I believe there is a truth to this. Sometime ago I read something like: "If you want something, figure out the price, and then go pay for it". [1]

In my time as consultant I have seen people being very successful because they were willing to spend endless hours on boring topics, spending time with un-inspirational clients, massively exaggerating business opportunities, and trading anything in their life for success. It works. But it comes at a price.

[1] I think it was this: “Nothing in life is free, especially your time. Everything has a cost. And when it comes to your time, the cost is heavy. You can never get even one second back. You can live your life on purpose. You can spend your time on things you value. You can be who you intended to become. You can continue to progress and evolve, even after you’ve become successful and fulfilled. But the price must be payed.” Benjamin Hardy

That's a powerful quote up there, thank you for it. It seems to me many are willing to go far, but not the last mile or similarly they lose that laser focus and start drifting and get a bit comfortable.

Either do it 100% with all the consequences, or sit down, lay back and enjoy the life in whatever form you desire. I prefer the second, but I've met far too many people unable to do this on long term basis to recommend it as panacea for happy smiling world.

Good measure for me would be that hypothetical laying on the deathbed, looking back, and seeing what to be proud of, and what to regret. There are few individuals who would be literally fulfilled to go for that 100% even if they achieved nothing more, and they can and usually do get very far in life, professionally and/or monetarily. But I have the feeling most are just chasing other's idealized image of success, which may not be even real.

We all know (or at least should) how biggest regrets of those dying often look like. Don't be like them. This ain't a mistake you need to actually do to learn to avoid it.

Could be this one as well:

> "A wise man once said 'You can have anything in life if you will sacrifice everything else for it.' What he meant is nothing comes without a price. So before you go into battle, you better decide how much you're willing to lose. Too often, going after what feels good means letting go of what you know is right, and letting someone in means abandoning the walls you've spent a lifetime building. ..."

(The quote within the quote is from J.M. Barrie, best known as the creator of Peter Pan.)

I've thought similarly and extrapolate this to a kind of spectrum of "numbness" vs "sensitivity" that occurs in everyone in varying forms and degrees. This helps move the discussion away from one of objective character towards one of appropriate opportunities and role fits.

For many people, the pain of a certain kind of work goes unnoticed. They aren't stressed, and so they can succeed wildly. It could be physical labor, technical problems, dealing with people.

For the pathologically successful, the thrills come through something that most are too sensitive to handle. Think of surgeons operating on themselves, athletes who play extreme sports, artists who eagerly turn their most private thoughts into commodities, businesspeople who stay up late dreaming of ideas for exploiting the land and the people.

On some level all of these folks are monstrous - but society, where it is wise, finds a way to validate their interests to some greater benefit.

And I do see some whiplash frequently occurring with people just leaving school and coming to terms with these limitations of sensitivity, and their gradual development of some ethical center. They can't just do a good job and go home, like they thought. They can train as hard as they want, but they can't not feel the thing, and that puts them in a state of preoccupation about the problem.

The silver lining to this cloud is that someone who is both sensitive to the issues and a survivor among predators can put themselves in a position to change the rules, especially in business, because they are most aware of where the market will reward ethical behavior. It's surviving that long that's the problem.

Very insightful!

You are quite right but most people miss the spectrum of "numbness" vs "sensitivity when it comes to analyzing their own personalities/character. I think this is a result of "Operant Conditioning" by the context/environment in which they were brought up. For example, in the environment in which i was brought up, personal morals/ethics, truthfulness, humility/humbleness were greatly stressed which has resulted in my being highly sensitive to "deviation from the ideals" in my own self and in judging others. The intellectual part of my mind knows that adhering to these rigidly are a handicap but something deep inside will not allow me to be ruthless when it is necessary. Even after educating myself by reading books on "worldly wisdom", i am still unable to breakthrough this "mental conditioning".

I think the best yardstick for "worldly success", is to look at how a person was brought up vis-e-vis "the real world" and how "flexible" he is in dealing with right/wrong and truth/lies.

I'd put moral flexibility above hard work, personally. Usually being morally flexible leads to doing less work and lying/cheating about said work wherever possible.

I still think pure luck is up there as well, maybe near intelligence. Not only do the pieces of an opportunity have to align at the right place and time, you have to be aware of them and take the opportunity (the intelligence aspect)... or fumble your way into it out of luck because the opportunity was imperceptible to mere mortals.

One of my old directors played moral gymnastics with everything and was making out like a bandit doing virtually nothing.

It doesn't matter if an action is moral or amoral if you're too lazy to do it.

And while the top comment isn't wrong, it's hard to overstate the foot-dragging mentality and general "laziness" (for lack of a better word) of much of the workforce, in that they seem hardwired to make any excuse to avoid a difficult task assigned to them.

