That may or may not be true in aggregate, but for extreme outliers it's impossible to separate from survivorship bias. Are Musk and Andreeson really the most skilled entrepreneurs in the world or are they just good enough for luck to propel them to stratospheric success?

▲

brandensilva 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

They found luck and success and continue to compound that. However it's easy to make so much money when you have that much already. Just promise the world or invest in companies that do and ride unicorns with private investments into the sunset. The risk they take now is very low.

I feel like they will never suffer the consequences of their actions in any negative way should they get it wrong.

Rarely do we see billionaires not become billionaires because they know how the game is played because they shaped the game so they only ever fail upwards.

	▲	hackyhacky 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> Just promise the world or invest in companies that do and ride unicorns with private investments into the sunset. Yes, which is why the ranks of the very wealthy are filled with lucky grifters. They got rich by luck, then expanded that wealth with some combination of fanciful statements, lies, and outright fraud.

▲

AndrewKemendo 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

They’re just the most ruthless

If you look at the entire entirety of understood history of biology:

The most ruthless always wins

That is to say if I go into a village and kill all the adults and teenagers and steal all the kids who are scared to be killed by me, then I will win in the probably two successive generations that I’ve been able to successfully brainwashing into thinking I’m some kind of God.

That is until somebody kills me and then takes over the structure. For example there are no dictatorships that last past the third generation

That is literally and unambiguously how all life operates

There are intermediary cooperation periods. But if you look at the aggregate time periods including how galaxies form it’s all straight up brute force consumption

▲

Zigurd 3 hours ago | parent [-]

That's not how humans came to populate areas that previously were dominated by predators who would be obviously deadly to individual humans. Cooperation and planning are what made physically weak humans dominant. That cooperation and planning developed and flourished without authoritarian structures.

▲

svachalek 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Tribal chiefs are not authoritarians? Because basically every Stone Age village has one.

	▲	tolciho 2 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		A brief look at certain native American tribes might show quite a lot of talking and consensus building, like if some war chief wants a war he needs to drum up support for that. Hours of talking ensue! Not to say that ancient tribes didn't have the worst of what modern corporations have to offer as far as leadership goes, but a claim "basically every village" is basically wrong, or "bascially" is carrying a heck of a lot of weight.
	▲	Zigurd 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Read some Charles Mann. Tribal leaders if they can really be described as leaders had to work with consensus and cooperation. Modern society is much more coercive.