Folks in the status professions (banking, law,..) often tell me they want to become an entrepreneur. I always tell them, you wont do it. They attended the right school, joined the right firm, attained that corner office. As a founder they would give up all that, and their family and friends will tell them that they've made a massive mistake, for years, while it appears that nothing is happening.
Then they sheepishly admit that this is true.
As a bootstrapped founder when I was younger, even dating was awkward. People considered me to be quasi-unemployed, despite working 80 hours a week. It's really hard to do if you're thirsty for status.
The more-correct observation is that any well-understood or easy path to becoming high status will be shut down. Most people are not high status, and want to be. It follows that the path has to be either risky, or difficult to comprehend.
If hard work were enough, we'd all be in charge. Lots of hard workers out there.
> any well-understood or easy path to becoming high status will be shut down
Not shut down so much as exhausted by everyone rushing in.
High status isn’t an arbitrary designation that everyone can achieve. By definition, it requires some degree of exceptionalism and significant separation from the average.
If everyone could achieve a certain high status attribute, it’s no longer high status. It’s just average.
It’s easy to forget that high status is something given by others. You can’t become high status arbitrarily, you can only be high status if the average person voluntarily decides to see you as high status. Luxury good brands understand this perhaps better than anyone as their entire business revolves around making things appear artificially rare, unique, and hard to get while discreetly selling them to as many people as possible.
Hard work only matters when you work hard to change yourself. If you work 80 hours a week bagging groceries nobody can say you don't work hard, but it isn't very productive work.
Most people just follow the path set for them, and among those who do set out to change they mostly just change from one standard path to another. Like switching from bagging groceries to college to become a programmer. Very few want to do the hard work required to change the world, they prefer safety, even among richer people.
It follows that the path has to be either risky, or difficult to comprehend.
Risky and difficult to comprehend are two forms of "barriers to entry". Another is who you know. One of the most obvious that you left out is: cost.
People buying their way into Harvard et al will obtain high status. People becoming a doctor will obtain high status. It's just that those things cost a 200k+. The price alone closes off that route to most people.
Risky and difficult are the routes to high status that less fortunate people MUST take, because the barriers for less risky routes are impossible to overcome by most people.
The important part you're highlighting is true: status requires barriers to limit the number of people that can acquire that status... it's just more broad than you've acknowledged.
I agree with this. Since any path to becoming high status attracts heavy gate keeping quickly (essentially clearing that path for people who have high status to begin with) it seems reasonable that people try to "hide" in low status niches where there are way fewer predators.
I think success here is somewhat incidental. No doubt the vast majority of niche workers are pursuing non-viable careers, a minority can just about wring a living from it, and a vanishingly small part will actually see some measure of success - upon which that path too will close off quickly, both due to masses of people flocking to follow those footsteps and active gate keeping by value-extracting entities.
Implicit in this model, there is a dark timeline where there are always many more people than there are opportunities. Since this system of exploring possible paths and then closing them off to the lower masses is so extremely effective, eventually every single niche will be flooded with overqualified eager young upper-class people who are just perfectly networked for success, and even though they are so many there are still untold thousands more of hopeless dregs below every single one of them.
What about just pure chance? To be born in to the right family, in the right country, to be in the correct field, to have the right idea at the right time. Perhaps the correct path is just luck.
We are all rolling the dice here. Just be yourself and do what you find interesting. If it pays off great, if it doesn't that is okay too.
I disagree with this. Never underestimate how many people just don't show up or try at all.
Look at average screen time for Americans as a data point. It's a ridiculous 12 hours a day of media usage. Just think about that. People are basically staring at their phones/tvs for 12 out of the 16 waking hours.
As I get older I realize more often than not most successful people are not special, but simply were normally people that didn't screw up badly, showed up to work every day, and took better opportunities that were available. They graduated college with reasonable degrees, they didn't stay in bad jobs, or in dead-end cities. Eventually if you do that you will get a break, land at a successful company, get a big promotion, ect.
