Is this jew unironically right?

WOW! As I normie wage-slave I am now determined to be even more of an unambitious good for nothing. After all success comes down to luck so I just need to keep coasting then someday I will become CEO!

>Every rich person is usually intelligent.
Counter example: Any athlete or rap star.

90% of the 1% are Jews. Capitalism is Jewish. Yet you right-wing cucks shill for an ideology based on Jewish usury

Attached: C7DVFbDWcAAtxTW.jpg (768x1024, 126K)

In French we say '' you create your own luck''.

Lol no. That's idiotic. Sure there are rich people, that are that way because they were lucky, but most of them got that way because they either went to school, and landed a good job, or they had an innovative idea, which turned out to be profitable. This is pretty much projection, the article. He became wealthy from journalism because he was lucky enough to be born Jewish, and have a talent in a field which is Jew controlled.

The new angle pushed by the Jews is that high IQ doesn't make you smart. You have to be financially successful since "smart people" would have made it.

This normalizes Jewish cabal success on Wall Street and makes NEETs seem like failures in comparison. "You'd be rich if you were that smart, goy."

Luck and circumstance happen to everyone.

IQ and industriousness contribute more than luck to success, some careers are downright impossible for below average IQ people

but of course out of millions of smart hardworking people the few lucky ones become the most successful

I am talking about VERY RICH. I am worth a few millions so I don't consider stars to be real rich.

Yeah, you should unironically do that. Or you could stress yourself, burn out, and never come any closer to success either.

See, that's the difference between Anglos and Germans: To Anglos, the end result doesn't matter as much as the method ("At least you tried").
To Germans, only efficiency counts: Not achieving the desired result is bad, no matter how hard you worked. Achieving the desired result through hard work is better but still not good. Achieving the desired result with little work is good.

Don't consider myself to be either.

Attached: D0A2DE23-0465-49F2-840C-150F25AF5E0C.png (2048x1536, 377K)

>landed a good job
>good idea which turned out to be profitable.
That's luck.

>IQ and industriousness contribute more than luck to success
That's bullshit.

>I am talking about VERY RICH
Then say so.

>I am worth a few millions so I don't consider stars to be real rich.
So you're richer than Kanye? Alright kid, time for bed.

Tell that to my buddy who works 16-18 hours a day since he was 17 and is worth a couple million now at 28.

Don't know his networth. Mine is 3 millions excluding my house and car.

But I thought Jews were smart
*cough*
nepotism
*cough*

>Cutting out "went to school, and"
>Good ideas are pure luck
That's stupidity.

So Jews are the richest ethnic minority in the US because they're luckier? Damn, they're reaching.

We say that in english too. Out of curiosity, I've only ever heard "Le monde est ce qu'on en fait", but nothing about luck. What's the saying you're referring to?

>landing a good job is luck
Is there a job lottery or some kind of employment fairy godmother who just jumps around giving random individuals overly-gainful employment? You have to work hard enough or be competent enough to not only get the job, but subsequently keep it.
>That's bullshit.
Well I guess you're the expert in bullshit and probably work in the industry since you were born into it.

Jews definitely benefit from nepotism. Of course. When 90% of the 1% is Jewish, you damn well bet there is nepotism at play. But if you are successful goy, it's luck.

A leaf with $3 mil liquid. Lemme guess, you're a kike?

are you a nigger by any chance?

>athlete
Talent, and physical fitness. Some luck a lot of dedication
>rap star
""""""""""talent"""""""""",and dumb niggers who think you're cool.
You can never entirely remove luck as a factor in anything, but the article is an over statement of luck's role.

idk every time I've talk to a rich person they are usually quite intelligent. I've never talked to one that was just a moron. but their is people like lebron james. kek

On crée notre propre chance. Something like that. It's an old saying so not used that much anymore.

Very few of the 1% are self made, almost all of them started with massive inheritances. Are they any besides Bill Gates that are self made even?

