This is true. There are a lot of people who have worked hard their whole life and have nothing to show for it and I have met very intelligent people, some with incredible talent but they never made it and they never turned out rich, then you see people who are just starting out with no talent or brians, a slight turn of events and they end up rich with more money than they can use.
Indeed. Those people who ran out of school during their days of studying was proven to be the most successful people that you can see nowadays. This has proven that grades are just numerical values because true experience in life can never be learned and taught inside school because we individuals have our own strategy in surviving the challenges of life which was beyond those what we can only learn inside the classroom. It is just that those unfortunate people meaning to say those who are not given the chance to be so intelligent thinks the most complicated ideas on how he can survive life even he was not coined as the brilliant one inside the school so I guess it is a by chance situation that an intelligent man can be rich or it is just the not so intelligent one can stand above those with degree in a way that he have his own thinking of surpassing the challenges of life. 
Topic: Study says being rich is determined by chance rather than intelligence or talent - page 19. (Read 2986 times)
April 07, 2018, 06:53:21 AM
April 07, 2018, 06:43:06 AM
This is true. There are a lot of people who have worked hard their whole life and have nothing to show for it and I have met very intelligent people, some with incredible talent but they never made it and they never turned out rich, then you see people who are just starting out with no talent or brians, a slight turn of events and they end up rich with more money than they can use.
That's the nature of things, the nature of luck, and ultimately the nature of true randomness. Some people, well, in fact many people erroneously think or assume that random is synonymous with uniform but it is not so. And just because random is not uniform, some people turn out more lucky than others, and that has nothing to do with their intelligence, talent, or whatever. But it doesn't mean either that you can't work deliberately toward increasing your chances of encountering luck sooner or later. A simple example, if you don't buy lottery tickets, you can't win a lottery, as simple as it gets. Of course, it doesn't mean that you should run and buy a bunch of tickets right now because your chances are still pretty bleak but you get the idea.
April 07, 2018, 04:03:34 AM
Being rich is by fate, it's what God has written, it's not by being smart or intelligent.
April 07, 2018, 03:21:11 AM
This is true. There are a lot of people who have worked hard their whole life and have nothing to show for it and I have met very intelligent people, some with incredible talent but they never made it and they never turned out rich, then you see people who are just starting out with no talent or brians, a slight turn of events and they end up rich with more money than they can use.
April 07, 2018, 02:20:04 AM
It is fact that luck can make you happy and relax more than your intelligence and bitcoin is the digital currency which more than luck than intelligence so for us the bitcoin can make us successful if our luck is stronger and many people are ready to buy bitcoin and they are waiting for the chance to become double their value.
April 07, 2018, 01:46:50 AM
I agree with this to a point. I think though you need to be more shewed than smart. I was above average intelligence when I went to school and was two years above average in IQ and general intelligence than my peers, but I wasn't shrewd enough to become rich and was always unlucky. My luck has never shone on me, yet I see fraudsters and cheaters becoming rich around me daily. So you need to be more alert than intelligent. There are many talented and intelligent people dying poor every day and left with nothing. I hope all of us here at least end up a little comfortable and not in the poor house or on the streets.
April 07, 2018, 01:38:26 AM
You obviously fail to see my point. You don't see the forest for the trees. Microsoft's products were not shitty, they were so-so at best (in fact they quite were). There were more than enough competing products likely much better than Microsoft's but their developers didn't have their mothers on friendly terms with CEO's of biggest corporations. This is where luck comes to matter a lot, actually enough to make all the difference.
Market utility isn't superficial because it's the actual root cause of wealth. You couldn't turn that example around because simply reversing the words wouldn't make it true. Money isn't actual wealth, it's a representation of wealth you've accumulated through the efforts of what you offer the market, either through the products you make or the services you offer. The more utility those goods and services have, the more money you ultimately will acquire. But you don't get the money without the utility, that's how you know it's the cause of it.
If so, why don't you address the point which I made? How are you going to create that market utility in the first place when you have to compete with or rather against corporations which have literally thousands of personnel in R&D departments? In most cases, your only chance is pure luck, end of story.
This has essentially devolved into a chicken and egg discussion. Because you couldn't win the point against the notion that market utility is what causes wealth (as opposed to some of your earlier assertions, like it's caused by luck or caused by money, which failed to recognize that money is just a representation of wealth and not the actual cause of wealth), you're now trying to undermine the market utility argument by claiming that the only way you can create market utility is through luck. It's a ridiculous argument to make. It completely ignores ingenuity as any kind of force in the market. You might as well be saying that there's no point in trying to do anything in the marketplace because it's completely random and winners and losers are determined by chance. When you take that argument to its logical conclusion, you realize what a ridiculous point it is.
Now you are trying to deliberately distort and twist my point. I don't say that luck is the only way you can create market utility, yet it pretty quickly comes down to that in any saturated market which is divided by corporations with their huge budgets. To keep things real, can you name, for example, a startup which came up with a new processor recently? There is none. The only one that I can think of is Transmeta. But it still failed in the end by offering a subpar "market utility". Your realistic chances (besides some really impossible turn of luck) lie in new fields which haven't yet been taken over by the same big guns.
