Hacker News Reader

Comment by vinceguidry | Hacker News Reader

It's not demeaning and cruel to his fellow countrymen. They are what sustain him. Chan is somewhat popular in the West, but he's a veritable god in the East, like Manny Pacquiao is to Filipinos.

You are the one demeaning the people there. Chan is the one inspiring them.

It's silly to think that everybody in Hong Kong is going to compare themselves to Jackie Chan and lament that they won't be able to do what he does. He's inspirational because he shows that you don't have to define yourself by your station in life and can change it. Chan is just the most visible symbol of it, but you can see similar stories all across the country.

Your daughter getting inspired by princesses isn't cruel because she'll never be able to be a princess. She can become more like a particular princess she likes, adopting personality traits and learning to think like her.

View on HN

I think what the previous commenter was reacting to in your post was not your defense of Chan an his memoir as inspirational, per se, but rather the specific phrase "If he can do it anyone can" as ignoring the fact that Chan -- and celebrities like him -- are extreme outliers, and extremely lucky for their success. Yes, Chan worked his ass off. But to have the success he did, he also had to have an insane amount of luck.

Using phrases like that excuses a system that keeps people oppressed by pointing to the outliers who manage to escape them. It's the old "lift yourself up by your bootstraps" argument.

We should recognize and change the system, not point people to the outliers and say "See, you can do it too!"

Chan's memoir can be inspirational, but we can also read into it - as the article does - and recognize the oppressive system and his luck in escaping it.

This is why I added the daughters and princesses aside. The people of Hong Kong are not going to use Chan's example to try to be Jackie Chan. That's not the point. They're going to look carefully at their hero and decide that certain traits of his, like extreme courage and willingness to be brave, and choose to adopt them, just like a child does with their heroes.

If you or I went over to Hong Kong, and told them to work hard and they'll succeed, then get in my private jet and fly back to the US, they'd just roll their eyes. But Jackie Chan is one of them. He understands the culture and the challenges. All famous people do for their audiences.

Hey Vince

I think we agree with you regarding the inspiration that Chan brings to his people.

There is more than inspiration, sweat, tears, and blood that plays the part of viral success as Chan has achieved. Luck and opportunity are the missing pieces.

The phrase "if Chan can do it then anyone can" is victim to survivorship bias (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias)

To conclude: Chan achieved awesome things, he's an inspiration, it's good for others to strive for success, success is not determined on hard work alone.

Oh man, I wish more comments started like yours. “Hey Vince” sounds nice and respectful, and, even personal on an anonymous platform

Hi. I'll admit to getting a bit frustrated because I seem to need to repeat the same point over and over again, and the responses aren't addressing the point made.

Yes, you need luck and opportunity to become Jackie Chan. But there's more ways to be successful than becoming Jackie Chan. He can inspire them to be themselves and not let their situations get them down.

That's what is meant by "anyone can do it." Not anyone can be Jackie Chan. But anybody can use the same inner tools that Chan did that got him famous, and chart the course of their own life. That's what's inspirational.

> But anybody can use the same inner tools that Chan did that got him famous,

What inner tools were those? From the article, it seems that it was a willingness to do extreme, mortally-dangerous stunts? Is that the lesson people should take away–forget about being successful unless you're willing to constantly put your life on the line?

> it was a willingness to do extreme, mortally-dangerous stunts?

Something like that. It's up to you what you want to take from it. But inspiration is such that you might not be inspired to follow the example directly, but you can use the example to find some other kind of courage to display.

For example, your company may need someone to do some really dirty task that no one wants to do. If you step up to the plate, that creates an opening for something greater to happen.

At this point, the 'inspirational' aspect of Jackie Chan being talked about so far in this thread, is watered down to a generic 'he had the courage to do something scary'. I mean, you can say the same thing about Kim Kardashian's photo shoot that 'broke the internet', but I doubt most commenters here would hold her up as an inspirational example.

You're not taking Chan as an inspirational example because you don't live in shithole colonial Hong Kong. If you did, then maybe you'd appreciate more the massive lengths he's gone to improve himself.

