Hacker News Reader

Comment by Isamu | Hacker News Reader

I disagree with your disagreement.

When people say that there is not so much something special about themselves but that the work they put in enabled their success, they are not claiming the reverse is true: that hard work results in success.

They are saying that success is the result of hard work. Not that hard work results in success.

View on HN

It seems obvious to me that success at the highest levels is the result of hard work and talent and luck.

I'm not clear what distinction you're making. It's a bit of a truism (to the point of it being a cliche) for a successful person to say "I'm successful because I worked hard."

Of course that isn't an identical statement with "hard work results in success." Nor should anyone with a fluent grasp of language conflate the two statements.

So what are you disagreeing with, really? That's what I'm not clear about. Successful people, for diplomatic reasons, emphasize their work ethic instead of their talent. Certainly they have both. Did anyone claim differently?

> what are you disagreeing with

That saying "success is due to hard work" is the same as saying "you can become <famous successful person> by hard work". The latter is not true, and pointing that out is not a refutation of the first.

One famous successful person, Thomas Edison, would have disagreed with you: "Genius is one percent inspiration, ninety-nine percent perspiration."

Conversely. Einstein once said that if he had one hour to save the world, he would spend fifty-five minutes defining the problem and only five minutes finding the solution.

And of course each would think this way, given their backgrounds. Edison was an inventor and a CEO; Einstein a theoretical physicist. Perhaps HN is familiar with the Parable of the Elephant?

The point the person was making is that "a implies b" is quite different from "b implies a" - the converse of a statement is a different statement.

Not all hard working people are successful, but all successful people are hard working in math is the point.

Everyone I know with a PhD has asserted that it is 99% about being willing to slog through the years required to get the work done. That seems to suggest that the only difference (or most of the difference) between an average person and someone with a PhD is that the PhD just... took the time to get a PhD.

You need to get onto the PhD programme in the first place - meaning you'd probably need a good degree and some sort of funding - which does select reasonably well for ability. There's gonna be exceptions however (people who are otherwise capable but lack either of those, or people who are not the smartest but have managed to secure both)

that's what they assert when discussing it in polite company. perhaps there's a difference between what people say to others and what is really true?

Then I'll say it anonymously as a former graduate student who left academia? For getting a PhD at any tier 2 or lower school, it is sufficient to work hard and be reasonably intelligent.

getting a PhD is just a credential. that's a pretty weak measure of success. I was referring to public statements made by "famously successful" people.

Take every non-trivial side project you ever worked on and calculate the percentage you completed. Not half ass completed, but actually completed completed. Like you commented everything, wrote documentation, put it on Github, have decent test coverage, etc. Or how many Coursera courses did you sign up (with the real intent of actually finishing) vs how many did you _actually_ finish, doing all the homework, getting a really good grade? Employers look for people with degrees because it's very good estimate for "this person can finish shit" for this very reason.

To say PhD is "just a credential" and has no predictive capabilities in terms of being "successful" I think is being disingenuous.

I didn't say it has no predictive capabilities. You said that. Is that what you think? Because it's not what I think.

I said a credential alone is a pretty weak measure of success. It might be a very strong measure of potential for future success. Do you see the difference?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com