Rockefeller still had some privileges that allowed him to navigate the world easier while carrying his ambition with him—being male and Caucasian—and that’s not to speak of the people that he collaborated with along the way.
I’m not interested in discussing race or gender politics here, but it’s worth pointing that out since your comment comes off as completely dismissive of systemic advantages, environmental factors, and personal networks that all contribute to success, as if to say that any personal success is the product of a single factor alone: grit.
No, not alone, but no one but those guys would have done what they did. There were many other barefoot boys tending to horses but it was Genghis who got up there and took over half the world. It wasn't the other kids, it was him. And later on it wasn't his generals, but he who oversaw the conquests. They all could have raised armies instead, but, it was actually him with the vision and singular aim.
Same with Jobs and Masayoshi, other people also knew the people they knew, but only they did do what they ended up doing.
So those are facts, but what is the point that you’re getting at? Are you making the case that their successes were inherent in them, or that their motivations were shaped by some experience unique to them, or were they just destined to be such by history?
I mean, can you measure that or draw a direct causation? I’m also just contesting how much is inherent to an individual, and whether it is any worth bringing up that point against the idea that external factors have a significant impact to success, which is already nuanced enough not to say that external factors are the sole indicators?
I’m not interested in discussing race or gender politics here, but it’s worth pointing that out since your comment comes off as completely dismissive of systemic advantages, environmental factors, and personal networks that all contribute to success, as if to say that any personal success is the product of a single factor alone: grit.