The Twitter thread explores some ideas why this may be the case. However, quickly skimming through it, they miss the most obvious one.
For the people who are busy working on something they find important, most often 'status' is not even a thing. So there's no 'willingness' really to it, it's just that status doesn't really exist. The way they see themselves and how they measure their success has literally nothing to do with what perceptions other people might have about them. And then, sure, eventually some of them end up being pretty successful also by other people's standards.
> For the people who are busy working on something they find important, most often 'status' is not even a thing.
I'd slightly modify that to say that what they were doing was more important to them than status - which isn't the same as saying they didn't care about status at all.
I read a number of biographies of great US presidents in the last year, and found it fascinating to see that pretty much all of them were intensely ambitious. What made the difference is that they ultimately cared more about the people they served than about serving their own ego.
Recently a lot of tweets in the front page, 5 tweets on the frontpage on the same day even just last week[1]
Can't help but think hn now showing the username for some domains including twitter is increasing the submissions somehow? Or maybe people just engage more in discussion around tweets lately.
This can be differently phrased as "privilege to be low-status".
If you are an underrepresented minority and spend years working in a low-status position, the likelihood of a payoff for you is much lesser than it is for someone who typically doesn't experience discrimination based on their age, race, or gender. The downside for spending those years for some people is much higher than others.
A social safety net can de-risk this somewhat, but the US doesn't have a meaningful one.
So really, the "willingness to be low-status" often just means "coming from a background that's high-status enough that being low-status for a few years will not significantly damage their financial prospects".
Yeah, 33 years old, haven't accomplished much, went into school to start a degree in programming, still low status and can't find a job anywhere.
I'm not sure willingness is the word for this. All I feel is bitterness. I'm not sure if this is me being reflective because it's my birthday today or what, but I'm so fucking sick of working so hard to get nowhere.
I feel the bitterness as well (31 here). A few observations/tips (that I gave myself):
* I've noticed many don't appreciate the bitterness as the bitterness needs to align with their beliefs and people their beliefs are different. If it doesn't align, then all they feel are unpleasant emotions.
* Being/feeling bitter is destroying my soul. Don't give into it, I know you have your justifications. I have mine, but ultimately it's a one way ticket to depression land and it's not a fun place.
* Get rich on aspects that people don't pay attention to (aka how I also happen to win resource-based boardgames). Some examples are here [1].
* Keep networking
* Keep improving
* While showing bitterness is a risky thing, showing that you're looking for work is a good thing. Showing side projects is a good thing. Anything that looks constructive and positive in the area of where your needs aren't being met is a good thing. So focus on applying, focus on building stuff.
* I know it's tiring, but what I'm experiencing is that now that I'm working at a company that the job is easy, because web dev is relatively easy compared to what I did at uni.
Good luck, I hope that one day you'll be happy again.
[1] Examples of getting rich on aspects that people don't pay attention to (e.g. when going for a job that has bad pay):
- Flexible working hours
- Ability to work 4 days per week
- Amazing opportunity to learn
- Flexibility to work from wherever
- The flexibility to not always work at 100%
Examples for if you aren't working (and can't find a job):
FWIW Junior level jobs are by far the hardest jobs to get. They are the fewest openings, with the most applicants. And tech companies basically all use the same leetcode white boarding interviews that aren't representative of actually working. My unsolicited advice would be: Continue working on improving, apply to jobs where-ever you can, try to get experience somewhere (work with a professor, make your own startup, go on fiverr, anything).
I am sorry the market is such crap for you. I would best describe my career as "clawing my way to the middle" while learning that economic class (the one I was born into) has had an outsized influence over my whole life. That was helpful for separating my actual enjoyment of engineering and development from an industry I've learned to resent.
