Very much in agreement. It's the reason successful states have good social security, which provide opportunities. Can't cultivate an Einstein if he can't choose to learn Physics over Farming.
The scientists we learn about in textbooks almost always come from wealthy backgrounds, as it gives them the opportunity to remove themselves from the mundanity of day to day life.
This is the way it is, you have to create entropy around yourself by moving in the world. As you have little influence over the perception of others, it is best to find an environment you can work in. I'm not sure if it has anything to do with delusions or luck at all, it is just who you can interface with. I'd even say "luck" is just a symptom or something we tell ourselves, but with every engagement you increase your exposure to "luck".
If I consider how I met my wife, I wouldn't call it luck, but rather circumstances that happened to align. Especially introverted people profit from letting sheer randomness take over and prove their assumptions/internal model wrong. It seems as if your world view shrinks when you don't challenge it. Just don't take big risks but make low cost engagements/attempts that build up into something big.
It's like keep going so you are there when the door opens, but also stand in particular places, so you can see what doors exist.
> [Bill Gates] attended Lakeside School in Seattle, a private prep school that in 1968 when Gates was 13 bought a computer terminal for its students. This was extraordinarily rare... By the time he dropped out of Harvard, Gates had accumulated hours of programming practice, an almost impossible number for someone his age.
I thought this but reading Gates biography (Source Code), it's very much overplayed. He did have access, but this idea that his skill somehow manifested from having access to a computer is just wrong. His access is constantly being cutoff and he finds creative ways to gain access. It's not like his dad installed a mainframe in his bedroom.
The typical teenager has 10x the amount of access as Gates had. The reason most people don't spend 20h a day programming is not access. It's drive. If you're that captivated and willing to do work, you'll likely find a creative way to gain access, which is exactly what he did.
> [Chris Langan] got a full scholarship to Reed College in Oregon, but when his mother forgot to file the financial aid renewal paperwork, his scholarship was cancelled. He went to the administration to explain the situation and got nowhere. He had no one in his corner, no parent who knew how to navigate bureaucracy, no mentor who could make a call on his behalf. He dropped out... Chris arguably had more. It wasn't work ethic either. It was the doors that happened to be open when they arrived.
Read through the summary and you'll see that it's exactly the opposite. It is work ethic. This dude couldn't just coast of being high IQ, while Gates hustled like hell to gain computer time. This dude's car breaks down and he gives up on university? Why is his mother filling out paperwork? He was an adult at that point. Why did he need his mother? How do much dumber kids manage?
A brief summary of Gates access:
Fall 1968, age 12 turning 13: Gates first starts programming through Lakeside’s terminal. A few months later he gets effectively unlimited free access at C-Cubed in exchange for finding bugs. He later calls this period his “first 500 hours.”
Spring 1969, age 13: After about eight months of computer access, Gates and his friends are caught exploiting the system and are banned from C-Cubed. Gates says computers were then off-limits.
Late 1969 / early 1970, age 14: After about a six-month hiatus, Gates gets back into C-Cubed through Paul Allen and resumes programming. C-Cubed then shuts down in March 1970.
Late 1970 to early 1971, age 15: Gates and friends get computer time from ISI in exchange for writing a payroll program. They also talk their way into the University of Washington computer lab and spend nights and weekends there.
March 1971, age 15: They are banned from the University of Washington lab after Paul Allen takes an acoustic coupler without permission. They continue using other terminals, including one at Gates’s father’s office.
1971–72, ages 15–16: Gates keeps getting access through Lakeside and paid programming projects. During one scheduling project he works about three weeks of 20-hour days. In summer 1972, he and Paul Allen spend roughly a month living in the Lakeside computer room, coding in 12-hour stretches and sleeping there.
1973, age 17: He takes time off high school to work professionally at TRW/Bonneville on PDP-10 systems. He says he once stayed at the computer facility nearly 100 hours straight.
Fall 1973, age 17: At Harvard, he gets his own account and key to the Aiken computer lab, giving him 24-hour access. Source
I think gates is obviously a very high IQ individual with a skill for math and coding.
However very very few high IQ individuals with skill for math or coding end up running successful companies, let alone billion dollar companies. I imagine odds are if Gates was born in 2000 and went a public highschool with no rich parents, he may or may not get into MIT (but not Harvard) and would be working at google or something today, potentially hating it.
