflection of that. If you want better commentary on the front page, then do a better job of making the front page articles worth talking about.

As to me claiming to know how Naval got rich - that's easy - he's a person who cashed in on a golden era of startups when it was easy to sell off bad properties for big money. Instead of realizing that he was extremely lucky to be at the right place and right time, with the privilege of having enough personal wealth to take those risks, he instead spends the rest of his career trying to justify his wealth and position. That's why all his advice and "insight" are the sort of trite self-help aphorisms that anyone can say and make it sound true.

You always ask others to be better on HN, but maybe take a step back and ask yourself if maybe the state of HN is a reflection not of the community but of the guidelines and leadership that drives it today.

as for me? I gotta get back to my day job ;)

[dang]

The last comment of yours that was flagged and killed was six months ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20348091. It was done by users, and rightly so.

I have no opinion about Naval one way or the other, but your argument there is flawed. There were tons of people trying to do the same thing at the time. Plenty had privilege and money. Why didn't they all succeed too? To just say "luck" is a non-answer; that's assuming your conclusion. A real argument would need to show how it wasn't anything else.

[alexpetralia]

It might be useful to think of "luck" as an error term on a regression model, where the covariates are well-known factors (e.g. wealth, ambition, connections) and the error term is everything else.

Given that plenty had privilege and money (i.e. those are the covariates), and many didn't succeed, we'd expect those weren't significant variables.

Many likely had drive, connections, know-how as well. Many of them probably failed too. Again, insignificant covariates.

So what does that leave? The error term: luck.

In other words, during a tech boom like at the turn of the century, there are so many winners (often outsized, which distort many basic statistical assumptions, such as a normal distribution) that is almost futile to try and identify significant covariates.

To speculate here, often with the pretense of certainty, is more often reflective of post-hoc reasoning than actual science.

That, in my opinion, is why "luck" is an adequate answer. We can be fairly sure that certain covariates contribute to success over the long-term in life (i.e. we have a large sample size of being alive, and we can extrapolate from many other people who have lived). It is far harder to do this with nonce hype cycles (infrequent, low-sample size).

Chalking up more success to the error term, "luck", seems perfectly appropriate during such unusual times.

[matz1]

Please explain, i think the idea make sense. The menial job id done to show that no job is beneath you and to open up greater opportunity.

[peteradio]

Sounds like a great way to get taken advantage of.

[matz1]

Sure, of you have be careful to not be taken advantage off, focus on the prize, if you truly do not see any opportunity then yes bail out but keep your options open.