Very similar situation as you (at least on the surface). My only advice that has actually worked is network, network, network. I have a degree in Russian language, and now I'm a javascript dev. It only happened because 1) I can teach myself/back to school for programming and 2) I met and made friends with someone who knew someone who was hiring a entry-level dev.
2 was really the hard part, can't lie. It was years of effort, and I have no formula for it besides make and keep as many friends as you can. It kind of sucks for an introvert to do this, but growing your network of friends and acquaintances is the single most important thing I have done for my career.
SQA is the easiest entry level job to get if you are technical. Get one of those and program your way to the top. Replace yourself with a program. Just keep programming and getting better.
The competition is intense. I understand the feeling. Helping others will help you. Maybe offer to help out at the local high school teaching programming to the kids. A lot of parents wants their kid to code.
I'll be the asshole here. You're probably making some critical mistakes that are holding you back. What is it that you are specifically trying to achieve and what are the reasons that you haven't been able to achieve those goals?
Many, many more people work at things other people think are silly and insignificant only to discover that thing is silly and insignificant and then they give up. Occasionally the opposite happens and the person succeeds. If you only look at the successes it probably looks like a willingness to be low-status is a marker for success, but it really isn't. It tells you nothing of the future outcome. The only thing it predicts is a lack of understanding of survivorship bias.
I'll always remember growing up when we moved from a big house (2000 sq ft) to a little apartment (700 sq ft). My parents didn't lose their jobs, maybe a few expensive things hit but really there was no obvious reason to an outsider. We could have stayed in the big house and gotten by.
But our family wasn't in great financial shape. Small expenses became debts, parents always fighting or stressed about money, just general family stress. Classic stretched middle class family, perhaps a bit more than others.
But we moved anyway, and it was great. Stress went down, and as each of us turned 16 my parents bought us (cheap) cars and we started working.
Sharing rooms was annoying but really didn't impact us much. Lower stress was great, and a little pressure to get jobs got all of us a head start on working and paying for stuff (gas, insurance, fast food, cell phones, outings with friends) during high school.
We are all successful and happy today. But I bet a lot of people thought we were losers when we left the big house. And if we had waited until we HAD to leave the big house, we would be losers.
Only a small fraction of people with high net worths, say $50M+, are coming from founding venture backed startups. Many of the wealthiest people I've met do things like manufacture purses for Walmart, or towels for TJ Maxx, or sell network equipment to cable companies. Stuff that isn't sexy or visible, but with large markets that can get you into the very well off range (but that limit you from being a multi-billionaire).
Or far more likely: Most revolutionary breakthroughs are first viewed as silly / insignificant. If they were easily recognisable for what they are, they'd have been discovered already (low hanging fruit). All of my successful ideas started this way.
It's not a willingness to be low-status; it's a willingness to persevere in the face of ridicule/obscurity while ALSO having an actually good idea that you have a chance of successfully iterating on.
The only difference between visionary and batshit crazy is success.
I'm not sure I'd equate "low status" with "working on something silly or insignificant" (real or perceived). These things seem unrelated.
It's entirely possible to be low status and working on something incredibly important. E.g., driving a lorry to collect rubbish and recycling: nobody thinks of that as a high status job but imagine what happens if people stop doing it, and see if you can then still convince yourself that it's not an important job. It's also possible to do such a job for your entire working life and never taste "success". In fact, I would imagine that's possibly the default case. This in turn suggests that "low status" is an incredibly poor predictor of success.
Also, look at how rife poverty is across the globe. Poor people tend to be "low status", and many of them stay that way for their entire lives. Talking about their status as a "predictor of success" seems incredibly tone-deaf to me.
Overall this comment seems ridiculously ill thought out, to the point where I'm wondering how it's ended up here on the front page. To the person who wrote it: please, for your own benefit as much as anybody else's, step outside your bubble, because staying there is breaking your ability to think clearly.