Why wouldn't he get into Harvard? He had 1590 SAT scores and it wasn't because his parents forced him to cram. Does Harvard give you some kind of advantage that MIT does not? I'd argue that MIT grad would be much more likely to start a business than a Harvard grad.
He's never had a job outside of his own company. He's very driven. Read the autobiography.
> Why wouldn't he get into Harvard? He had 1590 SAT scores and it wasn't because his parents forced him to cram.
1600 is not enough to get into Harvard, AI estimates about 10-20% of those with perfect SATs do. I think he'd be more likely to get into MIT because he'd have extracurriculars and/or side projects that they'd value more.
> Read the autobiography.
I already have read his biography. I feel like you're getting really emotional about some pretty non-controversial claims. These aren't personal attacks if you're a big fan of his or something.
You just have to understand that there are only so many opportunities trillion-dollar companies per generation (just due to market dynamics). Being driven, having a high IQ, etc aren't as big predictors of success as having rich and connected family members.
Harvard is meaningless. Who cares if you get into Harvard? If you're "disadvantaged" or from the right demographic you're a lot more likely to get in.
Being driven and high IQ are much more predictive of success than having rich parents or connected family members. That could get you an internship or if your parents own a business get you a role there.
I don't know what I can do to convince you, but maybe look at people's kids and what they accomplish. In a few industries like acting it helps a lot. But the idea that desirable leadership roles or entrepreneurial success is allocated via nepotism rings hallow.
Also you have to realize that successful rich parents are often high IQ which they pass on to their children through genes. And they push hard work and education. It's a fairly non-controversial claim to say successful people work hard and are relatively smart, so I don't know what you're arguing.
> Being driven and high IQ are much more predictive of success than having rich parents or connected family members.
Are they? What are you basing that on?
> But the idea that desirable leadership roles or entrepreneurial success is allocated via nepotism rings hallow.
People in this thread are talking about structural advantages, not necessarily outright nepotism. Things like it being easier to take entrepreneurial risks if your parents are in a position to help you financially recover from personal bankruptcy.
> It's a fairly non-controversial claim to say successful people work hard and are relatively smart, so I don't know what you're arguing.
IME successful people have the same distributions of work ethic and intelligence as the general population. For every entrepreneur who fought tooth and nail for their success you have someone who flipped 10 coins in a row and got heads each time (metaphorically).
> 1600 is not enough to get into Harvard, AI estimates about 10-20% of those with perfect SATs do. I think he'd be more likely to get into MIT because he'd have extracurriculars and/or side projects that they'd value more.
The Harvard and SAT of today are not the same as when he was a teenager.
> You just have to understand that there are only so many opportunities trillion-dollar companies per generation (just due to market dynamics). Being driven, having a high IQ, etc aren't as big predictors of success as having rich and connected family members.
Having a high IQ and having a rich family member are both predictors of success. What's even more important is being lucky, but all three are critical.
"Gifted" (high IQ) children drop out of school at a staggering rate, something like 25%. I was doing some reading on cognitive science today and found this tidbit.
High IQ is weakly co-related with income, avoiding prison, and longevity. That's all that really can said. It seems to be hit and miss if a highly intelligent person ends up causing a lot of impact and vice versa.
> This dude's car breaks down and he gives up on university?
It seems like you’re overly harsh on this dude. Being wealthy and well connected lets you circumvent the kind of stuff Chris had to go through. Bill didn’t even need to file for any kind of aid - he could focus on the one thing. That is a luxury most people don’t have. I think if Bill was born to a poorer family and had to work part time jobs to keep the lights on, things would be very different.
Skepticism is fine, but you come across as incredibly sheltered. Also, the very embodiment of the belief system that the article is pointing at.
> This dude's car breaks down and he gives up on university?
That is life-changing when you're in poverty. Fuck, walk a mile in someone else's shoes. Housing is cheaper ten miles out; walk _twenty_ miles in someone else's _disintegrating_ shoes. Carrying books, on a poverty diet.
You don't have to accept the claim as definite fact, but have some fucking imagination.
> Why is his mother filling out paperwork?
As far as i can see from outside America, these things are addressed to the parent. They require proof of financial status, and a signature. The guy is presumably miles away. Perhaps the mother promises to do it, but lets him down. Perhaps she's spiteful. Perhaps she's afflicted. I personally know people whose parents have done horrible things to them.
