[Sweet]

Looking at successful individuals in the world today; would they be successful if things were different? Or would the social heirarchy be the same no matter what realities prevailed, because these people are predisposed to success?

[Snag]

Sweet, on 30 July 2010 - 10:54 AM, said:

Looking at successful individuals in the world today; would they be successful if things were different? Or would the social heirarchy be the same no matter what realities prevailed, because these people are predisposed to success?

בני חיי ומזוני לאו בזכותא תליא מילתא אלא במזלא תליא מילתא

[Sweet]

Snag, on 30 July 2010 - 10:56 AM, said:

בני חיי ומזוני לאו בזכותא תליא מילתא אלא במזלא תליא מילתא

Okay. And what's YOUR opinion?

[Snag]

Sweet, on 30 July 2010 - 10:57 AM, said:

Okay. And what's YOUR opinion?

that be it - some people are predisposed to success, even with a minimum of effort, some people are mildly predisposed to success, but require effort to get them there, and some people are just lus3rs.

[Sweet]

Snag, on 30 July 2010 - 10:59 AM, said:

that be it - some people are predisposed to success, even with a minimum of effort, some people are mildly predisposed to success, but require effort to get them there, and some people are just lus3rs.

You mean predisposed, like by the stars? Or they have such ability that they can coast to success?

[Snag]

Sweet, on 30 July 2010 - 11:00 AM, said:

You mean predisposed, like by the stars? Or they have such ability that they can coast to success?

one leads to the other. although i wouldn't call it the stars - i think the more in vogue term today is genetics.

[Sweet]

Snag, on 30 July 2010 - 11:04 AM, said:

i think the more in vogue term today is genetics.

That is ridiculous. In your description, it would be impossible for a person from an unsuccessful family to become successful.

[Snag]

Sweet, on 30 July 2010 - 11:06 AM, said:

That is ridiculous. In your description, it would be impossible for a person from an unsuccessful family to become successful.

that's because my description was incomplete, and i was being flippant. the tiferes yisroel explains "mazal" not to mean astrological portents, but to mean the confluence of events which make up the natural order of things. thus one's 'mazal' would be his predispositions, as determined by his parentage, socioeconomic position, inborn talents, etc.

[moe says]

Sweet, on 30 July 2010 - 11:06 AM, said:

That is ridiculous. In your description, it would be impossible for a person from an unsuccessful family to become successful.

what's ridiculous is your assumption that everyone from an "unsuccessful" (by which I can only assume you mean "low income") family can be assumed to have inferior genes.

[Sweet]

moe says, on 30 July 2010 - 12:06 PM, said:

what's ridiculous is your assumption that everyone from an "unsuccessful" (by which I can only assume you mean "low income") family can be assumed to have inferior genes.

That wasn't me. That was snag.

[Snag]

Sweet, on 30 July 2010 - 01:06 PM, said:

That wasn't me. That was snag.

no, he was referring to your inference that if success is genetic then no one from an unsuccessful family can ever be successful.

[Savannah]

Sweet, on 30 July 2010 - 10:54 AM, said:

Looking at successful individuals in the world today; would they be successful if things were different? Or would the social heirarchy be the same no matter what realities prevailed, because these people are predisposed to success?

I think a person achieves success because of a confluence of events, so if they had been born at a different time in a different place, etc., they very likely would not have become successful.

[Sweet]

Savannah, on 30 July 2010 - 01:08 PM, said:

I think a person achieves success because of a confluence of events, so if they had been born at a different time in a different place, etc., they very likely would not have become successful.

Ah, a Gladwell disciple.

[Savannah]

Sweet, on 30 July 2010 - 01:11 PM, said:

Ah, a Gladwell disciple.

No. I only read his Tipping Point. This is my own opinion.

[Sweet]

Savannah, on 30 July 2010 - 01:08 PM, said:

I think a person achieves success because of a confluence of events, so if they had been born at a different time in a different place, etc., they very likely would not have become successful.

Success always follows a confluence of events, but those events are "ridden" by a particular person with particular abilities. Maybe event manipulation is in itself a skill. If I dunno, Jesse Owens were born today, he might not be a track and field star, but he could be a soccer player.

[Savannah]

Sweet, on 30 July 2010 - 01:19 PM, said:

Success always follows a confluence of events, but those events are "ridden" by a particular person with particular abilities. Maybe event manipulation is in itself a skill. If I dunno, Jesse Owens were born today, he might not be a track and field star, but he could be a soccer player.

Not necessarily. Jesse Owens succeeded because he was pretty much the only black person who was willing to persevere in the face of such discrimination. In today's world he might very well be nobody either because he'd be facing so much fiercer competition or because he might not feel the same drive to compete and excel.

[moe says]

Savannah, on 30 July 2010 - 01:08 PM, said:

I think a person achieves success because of a confluence of events, so if they had been born at a different time in a different place, etc., they very likely would not have become successful.

I often think about this.

I imagine ADD kids who, in western society get branded, and medicated, and therapized by the time they're nine years old, and are often not the most likely succeed later on in life, in sparta, or some other warrior culture. They would be the pick of the litter. An abundance of energy, failure to think about consequences (aka courage), dominant personalities.... they would thrive in combat, I think.

[Sweet]

Savannah, on 30 July 2010 - 01:29 PM, said:

Not necessarily. Jesse Owens succeeded because he was pretty much the only black person who was willing to persevere in the face of such discrimination. In today's world he might very well be nobody either because he'd be facing so much fiercer competition or because he might not feel the same drive to compete and excel.

Okay, i don't know a lot about Jesse Owens per se. But by the same token, he was the only guy who was willing to persevere in the face of THOSE circumstances, how much more would he be able to deal with today.

I guess it's old rashi-in-Noach dilemma.

moe says, on 30 July 2010 - 01:29 PM, said:

I often think about this.

I imagine ADD kids who, in western society get branded, and medicated, and therapized by the time they're nine years old, and are often not the most likely succeed later on in life, in sparta, or some other warrior culture. They would be the pick of the litter. An abundance of energy, failure to think about consequences (aka courage), dominant personalities.... they would thrive in combat, I think.

They'd also die in droves.

I would imagine that all they'd have would be energy, but focus would still be an issue.

[Savannah]

Sweet, on 30 July 2010 - 01:38 PM, said:

Okay, i don't know a lot about Jesse Owens per se. But by the same token, he was the only guy who was willing to persevere in the face of THOSE circumstances, how much more would he be able to deal with today.

Not necessarily. It's like those people from small towns in the Midwest who are dying to get out of there and succeed in the big city. If they had been born in the big city they wouldn't have the same kind of drive to succeed.

Quote

I guess it's old rashi-in-Noach dilemma.

Right.

moe says, on 30 July 2010 - 01:29 PM, said:

I imagine ADD kids who, in western society get branded, and medicated, and therapized by the time they're nine years old, and are often not the most likely succeed later on in life, in sparta, or some other warrior culture. They would be the pick of the litter. An abundance of energy, failure to think about consequences (aka courage), dominant personalities.... they would thrive in combat, I think.

Doubtful. Warriors need to be highly disciplined. Spartans were the most disciplined of them all.

ADD probably didn't exist much to begin with back then.

[moe says]

Savannah, on 30 July 2010 - 01:51 PM, said:

Doubtful. Warriors need to be highly disciplined. Spartans were the most disciplined of them all.

I have observed ADD kids being capable of unusually high levels of focus, and self-discipline when it comes to more physical, "world knowledge" type pursuits, like music, art, sports, etc. ...

Spoiler

<------------------------------------