>>
I'm not sure I'd equate "low status" with "working on something silly or insignificant"
Their not identical, but one does interact with another. In the context of an individual (not a global or social context), heterodox choices tend to be the less status oriented choices.
It's tone deaf because it relates to breakthrough success, and heterodox chance taking is tends to be a privileged prerogative. That doesn't make it untrue.
I'm struggling to see the link between status and working on something obscure. Working on something you like (or even having a choice of things to work on at all), even if it's something others find trivial or pointless, still seems like a privilege.
I interpreted this to mean that someone toiling through the ranks of an organization "keeping the lights on" is more likely to be successful that someone who specifically tries to get a leadership role in an organization.
Or, someone who enters politics by joining local committees, volunteering to help other candidates, and maybe running for an "insignificant" office will have more success than someone who enters politics by running for mayor, governor, or president as their first endeavor.
But, more specifically, I interpret "looking like they're working on something silly or insignificant" to basically mean finding tasks that are critical for the survival of the organization; but might not come with the prestige of a leadership title.
I think in this case, they're using the word "status" to refer more to how people might perceive someone relative to certain societal norms, whereas privilege is more about the basic abilities or advantages someone has because of their "socioeconomic status".
The tweet thread is using the word "status" a little differently than a sociologist might use it when talking about "socioeconomic status".
"I never predicted that anyone I know would become extremely successful. I guess successful people can be predicted by observing how unsuccessful they look right now".
Kinda disheartening to see obvious survivorship bias elevated to the top of HN.
The most expensive display of status that I see around my friends is having a new car. I have a 12 year old beautiful BMW that was created just after the design refresh. It's expensive to maintain, but far not as much as buying a new car. My friends are trying to pressure me to upgrade it to a newer one, but I see that just as money going out of the window that goes to compound investment right now.
Also in the US I listen to Dave Ramsey callers, and there are lots of people whose car is worth more than their whole net worth, which is totally unjustifiable in my view.
This is a good meme to use to keep direct reports quiet at work. Show them this and tell them that if they continue working in the ditch all will be well in the end!
Man, I see that this conversation has gone a lot of different directions in the comments. Everything from work / life balance to Ivy League schools, etc.
Everyone from an early age is fed a lot of information regarding all this stuff. Your parents, the ZIP code you grew up in, to the public or private places you were educated or dropped out from.
The truth is, it takes all kinds and success is defined 8 billion ways by 8 billion different people on this planet.
I think one thing that is interesting about tech (I don't work in tech, and I'm not a programmer) is the entrepreneur / start up culture. Maybe it has something to do with the cap nature of the beast (all you have to do is code and rent a server) that makes everyone bananas to be "successful" or a "CEO," but I just don't see this in other industries. Sure, other industries have entrepreneurs and people who start their own thing. But is it SO much different in this tech world. It's a cultural phenomena. It's more or less a function of time. No matter how hard I worked, I could never start a chemical refinery or build a car company. A new app? Function of time and sweat.
Ability to be under-paid or under-appreciated for the work is the real predictor here. That's why startups are a rich-person's game. The people who succeed by being "low-status" for a long time aren't really low-status at all. . . they are high-status in other ways and can afford to let their start-up garden grow because their sense of self-worth, and income aren't totally tied to it.
I know people blocked by this. Usually they're people who had an easy time at expensive schools, they now can't accept that they're anything other than brilliant and deserve the top jobs based on their raw 'talent' alone. Those who can work their way up from the unglamorous positions at the bottom are the ones doing well, and often leapfrog those with an easier starting position due to it.
I wished I learned earlier in my life that hard work and success don't come hand-in-hand. There are a lot of hard working people in the world who never get to reap any reward from their labour.
At least for me, recognizing that success is nice, but not getting too hung up on it (or expecting it) and to enjoy the labour itself (and find fulfillment in it) helps.
[+] [-] paulsutter|5 years ago|reply
Then they sheepishly admit that this is true.