Attached: 1526444864429.png (413x585, 157K)

Hard work + intelligence = luck
So yes the author is right

It's fucking dumb. Intelligence is the primary determinate factor in success, especially when considered over more than one generation.

No. Are you?

You obviously have no clue about sports or athletic businesses.

Wrong. Read the Millionaire Mind. Rich people have quite a few habits that make them rich. Most notably, they don't waste money, they don't waste time, and they find people to do the jobs that they aren't good at so they can focus on the things they are good at.

If you really don't think that physical fitness, talent, and a lot of practice don't play a role, you're either on some serious drugs, or you're a fan of some meme sport like curling.

This fuels success. What you don't take into account is that industrious success and financial gain have been detached from each other at every possible coupling over the last 60 years.

Among the Very Very rich, there is a much much higher chance of inheriting a fortune than making one. And among those who make one, half of them are getting it handed to them through the government.

You're talking like 20-25% of all INCREDIBLY WEALTHY individuals having earned their right to be there. As Americans we live in a feudal economy run by a social oligarchy and because they're so far away my fellow rural kin are fine to suck off the worst of them just to feel better.

Attached: 32215367_10160336943245456_1617386230138273792_n.jpg (1024x658, 79K)

Depends on what they define as rich. Doctors and scientists are wealthy but aren't millionaires but celebrities are

yeah but they are not really exactly smart. just good at sports. kek

>athletes rappers
It depends. It is easy to make money while you are a star. It is harder to preserve wealth. Look at the old guys in the game who managed to build their wealth.

>how to organize a system 101
>standard practices and behaviors
>but i'm really really smart and that's why it worked

Attached: 1521373996107.png (743x865, 1.01M)

Cashflow, my friend. It’s all about the cash flow

People who understand exponential growth and cash flow are those who stay rich. That is why you see lottery winners, athletes and pop stars lose their money when they lose their relevance. They simply dont have the habits or mindset to handle such money

Lol well that's true, but intellect isn't the only virtue. Surprisingly a lot of them are actually pretty smart though. You just normally hear about the super giga-niggas because they do dumb shit, and manage to land themselves in the papers.

they're clearly at least as smart as you.

Attached: 32149225_1336115433199328_3921961433725665280_n.jpg (640x540, 36K)

Unironically no.
There's a clear correlation between IQ and Income.

pumpkinperson.com/2016/02/11/the-incredible-correlation-between-iq-income/

So it's not IQ?

If you want to make it self-made, you basically need to win the start-up lottery or become a bitcoin millionaire (that ship has sailed unless you manage to buy a pajeetcoin before it pumps like crazy). The vast majority of start-ups fail. Bill Gates was an executive of a start-up that turned out to be successful and he held on to enough shares to get crazy rich. Same with Jeff Bezos and Mark Zuckerberg.

Most rich people are old money VCs who just invest in companies, see their portfolios grow and collect dividends. The VCs are the ones who get the start-ups (like Facebook) funded. Old Money are parasites. New Money at least had a bright idea. But the fucked up thing with how capitalism works out is that if you are a CEO of a start-up that decides to retain a decent sized stake in your company and your company skyrockets in value, you can end up with like $70 billion like Mark Zuckerberg or $100 billion+ like Jeff Bezos. While the thousands and thousands of engineers at Facebook and Amazon that work on a salary with no stock options get only like $100,000 per year. Ludicrous. Why should Mark Zuckerberg get all the money and glory when it takes thousands of engineers to make Facebook great? Capitalism is fucked in that way. If you get in on the ground floor (early adopter with stock options), you reap all the rewards at the expense of the late adopters who only get a salary and no stock options. It's basically like a Ponzi scheme.

hey i'm not saying i'm a genus, but you can tell they are smart.

no, there isn't.