Instead you and everyone else just compare themselves to him like you deserve his success. That's what's really going on here.

Kim Kardashian is indeed inspiring to a certain generation of kids. You can't see her as inspirational for the same reason, because you don't think she deserves the success but you do.

I admire the hard work, the craftsmanship, that Jackie Chan puts into his movies. What I don't admire is how he passes off exploitation of kids in his era as character-building or inspirational.

I also find it quite funny to be psychoanalyzed on a discussion forum, although admittedly I've been doing that to an extent with Jackie Chan. In my defence I can say that he's a published author, and this kind of analysis is part and parcel of literary critiques. Your efforts to paint me as jealous of Jackie Chan and Kim Kardashian are, frankly, pretty funny. Maybe step away from Hacker News for a day or so? :-D

This word "luck" is used quite often yet every time I see it applied it there is always someone who "seizes opportunity when it comes and does what it takes to succeed"

I suppose it is easier to write and also easier to dismiss other people doing something you simply don't want to put in the effort to do so or are too scared to do.

of course this is just my observation

> This word "luck" is used quite often yet every time I see it applied it there is always someone who "seizes opportunity when it comes and does what it takes to succeed"

Of course you do, that's called survivorship bias: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias

You see the one person who tried to seize the opportunity and succeeded, because by succeeding they became famous. You don't see all the people who tried just as hard to seize the opportunity and failed, because by failing they remained obscure.

How many tried just as hard to seize the opportunity?

Unfortunately that's just not knowable, I guess. And even if we could, how would we describe "hard"? And is "trying hard" even necessarily sufficient?

I would guess: no. Say we could map out every decision Chan made to get where he is. Let's also say we could quantify exactly how "hard" he worked.

To me, it follows that some of those decisions were likely pivotal in his success, even if they didn't seem like it at the time. And that some of the other decisions he could have made weren't obviously wrong decisions, or wouldn't even have decreased the quantified hardness he worked. But maybe making a different decision just one of those times (or maybe two, or three, or some manageable number) would have resulted in Chan toiling away in obscurity, despite trying so hard.

It seems reasonable to me to suggest that someone else attempting a parallel path as Chan, given similar starting conditions, might have made a few different decisions here and there, all of them involving equally hard work, but the outcome may have been nowhere near as good. So what do we call the cause of Chan's better outcome? Foresight? Better decision-making? Or just luck?

I would bet money on his choices being moments he learned what to not do. He failed over and over learning what to not do. Through persistence and dedication he succeeded when others simply quit and call it not possible.

That ... I would bet money on.

What do you call, other than luck, his surviving the reckless, deadly stunts that he did–that stunt professionals in fact refused to do? On the other side of the coin–what do you say to the stunt performers who didn't survive–they didn't try hard enough?

> This word "luck" is used quite often yet every time I see it applied it there is always someone who "seizes opportunity when it comes and does what it takes to succeed"

So your observation is that because they seized the opportunity and did what it takes to succeed means luck wasn't involved?

I mean luck seems to mean "something that person did that others seem reluctant or incapable of doing"

You can create luck by being prepared and being at the right place at the right time. One without the other; you can’t seize the opportunity.

The greatest challenge to overcome is disbelief that you can do something.

Heroes have a place, precisely because they inspire.

I get what you're saying, but in any system having an aspirational role model is a benefit!

> The greatest challenge to overcome is disbelief that you can do something.

I'm deeply skeptical of this. I don't want to assume your background, so please don't take offense to this. But I can only imagine someone is able to seriously believe this if they've never had anything more challenging than their own self-actualization and ambition.

You can (and should) believe in yourself as fiercely as you'd like! But the blunt reality is that hunger, poverty, disease and a lack of familial support structure will break you down unless you're astronomically lucky. If the most difficult thing stopping you from achieving your goals is your own belief in your ability to do it, you're in an exceptionally privileged position.