As a bootstrapped founder when I was younger, even dating was awkward. People considered me to be quasi-unemployed, despite working 80 hours a week. It's really hard to do if you're thirsty for status.
[+] [-] roenxi|5 years ago|reply
If hard work were enough, we'd all be in charge. Lots of hard workers out there.
[+] [-] PragmaticPulp|5 years ago|reply
Not shut down so much as exhausted by everyone rushing in.
High status isn’t an arbitrary designation that everyone can achieve. By definition, it requires some degree of exceptionalism and significant separation from the average.
If everyone could achieve a certain high status attribute, it’s no longer high status. It’s just average.
It’s easy to forget that high status is something given by others. You can’t become high status arbitrarily, you can only be high status if the average person voluntarily decides to see you as high status. Luxury good brands understand this perhaps better than anyone as their entire business revolves around making things appear artificially rare, unique, and hard to get while discreetly selling them to as many people as possible.
[+] [-] username90|5 years ago|reply
Most people just follow the path set for them, and among those who do set out to change they mostly just change from one standard path to another. Like switching from bagging groceries to college to become a programmer. Very few want to do the hard work required to change the world, they prefer safety, even among richer people.
[+] [-] rgbrenner|5 years ago|reply
Risky and difficult to comprehend are two forms of "barriers to entry". Another is who you know. One of the most obvious that you left out is: cost.
People buying their way into Harvard et al will obtain high status. People becoming a doctor will obtain high status. It's just that those things cost a 200k+. The price alone closes off that route to most people.
Risky and difficult are the routes to high status that less fortunate people MUST take, because the barriers for less risky routes are impossible to overcome by most people.
The important part you're highlighting is true: status requires barriers to limit the number of people that can acquire that status... it's just more broad than you've acknowledged.
[+] [-] Udo|5 years ago|reply
I think success here is somewhat incidental. No doubt the vast majority of niche workers are pursuing non-viable careers, a minority can just about wring a living from it, and a vanishingly small part will actually see some measure of success - upon which that path too will close off quickly, both due to masses of people flocking to follow those footsteps and active gate keeping by value-extracting entities.
Implicit in this model, there is a dark timeline where there are always many more people than there are opportunities. Since this system of exploring possible paths and then closing them off to the lower masses is so extremely effective, eventually every single niche will be flooded with overqualified eager young upper-class people who are just perfectly networked for success, and even though they are so many there are still untold thousands more of hopeless dregs below every single one of them.
[+] [-] spicymaki|5 years ago|reply
We are all rolling the dice here. Just be yourself and do what you find interesting. If it pays off great, if it doesn't that is okay too.
[+] [-] im3w1l|5 years ago|reply
Or require being born with a rare gift or trait.
[+] [-] ativzzz|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rjkennedy98|5 years ago|reply
I disagree with this. Never underestimate how many people just don't show up or try at all.
Look at average screen time for Americans as a data point. It's a ridiculous 12 hours a day of media usage. Just think about that. People are basically staring at their phones/tvs for 12 out of the 16 waking hours.
As I get older I realize more often than not most successful people are not special, but simply were normally people that didn't screw up badly, showed up to work every day, and took better opportunities that were available. They graduated college with reasonable degrees, they didn't stay in bad jobs, or in dead-end cities. Eventually if you do that you will get a break, land at a successful company, get a big promotion, ect.
[+] [-] jgilias|5 years ago|reply
For the people who are busy working on something they find important, most often 'status' is not even a thing. So there's no 'willingness' really to it, it's just that status doesn't really exist. The way they see themselves and how they measure their success has literally nothing to do with what perceptions other people might have about them. And then, sure, eventually some of them end up being pretty successful also by other people's standards.
[+] [-] veddox|5 years ago|reply
I'd slightly modify that to say that what they were doing was more important to them than status - which isn't the same as saying they didn't care about status at all.