You need BOTH, if you look at something like facebook for example, really anyone could have written the prototypes of that, what Zuckerkike did wasn't some new genius level coding, he had the right idea at the right time and had the backing of investors (friends with money)

But being smart and capable is still a prerequisit, lots of people are as smart as him, they just didn't have the luck to be in the right time and the right place and have wealthy friends.

Your success correlates with your IQ quite highly so IQ accounts for a lot of your success in life, but the people who become hyper rich billionaires or whatever, it's not because they have off the charts IQ scores, they were just smart and in the right circumstances, it could have easily been someone else.

That'd explain how every remotely rich non white made their money

Jews are really lucky then!

*genius

humanvarieties.org/2016/01/31/iq-and-permanent-income-sizing-up-the-iq-paradox/

Okay I mean, I can sit here and post sources all day if you want.
There is a clear correlation between income group and IQ of the individual.

Most millionaires have above average IQ. Maybe 110-120. Very few are geniuses. The difference is they are smart enough, but have superior process. They are also good at evaluating people and discovering what talents they have so they can give them the right job.

It's the usual kike half truth. Nepotism aside (which is a HUGE factor), it's luck if you are already in the group of smart and hard working people, not "just" luck.

>well fed
>cognitively stimulated
>unfinancially burdened
>self satisfactorily socially valuable
>does well on a cognitive functions test

>starving/malnourished
>every moment focused on behaving towards basic needs
>zero to not-enough money to sustain the family
>selfaware drain on society
>does poorly on cognitive functions test

woooooooaaaaaaaaah

Attached: 1525102965523.jpg (303x311, 55K)

I'm explicitly saying your a sub100 monkey.

you see all the lottery winners that go broke, it's pretty easy to lose any amount of money if your stupid.

i don't care nigaa.

Wait I don't get it.
Are you trying to unironically argue that the G factor in intelligence isn't a real thing.

psych.utoronto.ca/users/reingold/courses/intelligence/cache/1198gottfred.html
Here. Enjoy your brainlet.

Attached: 1504810457165.gif (359x202, 3.03M)

Obviously false. Great thread though to identify the rich and poor people. Smart and persistent makes you rich, luck is a meme.

Mark Zuckerberg got really lucky. At the time some VCs dismissed his idea because they were like "Myspace already did that."

Funny how an autistic nerd like Mark Zuckerberg got rich off making a website that makes it easier for women to meet and have sex with Chad. You have all these incel IT nerds devoting their lives work to making it easier for women to cuckold them with Chad. Just fucking LOL. How could Tinder's CEO and dev team live with themselves? They created a monster.

>believing in luck
Brainlets, all of you. luck is just a way to cope with your lack of success

Capitalism is not Jewish and nor is communism they have both been exploited by jews to further their messianic agenda

>t. trust fund cuck

i make multiple 6 figures, own property, etc. but i am under no delusions that i got here purely from "hard work". a lot of my friends work harder than i do for less simply because their parents couldnt pay their way thrugh college for example while i graduated debt-free.

thanks for underscoring what a pathetic effeminate queer you are though! maybe some day you'll get a big boy job like me.

and how many of the top percent of the 1% are jesuits? why does Jow Forums ignore jesuit influence

Attached: wtfpapa.jpg (620x387, 68K)

>being rich
It's not about what you lnow, but who you know. You need to have good contacts or come from a kike family.
You also need a bit of aspergers and be at least a tolerable psychopath to make critical decisions too.

Attached: 1521821733230.jpg (678x532, 113K)

Having a 110 iq is telling me you're a healthy normal human. The threshold for what you call "smart enough" is embarrassingly low and is covered by more than half the population. And no, their processes aren't superior, they're acceptable. You don't have to be superior to thrive in a first world economy; they're actually designed to remove the value of intellectual superiority and reward only mercenary behavior.

"They are also good at evaluating people and discovering what talents they have so they can give them the right job."
This is a childish notion of leadership in the modern era. Are you longterm retired?