You don't know, but you reflexively deny. Comes across as motivated reasoning. You earned everything you have through hard work and intelligence, huh? Started from zero, and there's no number lower than that. Good job, achiever.
Maybe this guy is morally defective for not intercepting his mother's mail and breaking into a kinko's at night to forge documents. I suspect he'd face harsher penalties than Gates for that rule-breaking.
I have seen rural poverty in America. I have seen people walking miles to sit in a tin shack for a nurse who comes once a week. I sat my white ass down in my branded jeans next to a woman with goitre. I sat for twenty minutes while i figured out that this wasn't a place i could get travel shots. I had the grace to feel shame - give it a try.
I lived rural poverty in America will attest that the parent poster is making excuses for a life they never lived. And yes, I did have parents who were screwed up enough not to fill out financial paperwork.
(A pity you hadn't "had the grace to feel shame" for breaking the HN guidelines about fulminating and attacking other posters.)
I'm sorry but if you're 200 IQ I think you should be able to handle a car breaking down.
Take three months, work some menial job, save up, go to state or city college. Literally thousands of people without 200 IQ do this every day. Every job I had I've been rewarded for being slightly above average intelligence. People found out I can figure out how to use PowerPoint well, they had me doing presentations. I could follow instructions, don't need things repeated to me. I know now to argue or bite the hand that feeds me.
You're coming off as incredibly sheltered and never been exposed to regular people. You paint these fantasies in your head how it's basically impossible to survive.
This guy didn't start from zero. He started from 200 IQ. That's a huge advantage is my point. No one owes you anything in life due to your natural ability. You have to apply it. Your fantasy stories about rural Americans being helpless to determine their own fate is honestly offensive.
There are other things that point to Gates being more than average in terms of mental aptitude, like being among the very select group of Harvard undergraduates who took Math 55.
Even there he was confronted with someone with real natural ability. He had a study group where he noticed some students grasped the answer much quicker
> I was recognizing that while I had an excellent math brain, I didn’t have the gift of insight that sets apart the best mathematicians.
Definitely gifted but my point is that his success came mostly from hard work, focus and interest. Something that Langan could have easily replicated if he chose to focus on that.
Very much in agreement. It's the reason successful states have good social security, which provide opportunities. Can't cultivate an Einstein if he can't choose to learn Physics over Farming.
The scientists we learn about in textbooks almost always come from wealthy backgrounds, as it gives them the opportunity to remove themselves from the mundanity of day to day life.
This is the way it is, you have to create entropy around yourself by moving in the world. As you have little influence over the perception of others, it is best to find an environment you can work in. I'm not sure if it has anything to do with delusions or luck at all, it is just who you can interface with. I'd even say "luck" is just a symptom or something we tell ourselves, but with every engagement you increase your exposure to "luck".
If I consider how I met my wife, I wouldn't call it luck, but rather circumstances that happened to align. Especially introverted people profit from letting sheer randomness take over and prove their assumptions/internal model wrong. It seems as if your world view shrinks when you don't challenge it. Just don't take big risks but make low cost engagements/attempts that build up into something big.
It's like keep going so you are there when the door opens, but also stand in particular places, so you can see what doors exist.
> [Bill Gates] attended Lakeside School in Seattle, a private prep school that in 1968 when Gates was 13 bought a computer terminal for its students. This was extraordinarily rare... By the time he dropped out of Harvard, Gates had accumulated hours of programming practice, an almost impossible number for someone his age.
I thought this but reading Gates biography (Source Code), it's very much overplayed. He did have access, but this idea that his skill somehow manifested from having access to a computer is just wrong. His access is constantly being cutoff and he finds creative ways to gain access. It's not like his dad installed a mainframe in his bedroom.
The typical teenager has 10x the amount of access as Gates had. The reason most people don't spend 20h a day programming is not access. It's drive. If you're that captivated and willing to do work, you'll likely find a creative way to gain access, which is exactly what he did.
> [Chris Langan] got a full scholarship to Reed College in Oregon, but when his mother forgot to file the financial aid renewal paperwork, his scholarship was cancelled. He went to the administration to explain the situation and got nowhere. He had no one in his corner, no parent who knew how to navigate bureaucracy, no mentor who could make a call on his behalf. He dropped out... Chris arguably had more. It wasn't work ethic either. It was the doors that happened to be open when they arrived.
