Posted on 06/01/2021 7:40:37 AM PDT by ProgressingAmerica
Luck as a thing is nonsense, it is defined as a low probability outcome...if you do not prepare and develop the skills, success (however you define it) it unlikely.
There are clear undertones of supremacy and elitism...heredity determines your potential? So if you are from a family without success you should not expect to gain any yourself because we all know poor people have bad genes??? It is so confusing to know when its ok to be woke.
So utterly stupid and obnoxious.
“At the heart of their argument, is the admission that there are genetic differences between individuals, in the qualities which contribute towards success.
And they hate that.”
They are still fighting the Bell Curve after all these years.
Bttt
“Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded — here and there, now and then — are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty.
This is known as “bad luck.”
― Robert Heinlein
Although widely held, the belief that merit rather than luck determines success or failure in the world is demonstrably false. This is not least because merit itself is, in large part, the result of luck. Talent and the capacity for determined effort, sometimes called ‘grit’, depend a great deal on one’s genetic endowments and upbringing.
I usually take advice with some level of salt anyway. I would not say all billionaires that potentially would or could include Trump. Most might be more accurate but I’d be more comfortable with “a significant number” of them. Since you’re now pointing me into the position of having to saying something positive about Gates & Jobs. Gates did pay $50K (or so I thought I read!) for the DOS precursor. Looks predatory in hindsight, but at the time was probably a good business risk and it paid off. Gates was a genius at marketing. His real strength. Programming genius, not so much! Jobs another genius marketer. SPARC XEROX apparently showed him the window technology with no NDA & not even a verbal agreement not to copy. (Note I could be wrong about that but that’s what I heard from SPARC employees. I used to have to go there a lot early in my career.) And the rest is history !
Note Edison’s business ethics don’t bear up well under examination .
I've heard "luck" defined as what happens when the prepared see an opportunity.
In my younger days I saw several opportunities slip by because I was an unprepared fool.
You mean risk.
I have a lower risk tolerance than some. So my highs are not as high but my lows are no where NEAR the lows.
I also work.
“Luck” in this case means being born so rich you never have to work.
A lot of second generation rich that I know feel so guilty about it, they try to tear themselves and everyone else down.
Article is a good example of Critical Theory. Here’s how it works. The author cites studies showing other factors (such as luck) can influence success in certain events. He then extrapolates because every success isn’t necessarily 100% purely by merit, the entire system (of merit) is therefore false and by extension results in inequity which needs to be equalized (by outcome). Like every critical theorist, he offers the criticism, but no solution to his perceived problem. But his solution (eliminating merit) can only be achieved by force - picking and choosing who “deserves” something which inevitably results in gross discrimination (based on race, gender, etc).
Yes, I have the coworker problem, too. They don’t complain at all about what I say or question—just that I do. What I say is rational and pertinent and the recordings of the meetings show the presenter said my questions were “very good” and that my comments were correct. It’s not the presenters having a problem with me, it’s people who don’t have a clue and want to go back to sleeping remotely from the office.
My company also has white men at the top, almost exclusively. It seems their approach is to litter the ranks below them with all the PC people proving the company has a “rich diversity.”
The trouble is that is accomplished on the backs of no PC people doing the work, reporting to the incompetents.
That is a feature, not a bug.
I’m amazed they teach against meritocracy, yet they won’t let go of evolution, which is nothing more than biological meritocracy.
Not this “S” again...
won’t.
Anacyclosis ALWAYS wins. ..........
Very interesting. And scary.
Smart, creative and energetic people make their lethargic, hyper cautious and lethargic bosses look bad. Promoting them puts these bright workers one step closer to being their bosses boss. The concept of merit gets a lot of lip service but as you point out, there are reasons why talent and effort are not properly rewarded.
And then of course there is the problem of discrimination against motivated whites who have the drive to advance but are not allowed to because of wokeness.
The idea of luck is a bludgeon the left uses to guilt people out of their money.
*************
There’s an old saying: “The harder I work the luckier I get.”
This is from the Marxist university that spawned and venerated Woodrow Wilson, the racist progressive hero who is probably the worst person ever to occupy the White House.
I don’t know who originated the saying that “luck is where preparation meets opportunity,” but there is a lot of truth to it. There is also a lot of truth to Branch Rickey’s oft-quoted statement that “luck is the residue of design.”
Current dewmocrats are certainly giving Wilson a run for that title !
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.