Someone attempting to show that the success of the successful is unearned and just a matter of happenstance. They probably have a political reason for spinning that tale.

Yet actual scientific data would suggest that intelligence is an extremely strong correlate with finance success over your lifetime. If you were taking to a bunch of retired people, asking them about their work before their retirement would tell you a lot about their mental capacity. Not everyone can handle senior project management in a construction company.

More than you think

Attached: 992D5272-7CEE-49A2-9165-550D8D4A50B0.jpg (650x396, 54K)

I'm arguing that the genetic factor doesn't matter compared to movement through the environmental range. The "g factor" is the general-factor, not the genetic-factor. The entire section here on biology notes the difference. (The reason why IQ correlates stronger with age is that older people stop engaging imaginative behaviors that are outside their range of known values, just to tack on to their discussion.)

Do you read the links you post?

Attached: 31956642_10211880563711366_5441874463412977664_n.jpg (960x752, 42K)

so what?

Source:
archive.is/97XfY

>Smart and persistent makes you rich, luck is a meme.
I'd say networking is the more valuable trait strive to an extravagant life

No. My friend who lived in poverty until 18 when his mom and dad suddenly died became rich with his smarts and drive, while I stayed poor and dumb with bigger advantages than him. He just went into overdrive instead of being a crybaby and it worked.

>110 iq
>half the population
literally doesnt understand how IQ works

The sheer ignorance in your comment makes me depressed as fuck.

You honestly believe that building a better mousetrap will be sufficient to build a business? If not, why put such a high importance on the R&D?

Networking is going to be more difficult if people can tell you're a dumbass.

>"But the fact that g is not specific to any particular domain of knowledge or mental skill suggests that g is independent of cultural content, including beliefs about what intelligence is. And tests of different social groups reveal the same continuum of general intelligence. This observation suggests either that cultures do not construct g or that they construct the same g. Both conclusions undercut the social artifact theory of intelligence."

I'm pretty sure you're the one who didn't read it. All they're saying is that environmental factors tend to diminish with age. At no point have I ever claimed that environment doesn't have an effect on IQ. But trying to portray the G factor as solely environmentally based is utterly retarded.

>You got lucky finding a gold nugget on the ground so it’s ok if I take that from you.

welp, he's right that you don't have to be smart.
so much for the theory that rich people deserve their money because they're better

>Not everyone can handle senior project management in a construction company.

But the number that could is drastically higher than our social narrative would ever concede. With populations of half a billion people in an even remotely efficient system the capacity for responsibility among the people outstrips the positions of responsibility by a country mile.

So we need to get over this meme that the ever increasing wealth gap has any positive relationship to our accepted social morals, regardless of what the ultra rich/powerful would have you think.

Attached: 21728070_959738970832280_9040941438845867807_n.jpg (478x720, 37K)

no
this is level one bullshit
luck is not measurable, nor falsable
this way they can get away with dismissing all hard work and/or IQ/EQ to build relationships

>more lucky than smart
Lucky and smart aren't measured in the same units, retard. SAGE

Not if you're in a management position. You need to be somewhat functional, I agree, but skills don't really matter as much as having contacts does

Attached: cookie.jpg (591x468, 61K)

Have you ever met the average employee...

Most couldn't handle basic levels of authority, and most don't even want the authority!

notice it's the moronic right that think personal wealth is sacred because they worked so hard

>only ‘smart’ people should be allowed to build wealth.

point is some think that's the only people that can

Notice it’s the insidious left that wants to make it Law that the poor are not allowed to build wealth.

>more lucky than smart?
Pretty sure we are just the chosen. Feels good man.

you're thinking of the right

No you just said that wealth is only ‘sacred’ if the premise that hard work is required is true, and therefore it’s ok to steal a gold nugget from a hiker if he randomly finds one.

...

>making sense of advantage

Attached: practicemyth.png (1597x857, 189K)