Read through the summary and you'll see that it's exactly the opposite. It is work ethic. This dude couldn't just coast of being high IQ, while Gates hustled like hell to gain computer time. This dude's car breaks down and he gives up on university? Why is his mother filling out paperwork? He was an adult at that point. Why did he need his mother? How do much dumber kids manage?
A brief summary of Gates access:
Fall 1968, age 12 turning 13: Gates first starts programming through Lakeside’s terminal. A few months later he gets effectively unlimited free access at C-Cubed in exchange for finding bugs. He later calls this period his “first 500 hours.”
Spring 1969, age 13: After about eight months of computer access, Gates and his friends are caught exploiting the system and are banned from C-Cubed. Gates says computers were then off-limits.
Late 1969 / early 1970, age 14: After about a six-month hiatus, Gates gets back into C-Cubed through Paul Allen and resumes programming. C-Cubed then shuts down in March 1970.
Late 1970 to early 1971, age 15: Gates and friends get computer time from ISI in exchange for writing a payroll program. They also talk their way into the University of Washington computer lab and spend nights and weekends there.
March 1971, age 15: They are banned from the University of Washington lab after Paul Allen takes an acoustic coupler without permission. They continue using other terminals, including one at Gates’s father’s office.
1971–72, ages 15–16: Gates keeps getting access through Lakeside and paid programming projects. During one scheduling project he works about three weeks of 20-hour days. In summer 1972, he and Paul Allen spend roughly a month living in the Lakeside computer room, coding in 12-hour stretches and sleeping there.
1973, age 17: He takes time off high school to work professionally at TRW/Bonneville on PDP-10 systems. He says he once stayed at the computer facility nearly 100 hours straight.
Fall 1973, age 17: At Harvard, he gets his own account and key to the Aiken computer lab, giving him 24-hour access. Source
I think gates is obviously a very high IQ individual with a skill for math and coding.
However very very few high IQ individuals with skill for math or coding end up running successful companies, let alone billion dollar companies. I imagine odds are if Gates was born in 2000 and went a public highschool with no rich parents, he may or may not get into MIT (but not Harvard) and would be working at google or something today, potentially hating it.
Why wouldn't he get into Harvard? He had 1590 SAT scores and it wasn't because his parents forced him to cram. Does Harvard give you some kind of advantage that MIT does not? I'd argue that MIT grad would be much more likely to start a business than a Harvard grad.
He's never had a job outside of his own company. He's very driven. Read the autobiography.
What are you basing this on?
> Why wouldn't he get into Harvard? He had 1590 SAT scores and it wasn't because his parents forced him to cram.
1600 is not enough to get into Harvard, AI estimates about 10-20% of those with perfect SATs do. I think he'd be more likely to get into MIT because he'd have extracurriculars and/or side projects that they'd value more.
> Read the autobiography.
I already have read his biography. I feel like you're getting really emotional about some pretty non-controversial claims. These aren't personal attacks if you're a big fan of his or something.
You just have to understand that there are only so many opportunities trillion-dollar companies per generation (just due to market dynamics). Being driven, having a high IQ, etc aren't as big predictors of success as having rich and connected family members.
Harvard is meaningless. Who cares if you get into Harvard? If you're "disadvantaged" or from the right demographic you're a lot more likely to get in.
Being driven and high IQ are much more predictive of success than having rich parents or connected family members. That could get you an internship or if your parents own a business get you a role there.
I don't know what I can do to convince you, but maybe look at people's kids and what they accomplish. In a few industries like acting it helps a lot. But the idea that desirable leadership roles or entrepreneurial success is allocated via nepotism rings hallow.
Also you have to realize that successful rich parents are often high IQ which they pass on to their children through genes. And they push hard work and education. It's a fairly non-controversial claim to say successful people work hard and are relatively smart, so I don't know what you're arguing.
> Being driven and high IQ are much more predictive of success than having rich parents or connected family members.
Are they? What are you basing that on?
> But the idea that desirable leadership roles or entrepreneurial success is allocated via nepotism rings hallow.
People in this thread are talking about structural advantages, not necessarily outright nepotism. Things like it being easier to take entrepreneurial risks if your parents are in a position to help you financially recover from personal bankruptcy.
> It's a fairly non-controversial claim to say successful people work hard and are relatively smart, so I don't know what you're arguing.
IME successful people have the same distributions of work ethic and intelligence as the general population. For every entrepreneur who fought tooth and nail for their success you have someone who flipped 10 coins in a row and got heads each time (metaphorically).
