[calinet6]

Aside from the political discussion bound to happen here, I was surprised and happy to see the story of Hilltop highlighted. I used to buy filet mignon there for $7 a pound back in 2009 when I was living in Chelsea, as a recent migrant from California. I was very sad when it closed, and never knew the story.

It highlights a more general point: we, as humans, have a profound attribution bias. It's psychological. We tend to attribute success to our own individual characteristics, actions, and free will. Americans significantly more so.[http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2786780?uid=2&uid=4&si...]

This would be fine, if it were true; however this attribution bias causes a significant departure from reality. When people succeed, we tend to focus on their personal attributes and actions, instead of looking at the situation surrounding them. When we do that, we tend to think of them as "rising above their situation," or "using their advantages well." We like to think we can do the same, but it is truly a kind of collective delusion.

We have to recognize that this is simply fantasy. It's not backed up by truth. Statistics says much the opposite: that most people who try will fail, and that people will be significantly burdened by failure, and that people who have failed or succeeded are extremely affected by external effects; that most successes are the result of both individual and significant historical and contextual factors. Externalities are more important than we want to believe. They're not everything, but they deserve much, much more attention than they get, which is often nil.

We would be a different kind of society were we to match our perception of success and failure with the reality of that success or failure. We don't have to give up our sense of individualism and the respect for personal growth and contribution; we just need to back it up with a recognition of the surrounding factors that are extremely real and highly influential on all our lives. I know we would be a better society if we did.

[hcarvalhoalves]

I think you're right, but it's equal parts being prepared to when the opportunity arise and purposefully putting yourself in situations that increase your odds.

E.g., nobody ever got laid staying at home, no matter how pretty, nice, rich or lucky.

[calinet6]

I'll repeat this again even though I posted it below, because the analogy is so applicable, and I like having thought of it so well:

A wire is connected to the electricity, which powers the bulb. The bulb cannot light without the electricity, and it cannot light without the wire. Is the success of the bulb attributable to the wire, or the outlet?

[ghostwriter]

The success of the bulb is the result of (and to the extend of) its internal design. Change the bulb to a cork and you'll never see the light, whatever wires and outlets you have for it.

[calinet6]

This is flat out false.

What of a perfectly designed bulb without a fixture that holds it correctly for electrical contact?

What if no cord is attached to that fixture?

What if the cord is not plugged in?

What if the cord doesn't have a plug that fits the outlet?

What if the internal wiring of the building doesn't support the bulb's voltage?

What if the electrical grid is not attached to the building?

What if the transformer that turns the grid voltage to one the bulb can use has blown or doesn't do its job?

What if the grid is overloaded, or not correctly handling the appropriate load for the time of day and electrical demand?

What if the power plants themselves are not producing the planned and coordinated output?

What if the supply of coal or oil to power the plants is disrupted?

And on and on.

The bulb absolutely depends on the stability and function of systems surrounding it; systems that are hundreds of millions of times larger and more complex than the bulb itself. The bulb's success is due to both its intrinsic properties and quite literally hundreds of external factors that you cannot take for granted.

The pervasive ignorance of this seemingly obvious facet of our daily lives is astounding.

More astounding is that people fail to apply it to individual people—or to themselves—equally. It applies equally—without question.w

[foolrush]

A pleasant side effect of this analogy is that it calls into question the notion of “success”.

Framed ideology.

[hcarvalhoalves]

The success is attributed to synergy :)

[jeffreyrogers]

> We would be a different kind of society were we to match our perception of success and failure with the reality of that success or failure. We don't have to give up our sense of individualism and the respect for personal growth and contribution; we just need to back it up with a recognition of the surrounding factors that are extremely real and highly influential on all our lives. I know we would be a better society if we did.

This is a really good point, and it's something I've been thinking about lately too. Fortunately, I've seen a growing appreciation for the role luck and circumstance has in people's success, particularly with regard to educational opportunities and social class, so hopefully this is starting to change.

[calinet6]

I agree, I too have seen signs of respect for externalities more and more. I think it's getting very difficult to ignore in light of the increasingly obvious wealth and opportunity gap in this country.

[briandear]

The opportunity gap is a myth. The real problem is cultural. Too many people believe themselves victims and act accordingly. There is certainly a very low probability of a poor person becoming a millionaire, but there are plenty of people who could go from poor to middle class if they made better decisions. For example, the poor too often gets caught up in the bread and circuses aspects to their own detriment. Do a survey of public housing projects and find out how many people have cable TV. It isn't about the monetary cost of that cable TV but it's a question of the opportunity cost. If someone were to spend two hours watching TV each day (actually a very low number) or if that person were to spend two hours at the public library learning something (for example learning basic coding) then in perhaps a year they might be able to find an entry level tech job. And, with the $30-60 per month they're saving from giving up TV, they could buy a cheap Linux box to start doing some coding on ODesk or eLancr, etc. in fact, most TVs cost as much as a low cost computer. Yet, time and time again you have poor people who can tell you everything about the Kardashians and nothing about HTML. I am not suggesting everyone should be a coder, but as an example it demonstrates a problem of priorities. Barely 8 years ago, I was dead broke, even living in my car for several months. My parents didn't go to college -- we weren't in poverty, however if would have been easy to just follow the path of the lower middle class. Instead, I'm now a software engineer and sometimes entrepreneur making over $200k per year. I make more in a year than my dad made in almost 6 years! I am not special -- anyone who is motivated can do it. The problem is that there is a culture of dependency among much of the poor. Effectively, our society has turned the poor into a bunch of children. Contrast that to the poor in China where entrepreneurism rather than dependency is the norm. American society enables the poor. Our War on Poverty has resulted in no change to poverty rates. Perhaps it's time to stop blaming the rich and start blaming leftist politicians who gain their power from a dependent underclass.

[calinet6]

This discussion always makes the libertarian cream of the crop rise to the top of the vat.

You are wrong in nearly every sentence; I don't have the time or patience to convince you, I wasted 5 years of my life arguing with a libertarian already. Please consider the wider systems surrounding each person's condition. They are not fake.

[calinet6]

One more thing: "Contrast that to the poor in China" -- a communist country. Then you go blaming "leftist politicians." Hm.

[dkokelley]

Would you say this is true for most cases of success, or primarily for extreme cases of success? I can imagine that winning the "startup lottery" has much to do with fortunate market timing and circumstances, but can the same be said of a small business owner, CPA partner, doctor, etc.?

[calinet6]

I'd say it is true for most success in this complex market.

It's not a matter of whether success is attributed to the individual or to the situation; it's both.

A wire is connected to the electricity, which powers the bulb. The bulb cannot light without the electricity, and it cannot light without the wire. Is the success of the bulb attributable to the wire, or the outlet?