>That doesn’t OBVIOUSLY mean that you don’t have to deliver anything or that you don’t need to work.
YOU said that all their success was due to some random meetings. If you don't mean what you say, then stop saying those things. Creating any successful business requires immense mental and physical resources. MZ is a genius (even though I personally dislike his personality-type) and FB is a result of him being awesome at what he does. You're trying to paint this picture that people have the raw ingredients within them to be a success, and all you need is to be in this right situation to take advantage of them. That kind of model is incongruent with reality.
> first because it’s a very limited experience of one personal story (so there’s no guarantee it’s representative for other billion dollar company makers) and second because it’s about them, so its highly probable that they won’t be objective (and it’s actually a common human trait not to be in cases of success, one studied by psychology).
'representative' doesn't mean anything because there are countless factors involved in being successful, and it is impossible to isolate them all. So let me ask you, why do you focus on success guarantees and objective success models? These things do not exist in the real world. There is simply no point in trying to establish ANY kind of logical reasoning behind success because it doesn't work that way. People look at what successful people do and they think "Hey it worked for X let me try and see if it might work for me". That is a perfectly normal way to approach these things - Which is the point the parent poster was making - "Business isn't exactly chess, but it's a lot closer to hold'em than it is to a lottery."
YOU said that all their success was due to some random meetings. If you don't mean what you say, then stop saying those things. Creating any successful business requires immense mental and physical resources. MZ is a genius (even though I personally dislike his personality-type) and FB is a result of him being awesome at what he does. You're trying to paint this picture that people have the raw ingredients within them to be a success, and all you need is to be in this right situation to take advantage of them. That kind of model is incongruent with reality.
> first because it’s a very limited experience of one personal story (so there’s no guarantee it’s representative for other billion dollar company makers) and second because it’s about them, so its highly probable that they won’t be objective (and it’s actually a common human trait not to be in cases of success, one studied by psychology).
'representative' doesn't mean anything because there are countless factors involved in being successful, and it is impossible to isolate them all. So let me ask you, why do you focus on success guarantees and objective success models? These things do not exist in the real world. There is simply no point in trying to establish ANY kind of logical reasoning behind success because it doesn't work that way. People look at what successful people do and they think "Hey it worked for X let me try and see if it might work for me". That is a perfectly normal way to approach these things - Which is the point the parent poster was making - "Business isn't exactly chess, but it's a lot closer to hold'em than it is to a lottery."