> 1600 is not enough to get into Harvard, AI estimates about 10-20% of those with perfect SATs do. I think he'd be more likely to get into MIT because he'd have extracurriculars and/or side projects that they'd value more.
The Harvard and SAT of today are not the same as when he was a teenager.
> You just have to understand that there are only so many opportunities trillion-dollar companies per generation (just due to market dynamics). Being driven, having a high IQ, etc aren't as big predictors of success as having rich and connected family members.
Having a high IQ and having a rich family member are both predictors of success. What's even more important is being lucky, but all three are critical.
"Gifted" (high IQ) children drop out of school at a staggering rate, something like 25%. I was doing some reading on cognitive science today and found this tidbit.
High IQ is weakly co-related with income, avoiding prison, and longevity. That's all that really can said. It seems to be hit and miss if a highly intelligent person ends up causing a lot of impact and vice versa.
> This dude's car breaks down and he gives up on university?
It seems like you’re overly harsh on this dude. Being wealthy and well connected lets you circumvent the kind of stuff Chris had to go through. Bill didn’t even need to file for any kind of aid - he could focus on the one thing. That is a luxury most people don’t have. I think if Bill was born to a poorer family and had to work part time jobs to keep the lights on, things would be very different.
Skepticism is fine, but you come across as incredibly sheltered. Also, the very embodiment of the belief system that the article is pointing at.
> This dude's car breaks down and he gives up on university?
That is life-changing when you're in poverty. Fuck, walk a mile in someone else's shoes. Housing is cheaper ten miles out; walk _twenty_ miles in someone else's _disintegrating_ shoes. Carrying books, on a poverty diet.
You don't have to accept the claim as definite fact, but have some fucking imagination.
> Why is his mother filling out paperwork?
As far as i can see from outside America, these things are addressed to the parent. They require proof of financial status, and a signature. The guy is presumably miles away. Perhaps the mother promises to do it, but lets him down. Perhaps she's spiteful. Perhaps she's afflicted. I personally know people whose parents have done horrible things to them.
You don't know, but you reflexively deny. Comes across as motivated reasoning. You earned everything you have through hard work and intelligence, huh? Started from zero, and there's no number lower than that. Good job, achiever.
Maybe this guy is morally defective for not intercepting his mother's mail and breaking into a kinko's at night to forge documents. I suspect he'd face harsher penalties than Gates for that rule-breaking.
I have seen rural poverty in America. I have seen people walking miles to sit in a tin shack for a nurse who comes once a week. I sat my white ass down in my branded jeans next to a woman with goitre. I sat for twenty minutes while i figured out that this wasn't a place i could get travel shots. I had the grace to feel shame - give it a try.
I lived rural poverty in America will attest that the parent poster is making excuses for a life they never lived. And yes, I did have parents who were screwed up enough not to fill out financial paperwork.
(A pity you hadn't "had the grace to feel shame" for breaking the HN guidelines about fulminating and attacking other posters.)
I'm sorry but if you're 200 IQ I think you should be able to handle a car breaking down.
Take three months, work some menial job, save up, go to state or city college. Literally thousands of people without 200 IQ do this every day. Every job I had I've been rewarded for being slightly above average intelligence. People found out I can figure out how to use PowerPoint well, they had me doing presentations. I could follow instructions, don't need things repeated to me. I know now to argue or bite the hand that feeds me.
You're coming off as incredibly sheltered and never been exposed to regular people. You paint these fantasies in your head how it's basically impossible to survive.
This guy didn't start from zero. He started from 200 IQ. That's a huge advantage is my point. No one owes you anything in life due to your natural ability. You have to apply it. Your fantasy stories about rural Americans being helpless to determine their own fate is honestly offensive.
You’re overly focusing on the IQ, and completely hand waving the structural advantages. You do not understand.
HN is amazing. Someone posts an article, and the subject of the article turns up in the comments.
There are other things that point to Gates being more than average in terms of mental aptitude, like being among the very select group of Harvard undergraduates who took Math 55.
Even there he was confronted with someone with real natural ability. He had a study group where he noticed some students grasped the answer much quicker
> I was recognizing that while I had an excellent math brain, I didn’t have the gift of insight that sets apart the best mathematicians.
Definitely gifted but my point is that his success came mostly from hard work, focus and interest. Something that Langan could have easily replicated if he chose to focus on that.