My test for this, especially with younger workers, is to ask them to lookup some information that seemingly would be on the internet, but isn't. Do they give up after a couple of web searches, do they email and wait for a response, or do they pick up the phone and try to talk to somebody right now.

There's no shortage of questionable business practices out there, but don't discount the average persons lack of ambition.

Exactly.

This is why I think hard work and intelligence should be rewarded up to a point, but then after that point all we're rewarding is bad behavior.

Personally, I think a lot of this can be fixed through the tax code - making it steeply progressive so that there's less incentive to engage in shady behavior, but not so progressive that it discourages effort. Finding the balance is key. Today the US (and most of the world) is too balanced in favor or rewarding those who have acquired the most economic power.

Corporate psychopathy seems to be common, business leaders are three times as likely to exhibit psychopathy as someone from the general population.

https://www.sakkyndig.com/psykologi/artvit/babiak2010.pdf

Thanks for this link! This is well written and insightful

While I entirely agree with your premise. I don't think that is the best example.

Given those hypothetical people, I would bet that the one who went back to his homewtown actually enjoys his life, while the other is miserable, but surrounded in gold.

If the latter takes his ball and goes home, now that's a different story.

I'm assuming "success" as discussed in the article is the standard metric and measured in currency.

Personally I've seen it all (to use characters from my story):

- The small town family lawyer who is miserable and feels screwed that they somehow couldn't or didn't want to swim with the sharks.

- The partner at the firm on his third divorce, with kids who won't talk to him, and living in constant worry of the various legally or morally dubious things they've done. Ulcers, high blood pressure, and substance abuse disorder included.

- The opposite of the other who's stayed in touch with "that guy from law school" who is perfectly happy and content only to look at the other and feel pity for how miserable the other's life must be (and often is).

I know all of them and it's pretty strange... Especially when someone will say "Yeah, XYZ is a great guy and good friend but you know... Don't ever trust him." -or- conversely "Yeah what happened to ABC was strange... Guy kind of flaked out. He seems to be doing ok, I guess."

We seem to be much better at measuring and discussing "success" than actual happiness.

EDIT: typo

> We seem to be much better at measuring and discussing "success" than actual happiness.

Not surprising given how much easier it is to fake happiness than success.

People can enjoy being rich. I think it's quite obvious when you look at real cases and not just hypothetical.

Bill Gates - He admits now that he was bully and behaved badly. He was completely ruthless. Not because he was a sociopath, but because every time they had to decide between winning and morality he chose winning. Paul Allen was one of his oldest and closest friends and when he was sick with cancer in early 80s he overheard Ballmer and Gates talking about his lack of contribution and scheming to dilute his equity.

Steve Jobs - Jobs conned Steve Wozniak at the beginning and it did not stop there. According to his bio it seems that being asshole was big part of his success.

Mark Zuckerberg - His habit of doing the immoral and apologizing if getting caught started even before FB. Facemash was "completely improper" according to Zuckerbergs apology. Starting phase of FB was based on all kinds of foul play.

I don't think if you knew any of those deeply, I mean properly what is inside left and right, you would call them long term happy balanced persons. Being fulfilled / content with being one of / the wealthiest man on earth at one point ain't the same as proper happiness.

I don't know Bill Gates well enough to say if you're right or wrong, but I am dead certain that you don't either.

How?

Takes his snowboard and goes home. Yes.

My experience has been the opposite. I saw the person lying and stealing have it backfire significantly. Pushing away the talent to other success and leaving them to sit in the mess they created

The article talks about companies growing more than 34% per year as lucky... Because companies growing less than 34% is more likely to produce consistent growth going forward.

Hence, we shouldn't look to learn from top performers, but instead learn from consistent performers.

The point is that there are few lessons to be learned from lucky top performers. But that there are lessons to be learned from consistent performers.

That luck is an ingredient in top performers isn't surprising :)

Also who cares about being top performer for one or two years, instead of being a consistent performer. Which isn't as luck dependent :)

>I suppose one could frame it as "luck" but my experience has been "making your own luck" is frequently only moderated by your own ability or willingness to lie, cheat, manipulate, and generally be as soullessly ruthless and self-serving as possible.

Luck is being in a position to take those actions in the first place. The two people in your example had a great deal of luck to be where they are in the first place.

don’t understand why you used a throwaway. your comment is very generic.

you say moral “flexibility” is third but go on to describe how it’s the most important factor.

your example doesn’t fit your narrative at all. the first guy didn’t get “unlucky” and crash out, he left the game altogether without even playing!

your example is about “personal” “success”, not business success.

So, where does luck come in, in your opinion?

Are you saying every intelligent hard working Machiavelli will make it, or does luck still enter?