I read a number of biographies of great US presidents in the last year, and found it fascinating to see that pretty much all of them were intensely ambitious. What made the difference is that they ultimately cared more about the people they served than about serving their own ego.
[+] [-] unknown|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] andreilys|5 years ago|reply
Unless you’ve reached enlightenment through concerted practice, status will still be a topic that concerns you.
[+] [-] _qulr|5 years ago|reply
Why is this even on Hacker News?
[+] [-] germinalphrase|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tucif|5 years ago|reply
Can't help but think hn now showing the username for some domains including twitter is increasing the submissions somehow? Or maybe people just engage more in discussion around tweets lately.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/front?day=2020-10-15
[+] [-] unknown|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] unknown|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] dr-detroit|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] hello_friendos|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] throwawaylolx|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] quadrifoliate|5 years ago|reply
If you are an underrepresented minority and spend years working in a low-status position, the likelihood of a payoff for you is much lesser than it is for someone who typically doesn't experience discrimination based on their age, race, or gender. The downside for spending those years for some people is much higher than others.
A social safety net can de-risk this somewhat, but the US doesn't have a meaningful one.
So really, the "willingness to be low-status" often just means "coming from a background that's high-status enough that being low-status for a few years will not significantly damage their financial prospects".
[+] [-] bluedays|5 years ago|reply
I'm not sure willingness is the word for this. All I feel is bitterness. I'm not sure if this is me being reflective because it's my birthday today or what, but I'm so fucking sick of working so hard to get nowhere.
[+] [-] mettamage|5 years ago|reply
* I've noticed many don't appreciate the bitterness as the bitterness needs to align with their beliefs and people their beliefs are different. If it doesn't align, then all they feel are unpleasant emotions.
* Being/feeling bitter is destroying my soul. Don't give into it, I know you have your justifications. I have mine, but ultimately it's a one way ticket to depression land and it's not a fun place.
* Get rich on aspects that people don't pay attention to (aka how I also happen to win resource-based boardgames). Some examples are here [1].
* Keep networking
* Keep improving
* While showing bitterness is a risky thing, showing that you're looking for work is a good thing. Showing side projects is a good thing. Anything that looks constructive and positive in the area of where your needs aren't being met is a good thing. So focus on applying, focus on building stuff.
* I know it's tiring, but what I'm experiencing is that now that I'm working at a company that the job is easy, because web dev is relatively easy compared to what I did at uni.
Good luck, I hope that one day you'll be happy again.
[1] Examples of getting rich on aspects that people don't pay attention to (e.g. when going for a job that has bad pay):
- Flexible working hours
- Ability to work 4 days per week
- Amazing opportunity to learn
- Flexibility to work from wherever
- The flexibility to not always work at 100%
Examples for if you aren't working (and can't find a job):
- Freedom to work on whatever
- Freedom to network with whomever
- The freedom to work at a nice pace
[+] [-] ecshafer|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] spacemanmatt|5 years ago|reply
Best of luck to you.
[+] [-] xnyan|5 years ago|reply
2 was really the hard part, can't lie. It was years of effort, and I have no formula for it besides make and keep as many friends as you can. It kind of sucks for an introvert to do this, but growing your network of friends and acquaintances is the single most important thing I have done for my career.
[+] [-] afandian|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mrleiter|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sjg007|5 years ago|reply
SQA is the easiest entry level job to get if you are technical. Get one of those and program your way to the top. Replace yourself with a program. Just keep programming and getting better.
The competition is intense. I understand the feeling. Helping others will help you. Maybe offer to help out at the local high school teaching programming to the kids. A lot of parents wants their kid to code.
[+] [-] peder|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jmnicolas|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] onion2k|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chmod600|5 years ago|reply
But our family wasn't in great financial shape. Small expenses became debts, parents always fighting or stressed about money, just general family stress. Classic stretched middle class family, perhaps a bit more than others.
