[lkrubner]

This story is especially clear and dramatic (and well documented) but I've often thought this happens in every generation: the people who lead (businesses and nations) when they are in their 40s and 50s are often people who boldly go out and discover the world while they are in their teens and 20s, and so they take on a bit more risk than the average citizen, and this includes physical risk (whether in travel or informal athletics), and so, "at the margins" as an economist would say, a certain percentage of them are dead before they reach the age of 30. So, for every generation, a few of the most brilliant lights are missing by the time the generation reaches its 40s and 50s. The people who do become leaders are, to an extent, the ones who simply got lucky -- many of them have some stories to tell about times they took a risk and were surprised to live. For obvious reasons, we don't hear the stories from the folks who took a risk and did not survive.

(One of my favorite anecdotes on this subject: One of the best entrepreneurs I know went down to Mexico and hitchhiked all over when she was 18 years old. And every family that picked her up told her that what she was doing was very dangerous and that she was very lucky to be picked up by that family, instead of someone more dangerous. But at the time she was very innocent. 20 years later I ran into her and I was like "You know what you did was crazy?" and she was like "Now that I think about it, I'm amazed that I survived.")

[soared]

This isn’t really true except for random edge cases. The people leading countries go to school and get law degrees. People leading business got college degrees or worked in business for decades.

You can pull edge cases like Patagonia’s Yvon Chouinard, but even then he spent a lot of time in his 20s running his business.

[solveit]

If you define 'leading countries' narrowly enough, everyone in that category becomes a random edge case.

Less flippantly, you should expect people running high-variance strategies to be overrepresented at the top. The people leading countries may go to school and get law degrees, but if they stay the path of doing what everyone else does but better, they end up an unremarkable partner at a law firm or something, not POTUS or Bezos or Musk. They don't have to literally do life-threateningly dangerous things (although I'm sure the propensity correlates and that's what the previous poster was talking about), but they do have to be willing to risk the comfortable life that was all but guaranteed for them.

[ceres]

> they end up an unremarkable partner at a law firm or something, not POTUS or Bezos or Musk

This doesn’t make much sense because people inherit their parents’ wealth and businesses all the time.

People also inherit their country’s political leadership e.g. political families and monarchs.

To suggest that it requires a special breed of people to get these positions without proof is rather silly

[barry-cotter]

This logic would work if competition didn’t exist and no one ever made huge unforced errors. In the world as is Buffet, Gates, Bezos and Musk are among the richest people ever. Their parents were wealthy but nothing remotely comparable. The Carnegies and Rockefeller families are still rich but even if you add all of them together they’re not a shadow the importance the founders of the fortunes had.

Political dynasties are important but competition erodes them too. Who’s the most important Kennedy under 40? Whoever they are they’re not that important.

[thayne]

Coming from wealthy, well connected families isn't the only reason those people are where they are today, but it certainly helped. They had the resources they needed to start their companies readily available.

[Master_Odin]

Within this comparison, will the various children of Musk or Gates or Buffet be as memoriable as their parents, or will they end up like the Kennedys, where yeah they exist and probably have a bunch of money, but they're "not important".

[Thorrez]

I'd guess those children will be even less important than the Kennedys. Among the voting public, last name recognition plays a large role. When publicly traded companies choose a CEO, last name recognition is much less important. Gates is also giving away almost all his wealth so his kids won't get it. For the others, inheritance tax will take a significant fraction, and the money will be divided between multiple children.

[hutzlibu]

"Who’s the most important Kennedy under 40? Whoever they are they’re not that important. "

Well, the most famous Kennedy right now is probably Robert F Kennedy Jr. But he is over 40 and luckily is not a succesful leader. But he probably dreams about being one (fighting against the system of evil vaccination).

[melagonster]

I trust he was talking about people who like Martin Luther King, Jr. not just good in common way.

[bhk]

Maybe it's true for remarkable people. Not true in general for "leaders".

[Barrin92]

the overwhelming majority of leaders are careerists. If anything the one thing they have in common is that they tend to have the ability to progress through institutional positions quickly and tend to have uninterrupted biographies. If anything they're the opposite of bold risk takers, they tend to be methodical climbers.

That's why the overwhelming majority of representatives, both in the business sector as well as governments is lawyers, public servants, academics, engineers, long time party members, and so on. And of course inheritance is the other big factor. The most common form of business is the private family business.

Even in democratic politics inheritance is arguably one of the biggest factors. The Trudeaus and Bush's are your stereotypical leaders

[greenthrow]

This is not true. What the people who "lead the world" have in common most often is coming from a very privileged background. The idea that they are all iconoclasts or inherently in some way "better" than other people is a myth the wealthy tell themselves.

[kiba]

This is not true. What the people who "lead the world" have in common most often is coming from a very privileged background. The idea that they are all iconoclasts or inherently in some way "better" than other people is a myth the wealthy tell themselves.

The best of the best likely come from privileged background simply because of the access to resources.

The idea that meritocracy is some of egalitarianism is a myth.

[sgt101]

Even where wealth and privilege aren't important (and they have considerable effects in many fields) luck is also critical : https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328939222_Exploring...

We need to get rid of this idea of meritocracy.

[Broken_Hippo]

Even if they did all go out and explore the world in their teens and 20s, the only reason they'd be able to do that is because they come from a very privileged background.

Most teens can't leave the town their parents live in. Student loans aren't gonna pay for your travel and for the folks not going to school, there is a crappy job waiting for them that might give basic health insurance. There simply aren't resources available that allow folks to explore the world.

[didibus]

I know a lot of people who have traveled the world over, taken a lot of risks as a young adult/late teenager, and are just unremarkable adults now doing unremarkable things.

