Entrepreneurs don’t have a special gene for risk, they come from rich families

My parents are poor, I run a large and successful startup.

The article does have a point though, definitely more common for people with a good buffer to start startups.

> There's a +billion entrepreneurial hustlers in the world doing whatever it takes to feed their families

If your definition of "entrepreneur" is "people doing what it takes to stay alive" then literally everyone is an entrepreneur and the term has lost any particular meaning.

I would take entrepreneur to mean "an individual who undertakes an unusually risky venture in order to have access to exceptional personal gains" and from that perspective it seems almost axiomatic that people who start with more capital have less downside risk, which in turn makes it easier to be an entrepreneur, so more of them will do it and with more success than the relatively less-resourced. What part of that do you disagree with, if any?

> Stop letting idiots build imaginary barriers to your life outcome. Just go find a way and do it.

Just buy enough tickets and you're guaranteed to win the lottery! How hard could it be?

It looks like you have just generalized entrepreneurship.

There are also some simple facts about growing up poor. Even giving a poor person a lot of money does not put them in the same boat as someone who grew up around the mentality of "money as a tool" instead of "money as a scarce resource." There are biological differences [1] to growing up poor vs wealthy. Those differences are often compounded by poor nutrition which leads to poor health and other real impairments [2] including learning impairment and unwise decision making.

Within your three categories, 1 and 2 look awfully similar to my eyes. There is a luxury of time, knowledge and choice implied. 3 is a wildcard for great success or great failure often decided by luck. Great failure might mean homelessness or even death. Smartly, many people in category 3 opt for life and an underpaying 9-5 (or several of them) rather than rolling those dice.

[1] https://www.sciencealert.com/being-poor-not-only-affects-you... [2] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10946800/

I’m glad you found success and that your hard work helped increase your satisfaction. It doesn’t take away from anyone’s achievements to acknowledge that accomplishing anything significant requires a lot of circumstances to fall into place, the majority of which are beyond any individual person’s control, and those circumstances generally play the larger role in determining the outcome.

The problem of discourses around the inevitability of some type success via hard work/talent, is the views it promotes against the ones deemed less successful or fortunate.

Each daily opportunity, for engaging with others, trying challenges and implementing entrepreneurial activities is a chance to move every so slightly in the direction of success. If you accumulate enough of these, and in the positive direction, you will achieve you success target.

However, each of these activities, offers the chance for a negative outcome, ever so slight in the negative direction. A random walk, just by the simple nature of life, can easily line up in front of you a series of negative outcomes that will push you too much into the opposite direction, or simply just to far from your intended target.

So you will run out of time, opportunities, capital, stamina, luck, space or creativity. In other words, and as somebody said: The multiple ways in which some are successful, are just one of many infinite ways in which other can be unsuccessful. You just have to encounter an enough number of negative events.

For a better society successful parties should promote true understanding of many reasons why one can be "successful".

"Life’s winners think success was earned even if it was down to luck"

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2210263-lifes-winners-t...

"Bucca’s team explored the subject by creating a version of President that involved almost no skill, and in which the influence of the starting conditions could be dialled up or down. They recruited about 1000 people through a website, Amazon Mechanical Turk, giving people $2.50 for taking part and a $5.00 bonus if they won.

Whoever was randomly picked to play the first card in round one of the game always had an advantage that meant they were most likely to win that round. In some versions, this starting advantage was further boosted: after the cards had been dealt for round two, the winner of round one was able to swap one or two of their weakest cards with the strongest ones of their opponent. In other versions, the opposite happened: the starting advantage was weakened by the previous loser getting good cards from the winner."

"At the end of their game, people were asked if it had been fair. Regardless of the conditions, winners were more likely to say yes than losers. Even when the winners benefited from receiving either one or two strong cards from their opponent, they were twice as likely to judge it a fair game as the losers. What’s more, in most versions of the game winners were more likely than losers to attribute success in the game to talent – even though the game required very little."

"It’s not just how the game is played, it’s whether you win or lose"

https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/5/7/eaau1156