I think we miss the forest for the trees on HN quite a lot. The modal commenter here is most likely to be affluent with respect to their local environment and wealthy with respect to the world. We don't often have people commenting here to share experiences of the real obstacles someone like Jackie Chan had to deal with growing up.

I would argue the opposite (that self-belief is the hardest challenge in those in objectively bad circumstances), precisely because of what you phrase as '[these things] will break you down unless you're astronomically lucky.'

The manner in which they break most people down is by circumscribing ambition and self confidence.

A large part of my family goes into the hills of dirt poor mining Appalachia, so I wouldn't say I'm speaking to this from a privileged position.

When no one in your family has ever gone to college, why would you even think you could? Or have a different profession than your father? Or start a business? Or move to another town? Etc. etc.

There are certainly structural roadblocks that make things easier or harder, but I have yet to see someone succeed in something they never start. And a large reason they never start is because they don't believe they could ever succeed.

And that was my point. That heroes help us dare to believe, moreso that we otherwise would.

Created an account just to reply here:

I think this is the crux of the difference in viewpoint between you and who you're responding to:

> I have yet to see someone succeed in something they never start

It's reasonable to say that the will/drive/impetus/etc. to succeed is _necessary_ for success.

And because it is necessary, it's good to have heroes — makes sense to me.

But the other fellow is saying that while it may be necessary, it is not _sufficient_.

If you never play the lotto, you'll never win, it's true. But just because you do play doesn't mean you'll win either. Playing is necessary, but not sufficient.

How much you think it's valuable to parade around the winners and say "this could be you!" is, I think, proportional to how much you think an individual has control over the game they're playing.

For the lottery, it's easy to show that you have zero control, so parading around the winners (or "heroes") is a bit silly. For other types of success, it's less clear. But there is certainly a decent argument to be made that liklihood of overcoming structural and institutional biases is luck-heavy. If you think it's mostly luck, then hero-worship is not so valuable.

Argue, based on what?

Certainly the biggest heroes in improving the human condition are not the successful outliers like Chan, but those who believe in equality and put the work toward furthering it. There is no slavery in the US any more, and the thanks for that does not lie with outlier heroes who happened to luck out in the slavery game.

> I get what you're saying, but in any system having an aspirational role model is a benefit!

I will say there is a benefit but whether it's a net benefit is not always true as we can't ignore the downsides.

For example, if everyone believes that you can just work hard and succeed, then they may choose to ignore the great disadvantages certain people have. Indeed this isn't just a philosophical issue as this is the reality even in American politics with regard to having social programs.

I think this is actually even true of people whose stories qualify them to become "heroes". Often because they were able to do something they think it must be possible for everyone else without realizing how many things were working in their favor. There's a psychological phenomenon describing how people who went through the same experience as you are actually less likely to help you because for whatever reason, they seem to remember it was being easier than it was.

Granted it's a dual edged sword.

The issue I had, and why I originally commented, is it seemed people were being intellectually dishonest in denying any benefits of aspirational heroes, because they felt doing so would lend approval to an unjust system.

Which seemed... incomplete and unfair. Both to the heroes (Chan deserves better than to have some New Republic writer denying Chan's opinion of his own life's work) and to the people whose life might be changed by having a hero.

In reality, we can work towards both greater equality of opportunity AND highlight aspirational heroes.

I don't want to ascribe motivation, but I wonder how many people casting stones have ever been so down and out that they can't even imagine any success in their lives. Because I feel that's the reality for a lot of people in truly bad situations. And when you've given up trying to improve your life...?

Noam Chomsky once said something like this .The hardest part in liberating people is to make them understand they are being oppressed.

Most of the times people who advocate for oppression are the people who benefits out of it. Like the caste system in India or slavery elese where

Except Hong Kongers aren't inspired by Jackie Chan. He's widely hated for selling out to become a communist party shill. Sure, he was revered when he was younger, but after Hong Kong's handover to China when he begun spouting pro-mainland talking points he got the proverbial boot. Bruce Lee is still adored here, though

Reply on news.ycombinator.com