Maybe you're imagining correlation where there is none?

[bombcar]

20 years ago Mexico was much different than it is now; 30 years even more so.

[rkuykendall-com]

30 years ago in central Texas we visited northern Mexico many, many times a year. 20 years ago we thought it was funny other people were starting to be scared to do so. 15 years ago we stopped going. We haven't been back since.

It's so weird that, from a central Texas perspective, we used to be a short drive from visiting another COUNTRY, which is now effectively a blank space on the map of the world around us. Ski west in New Mexico, eat easy in New Orleans, Hike north in Colorado. South? Here be dragons.

Maybe the next 30 years will be the same story in the opposite direction, but I don't know. I haven't seen anything to give me hope of that.

[c_o_n_v_e_x]

Edit: You have a last name only a Texan could pronounce ;-)

Similar experience with my family in South and Central Texas as well. They used to go multiple times per year, but never go now. Back then the cartels were more targeted with their violence. Over the past 10-15 years, it has become indiscriminate. A cheap tampiquena plate and a few drinks is not worth the risk.

[mandelbrotwurst]

Would you mind elaborating a bit on what has changed from your perspective please?

I have never visited Mexico and would love to although I will admit hearing things of this sort and some of the footage I've seen of carjackings and machine-gun fire and the like is admittedly somewhat of a deterrent, but then I consider how many scary things happen here as well and I wonder what's true and what's an exaggeration or simply a case of uniquely bad luck.

[bombcar]

People in San Diego used to treat Tijuana like part of the city, just split by a border is all.

And I have family that still visits there, but it is much more dangerous than it used to be. 30 years ago it was basically "don't drive a brand new vehicle and be polite" and now it's all sorts of things including knowing which highways to avoid, how to stay away from parts of town that may have drug lord activity, etc. There was almost an unwritten rule years ago that you don't mess with normal people or tourists; that rule has been significantly broken.

And the border waits are much more annoying, too; the people who do still cross now have to wait much longer, even with Sentri.

[poisonarena]

drug war, notably shift in power from Colombia to Mexico. Various power plays between different organizations advancing on eachother and government interventions. Much more dangerous for civilians in the 'wrong place at the wrong time'. But violence against tourists is by and large greatly exaggerated, even at the height of narco-violence in Mexico. It is still a safe place for a tourist in every single city and most rural areas.

[CPLX]

I mean it seems like the biggest change in this story is you. It’s true there’s more cartel stories than before I guess but if you wanted to go there you would go. I spent a week in Monterrey this year, it was lovely.

[bigDinosaur]

Mexico is of course full of some lovely places, but cartel violence has been increasing since around 1990 (so 30 years) and has spiked quite dramatically in the past 20 years.

[bombcar]

And the difference between "fly into a tourist zone" and "drive across the border into 'real Mexico'" is a huge one. If you do it, you should know quite a bit or have a local so that you can notice situations before they begin.

Sure, the chance of actually being beheaded by a cartel is probably relatively slim, but it's a risk you don't need to take.

[CPLX]

Monterrey is a tourist zone? Huh? I’m talking about the largest industrial city in northern Mexico, one that’s closely linked to the Texas economy, not Cancun.

I speak fluent Spanish and have traveled all over these areas and I think the original poster’s idea that Mexico is now off limits is about 95% media fear and hype at best.

But hey if they want to stay home in Waco or Uvalde or wherever they live to avoid violent situations that is certainly their choice.

[chubot]

This doesn't seem relevant to the article

His idol was Warren Buffet -- not exactly a reckless risk taker

And he was into regenerative farming. That is very much NOT a "get rich quick" scheme.

It was about building value over the long term.

This comment says more about you than the subject of article (and not in a bad way, just saying it doesn't really apply here)

[TMWNN]

>(One of my favorite anecdotes on this subject: One of the best entrepreneurs I know went down to Mexico and hitchhiked all over when she was 18 years old. And every family that picked her up told her that what she was doing was very dangerous and that she was very lucky to be picked up by that family, instead of someone more dangerous. But at the time she was very innocent. 20 years later I ran into her and I was like "You know what you did was crazy?" and she was like "Now that I think about it, I'm amazed that I survived.")

Another example: From the use of "BRIC"/"BRICS" one might think that those nations would be similar in some way.

I have heard of at least two young Western women who in recent years hitchhiked across China, documenting their experience along the way. One could never, ever imagine doing that in the other BRICS countries (with prewar Russia being the safest of the four, but still pretty risky).

Nations matter. Cultures matter.

[runnerup]

Likewise my 2nd generation German-American aunt hitchhiked by herself from Morocco to Cairo (and spent time in many, many places in-between) in the 1970's for about 6 months and had no issues at the time.

Places certainly do change.

[hutzlibu]

Well, hitchhiking in Morocco certainly still works, and a few years ago, before the war in Lybia started, I would say you could have reached Egypt without major problems. But yes, right now I would not recommend it.

[TrackerFF]

You should check out the MBA programs at leading business schools (Harvard, Wharton, Stanford, etc.) - those classes are a fairly good proxy for the people leading companies and similar 15-30 years down the road.

Probably 60-70% of the classes have the same cookie-cutter Finance/Tech/Consulting backgrounds. Some of the most risk averse and carefully planned professionals you'll find.

[iancmceachern]

Fortune favors the bold, history is written by the victors. The other stories usually don't get told.

[nix23]

>history is written by the victors.

History is interpreted by historians, from many sources (newspapers, findings, books, mindset etc), history is NOT "written" but interpreted, and that interpretation can change massively with just one new found source of information.

[rrwo]

Hence the term "Surviorship bias".