a subversive if subtle inversion also underlies the argument, that status is subservient to wealth. instead, status is the game, and wealth is a conspicuous component of that. everything we consider ‘sociopolitical’ is about trading various proxies of status, including wealth, to try to ‘level up’ on the status meter.
his obfuscation is plainly designed to enhance the statused (like him) against the rising threat of the unstatused by confusing the potential up-and-comers.
also, luck is inherently cognitively dissonant. as such, it insists on rationalization, and rationalizations grounded this way inherently lack explanatory power beyond the individual and/or circumstance (since they’re projective rather than observationally exhaustive).
100%. A lot of survivorship bias in his diatribe. I feel most people I n this thread won’t like what you’re saying though, because it goes against the very belief drilled into Silicon Valley ideology.
yah, it’s an unpopular position, but that’s fine. i’ve seen prior unpopular positions get repeated, which means they’re doing their job of bringing diversity of perspective to the discussion.
and besides, irrational certainty (over unbiased reality) is often needed to be a successful (or even an unsuccessful) entrepreneur, so the bias is not surprising.
Yeah not surprising, but I’d like to see Entrepreneurs at least acknowledge luck.
Irrational certainty I feel is dangerous. Unbiased reality on the other hand is actually where I personally see the opportunities are since most don’t frame reality correctly and it’s impossible to know it all.
his obfuscation is plainly designed to enhance the statused (like him) against the rising threat of the unstatused by confusing the potential up-and-comers.
also, luck is inherently cognitively dissonant. as such, it insists on rationalization, and rationalizations grounded this way inherently lack explanatory power beyond the individual and/or circumstance (since they’re projective rather than observationally exhaustive).