But we moved anyway, and it was great. Stress went down, and as each of us turned 16 my parents bought us (cheap) cars and we started working.
Sharing rooms was annoying but really didn't impact us much. Lower stress was great, and a little pressure to get jobs got all of us a head start on working and paying for stuff (gas, insurance, fast food, cell phones, outings with friends) during high school.
We are all successful and happy today. But I bet a lot of people thought we were losers when we left the big house. And if we had waited until we HAD to leave the big house, we would be losers.
[+] [-] chadash|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kstenerud|5 years ago|reply
It's not a willingness to be low-status; it's a willingness to persevere in the face of ridicule/obscurity while ALSO having an actually good idea that you have a chance of successfully iterating on.
The only difference between visionary and batshit crazy is success.
[+] [-] asciimov|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bartread|5 years ago|reply
It's entirely possible to be low status and working on something incredibly important. E.g., driving a lorry to collect rubbish and recycling: nobody thinks of that as a high status job but imagine what happens if people stop doing it, and see if you can then still convince yourself that it's not an important job. It's also possible to do such a job for your entire working life and never taste "success". In fact, I would imagine that's possibly the default case. This in turn suggests that "low status" is an incredibly poor predictor of success.
Also, look at how rife poverty is across the globe. Poor people tend to be "low status", and many of them stay that way for their entire lives. Talking about their status as a "predictor of success" seems incredibly tone-deaf to me.
Overall this comment seems ridiculously ill thought out, to the point where I'm wondering how it's ended up here on the front page. To the person who wrote it: please, for your own benefit as much as anybody else's, step outside your bubble, because staying there is breaking your ability to think clearly.
[+] [-] dalbasal|5 years ago|reply
Their not identical, but one does interact with another. In the context of an individual (not a global or social context), heterodox choices tend to be the less status oriented choices.
It's tone deaf because it relates to breakthrough success, and heterodox chance taking is tends to be a privileged prerogative. That doesn't make it untrue.
[+] [-] thom|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gwbas1c|5 years ago|reply
Or, someone who enters politics by joining local committees, volunteering to help other candidates, and maybe running for an "insignificant" office will have more success than someone who enters politics by running for mayor, governor, or president as their first endeavor.
But, more specifically, I interpret "looking like they're working on something silly or insignificant" to basically mean finding tasks that are critical for the survival of the organization; but might not come with the prestige of a leadership title.
[+] [-] blurbleblurble|5 years ago|reply
The tweet thread is using the word "status" a little differently than a sociologist might use it when talking about "socioeconomic status".
[+] [-] RIMR|5 years ago|reply
Kinda disheartening to see obvious survivorship bias elevated to the top of HN.
[+] [-] xiphias2|5 years ago|reply
Also in the US I listen to Dave Ramsey callers, and there are lots of people whose car is worth more than their whole net worth, which is totally unjustifiable in my view.
[+] [-] sgt101|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] happyjack|5 years ago|reply
Everyone from an early age is fed a lot of information regarding all this stuff. Your parents, the ZIP code you grew up in, to the public or private places you were educated or dropped out from.
The truth is, it takes all kinds and success is defined 8 billion ways by 8 billion different people on this planet.
I think one thing that is interesting about tech (I don't work in tech, and I'm not a programmer) is the entrepreneur / start up culture. Maybe it has something to do with the cap nature of the beast (all you have to do is code and rent a server) that makes everyone bananas to be "successful" or a "CEO," but I just don't see this in other industries. Sure, other industries have entrepreneurs and people who start their own thing. But is it SO much different in this tech world. It's a cultural phenomena. It's more or less a function of time. No matter how hard I worked, I could never start a chemical refinery or build a car company. A new app? Function of time and sweat.
[+] [-] kweinber|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fredley|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] drchiu|5 years ago|reply
At least for me, recognizing that success is nice, but not getting too hung up on it (or expecting it) and to enjoy the labour itself (and find fulfillment in it) helps.