For anybody who's read the black swan, fixed income is mediocristan & variable income is extremistan which means that the upside to the variable income lifestyle is a relatively small proportion of people living the glamorous lifestyle that Pavlina is selling but the downside is the much larger number of people who are barely scraping by making ends meet on the same system. We'd all like to believe that we could be w…
While this is true, I don't think the assumption that most of the people who end up on top somehow deserve their success and those on the bottom deserve their failures is correct. More to the point, a moral system built on this is is cruel, damaging to one's psyche, and a bad way to motivate people to create things. Alain De Botton gives a very eloquent TED talk about this [1], which is much more interesting than this Black Swan pep talk bullshit.
The reality is: in any given attempt at a complicated problem (like most jobs/startups), most failures and successes are for reasons outside of one's control. The world is simply much more complicated than our minds can comprehend. What we can control is how many ways we attempt difficult problems, and this precisely why perseverance plays a much bigger role than intelligence in startup success [2]: because individuals that appear as extraordinarily intelligent don't really understand the world that significantly better than someone of average intelligence. There's a point past which linguistic dialects and the ideas prevalent in one's social circle affect perceived IQ much more than the quality of one's world model. But persistence and effort, on the other hand, scales linearly - if you can iterate over 10 ideas instead of 1, you're 10 times as likely to succeed, no matter what your intelligence.