Well - usually this is the case. You see - society indeed tends to call successful people geniuses.
The others get to be called "autistic savants".
/sarcasm
Some say that Edison was not a genius, and that Ford was not a genius, etc...
Myself - I'm chock full sick of "geniuses" who would of made it if they would of made it. Thus I'd be way more inclined to root for the Zuck than for the mass of people that claim that he fracked them over.
Rooting for the underdog might be "noble". But lets face it - most of the underdogs don't deserve to win.
We agree that genius !=> success, but I don't think success => genius holds, either. Not everybody who is successful is a genius. Unless we allow some inflation of the use of the word.
Known genii (?) include Einstein, Shakespeare, Bach, Mozart, Jimi Hendrix...
What do you think P[genius|success]/P[genius] is? (i.e., how much more likely do you think it is that someone is a genius given that you know they are a success?)
I didn't say that success is sufficient precondition to be perceived as genius. What I tried to imply was that success is necessary precondition to be pronounced as one (by society).
Or it is just random chance. Out of 1 million people trying different things, a few are bound to be successful. At least for stock trading that is assumed to be true.
As someone said on another story about Zuckerberg, if a person can go from $0 to having a net worth of over $6.9 billion then they are most definitely a genius.
Who are you talking about? Zuckerberg was born to what many would consider rich parents, went to an Ivy school. This isn't a rags-to-riches story it's a story of someone given literally every opportunity to succeed and doing so. But not without crossing some moral boundaries.
..except that he didn't. What he actually wrote was (one translation):
"Behind a great success for which there is no obvious source is a crime that has never been discovered, because it was properly executed."
Bear in mind this is a translation from 19th century french to modern english, so there's a lot of wiggle room for getting different meanings.
The common, shorter version that is bandied about on the internet drops the important qualifier "success which there is no obvious source for" - in other words, there's only a crime behind a success that has no apparent reason.
Also keep in context that this was written ~7 years before the French revolution, about French society. People should keep that in mind when applying that to modern situations.
In Facebook's example, I'm sure most will agree the reason for the success is pretty apparent, and thus no 'great crime' was committed.
well, nitpick comments usually tend to get downvoted but this is one of those examples where I thought people would be genuinely interested in the background. It's not intended to be a putdown, more of a 'did you know...'
I could fill a whole website with mis-attributed, mistranslated and misrepresented popular quotes. Poor old Einstein has got a lot floating around that he never said.
Wealth does not imply intelligence. Some people are at the right place at the right time. People who win the lottery aren't usually geniuses.
I'm not saying intelligence didn't help Zuckerberg, I just disagree that wealth=intelligence. There are plenty of poor geniuses out there, like Grigori Perelman who solved the topological conundrum.
Comparing winning the lottery to creating a social phenomenon on the scale of Facebook is pretty ridiculous. I'm not sure why people are so against giving this guy his due credit, but I find it very discomforting as an aspiring entrepreneur. I can see how some people could not enjoy Zuckerberg's personality, but that should be separated from what he has created.
"Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity."
Probably the reason people are against "giving this guy his due credit" is because he seems to have screwed over and betrayed several people to get what he wants. If you don't do that then you wont run into the "problems" [1] he's having.
[1] I say "problems" because it's irrelevant. I'm sure he's crying his way to the bank because of all the hate he gets.
All I am pointing out is that wealth does not equate intelligence. There are many many intelligent people who do not end up rich. I didn't say Zuck isn't intelligent, I just think that it's only one piece to the puzzle--timing being another crucial aspect, and yes luck in the sense that FB took off virally. I didn't bring up his personality at all so I don't know what you're responding to.
Look at Tesla, he died poor, in debt, and not very well respected. Only now is Tesla regarded as the genius that he was. Neither, Einstein or Edison died wealthy.There are many more examples (Socrates, Oscar Wilde, John Milton) I can go on if needed. Not to mention all the unintelligent wealthy people: Paris Hilton, Tom Cruise, Britney Spears, etc.