No matter how many times you end a paragraph with "end of story," it doesn't make your points any stronger. It looks like an attempt to claim an authority your points are completely failing to establish.
Now that you don't want to talk about Microsoft success and Bill Gates being a genius any more, I safely conclude that we can finally call it a genuine end of story.
How am I trying to deliberately distort your point when I repeat back to you what you say? Did you or did you not write exactly: "How are you going to create that market utility in the first place when you have to compete with or rather against corporations which have literally thousands of personnel in R&D departments? In most cases, your only chance is pure luck, end of story." If you don't like arguing against yourself, be more careful in what you write.
Yes, this is what I wrote, specifically to show that in today's world you can't create a successful product which enjoys a lot of market utility (I'm using your parlance here) unless you are a multibillion-dollar corporation, which is not guaranteed either, or have an incredible amount of luck on your side. And yes, Transmeta failed because they didn't build anything more useful than what had already been present on the market because they 1) didn't have billions of dollars to invest in R&D and 2) didn't have the luck to come up with something useful without having to invest billions of dollars in R&D. In simple terms, luck was their only chance to success, but they didn't make it and expectedly went bust in the end.
April 06, 2018, 06:50:44 PM
You obviously fail to see my point. You don't see the forest for the trees. Microsoft's products were not shitty, they were so-so at best (in fact they quite were). There were more than enough competing products likely much better than Microsoft's but their developers didn't have their mothers on friendly terms with CEO's of biggest corporations. This is where luck comes to matter a lot, actually enough to make all the difference.
Market utility isn't superficial because it's the actual root cause of wealth. You couldn't turn that example around because simply reversing the words wouldn't make it true. Money isn't actual wealth, it's a representation of wealth you've accumulated through the efforts of what you offer the market, either through the products you make or the services you offer. The more utility those goods and services have, the more money you ultimately will acquire. But you don't get the money without the utility, that's how you know it's the cause of it.
If so, why don't you address the point which I made? How are you going to create that market utility in the first place when you have to compete with or rather against corporations which have literally thousands of personnel in R&D departments? In most cases, your only chance is pure luck, end of story.
This has essentially devolved into a chicken and egg discussion. Because you couldn't win the point against the notion that market utility is what causes wealth (as opposed to some of your earlier assertions, like it's caused by luck or caused by money, which failed to recognize that money is just a representation of wealth and not the actual cause of wealth), you're now trying to undermine the market utility argument by claiming that the only way you can create market utility is through luck. It's a ridiculous argument to make. It completely ignores ingenuity as any kind of force in the market. You might as well be saying that there's no point in trying to do anything in the marketplace because it's completely random and winners and losers are determined by chance. When you take that argument to its logical conclusion, you realize what a ridiculous point it is.
Now you are trying to deliberately distort and twist my point. I don't say that luck is the only way you can create market utility, yet it pretty quickly comes down to that in any saturated market which is divided by corporations with their huge budgets. To keep things real, can you name, for example, a startup which came up with a new processor recently? There is none. The only one that I can think of is Transmeta. But it still failed in the end by offering a subpar "market utility". Your realistic chances (besides some really impossible turn of luck) lie in new fields which haven't yet been taken over by the same big guns.
No matter how many times you end a paragraph with "end of story," it doesn't make your points any stronger. It looks like an attempt to claim an authority your points are completely failing to establish.
Now that you don't want to talk about Microsoft success and Bill Gates being a genius any more, I safely conclude that we can finally call it a genuine end of story.
How am I trying to deliberately distort your point when I repeat back to you what you say? Did you or did you not write exactly: "How are you going to create that market utility in the first place when you have to compete with or rather against corporations which have literally thousands of personnel in R&D departments? In most cases, your only chance is pure luck, end of story." If you don't like arguing against yourself, be more careful in what you write.
The answer to your question by the way is that you create products, not market utility. Market utility is an attribute of successful products, not something you create. And it's not luck. Market utility is what every product tries to capture, whether they do or not is not a function of luck but a function of how useful they are to the people buying in that particular market. The reason Transmeta failed - I'm assuming because I've never heard of it - is because it didn't do anything more useful than anything already on the market, either from a performance perspective or a price perspective. The market didn't want it apparently. You cite the fact that nobody has produced a better processor recently but don't recognize that makes my case. Nobody can create a more useful processor than what is already on the market (i.e. one with more market utility), so why would you expect consumers to buy a worse offering? Lower market utility, expected failure confirmed.
April 05, 2018, 08:56:22 AM
It is true that luck plays a big role in our lives. For example you gotta be lucky if you invested in Bitcoin and it goes up but it won't be that much the luck's role if you are the one manipulating its price to go up
Not everyone gets good luck right ? if luck gets an important position to get rich, of course only a few people who want to study and college? because deciding to be rich is have good luck? lolvery wrong logic i think, the most important is your talents, your intelligence, and your efforts, if you can combine the whole, I'm sure you can get rich
I massively disagree with your point. It is luck that often if not at all times makes the difference unless you are already wealthy and just have to stick to what your family are doing. There are many very talented and highly intelligent people in the world but only a chosen few make it to the top, chosen by Lady Luck. You can be dead sure that luck played its role in their promotion to the highest ranks. There is just too much competition in the world these days that you could solely rely on your talent, intelligence, and effort. There will always someone, or rather quite a few of them, who is more talented, intelligent, and industrious than yourself.
April 05, 2018, 08:02:35 AM
I actually agree to this. No matter how intelligent, skilled or talented a person is, if they don’t get the opportunity that could make them rich, then it would be useless. Still, I do believe that it is a plus factor having those qualities because it serves as an advantage or an edge, but then again without the chance or opportunity nothing good can come out of those good qualities.
There is nothing to doubt this statement. You need a chance to express what actually you are, what talents you got and all that jazz. Even if you are not very much hardworking or skilled, but if you are provided with a job, obviously you are going to make money or might start working hard to pursue a better life. But on the other hand, a person working hard all day and night is not when given value, he is zero. Opportunities are always coming there one way or another though. Intelligent people spot these opportunities and know how to make the most out of them. You can't leave it simply to chance though there are a few instances where a person is lucky enough to have his life change solely on luck
April 05, 2018, 01:12:10 AM
I actually agree to this. No matter how intelligent, skilled or talented a person is, if they don’t get the opportunity that could make them rich, then it would be useless. Still, I do believe that it is a plus factor having those qualities because it serves as an advantage or an edge, but then again without the chance or opportunity nothing good can come out of those good qualities.
There is nothing to doubt this statement. You need a chance to express what actually you are, what talents you got and all that jazz. Even if you are not very much hardworking or skilled, but if you are provided with a job, obviously you are going to make money or might start working hard to pursue a better life. But on the other hand, a person working hard all day and night is not when given value, he is zero. April 03, 2018, 05:29:49 AM
April 03, 2018, 05:28:46 AM
It is true that luck plays a big role in our lives. For example you gotta be lucky if you invested in Bitcoin and it goes up but it won't be that much the luck's role if you are the one manipulating its price to go up
Not everyone gets good luck right ? if luck gets an important position to get rich, of course only a few people who want to study and college? because deciding to be rich is have good luck? lolvery wrong logic i think, the most important is your talents, your intelligence, and your efforts, if you can combine the whole, I'm sure you can get rich
April 03, 2018, 05:14:43 AM
It is a combination of many factors. You can't say that 100% of the rich people are intelligent and hardworking, while 100% of the poor people are retarded and lazy. But it is true that the vast majority of the rich people are intelligent and hardworking, and most of the poor are lazy and uneducated.
In getting richer and that having an opportunity to change your life, there are number of things which carry significance importance and that it is just not the luck which matters entirely. Luck too plays a vital role in deciding your future bit you can’t rely on luck only to change your life. You need to put in lot of efforts as well as you need to keep on working harder as well to get a chance of changing your life. April 03, 2018, 04:51:25 AM
If working hard or being intelligent make one rich then Almost everybody else will be rich so I strongly agree to it that being rich is determined by opportunity and being at the right place at the right so also having the right information.
April 03, 2018, 02:41:10 AM
I actually agree to this. No matter how intelligent, skilled or talented a person is, if they don’t get the opportunity that could make them rich, then it would be useless. Still, I do believe that it is a plus factor having those qualities because it serves as an advantage or an edge, but then again without the chance or opportunity nothing good can come out of those good qualities.
April 03, 2018, 02:19:49 AM
It is a combination of many factors. You can't say that 100% of the rich people are intelligent and hardworking, while 100% of the poor people are retarded and lazy. But it is true that the vast majority of the rich people are intelligent and hardworking, and most of the poor are lazy and uneducated.
In getting richer and that having an opportunity to change your life, there are number of things which carry significance importance and that it is just not the luck which matters entirely. Luck too plays a vital role in deciding your future bit you can’t rely on luck only to change your life. You need to put in lot of efforts as well as you need to keep on working harder as well to get a chance of changing your life. April 02, 2018, 11:55:20 AM
Yes, I agree with this argument. I think if actually getting rich is just the luck factor of each person. Sometimes people who have more intelligence and talent can not even take advantage of what is inside of him. But people who do not have more knowledge can become rich because of their hard work.
Not really, those that are smart are able to get more money in their lives than those that are not that is something that has been proven, but that doesn't mean that you become rich because of it I really do not think that it's a matter of luck, it's a matter of taking advantage of the opportunities when they present themselves and that is something that has nothing to do with how smart or how dumb you are, it has to do with your ambition. 
March 30, 2018, 04:04:49 PM
Really interesting study. I also think that you musn't be the one working the hardest but the one working the smartest.
March 30, 2018, 02:36:13 PM
yeah i think that was true
people can't reach because their affraid by theirself and not confident with that
so when the chance comes up, they not using the oppurtunity to do what ever the chance is
people can't reach because their affraid by theirself and not confident with that
so when the chance comes up, they not using the oppurtunity to do what ever the chance is
Jump to: