Is it true that people with more social connections have a higher chance at becoming wealthy and t hose with fewer...

Is it true that people with more social connections have a higher chance at becoming wealthy and t hose with fewer social connections have a lower chance?

Other urls found in this thread:

infocaptor.com/dashboard/how-do-you-get-rich-and-successful
gnxp.com/blog/2007/04/intercourse-and-intelligence.php
digitalsynopsis.com/inspiration/privileged-kids-on-a-plate-pencilsword-toby-morris/
steemit.com/anthropology/@kyriacos/the-stronger-force-in-human-culture
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Yes. What else would you expect?

This is literally the stupidest thing I have ever read.

...

consider the Ivy League

generally speaking, someone with more social connections is more intelligent.

/thread

>social connections
Literally a poorfag meme that actual wealthy people know is false. You people are incredibly creative when it comes to rationalizing your own failures.

>wealthy people don't notice

>muh hard work, muh bootstraps
>sure my dad got me that internship during the summer, but I sure did work hard at it!
Kek, I'm not even mad. I used to think the same way. Then I graduated in the worst economy in 30 years, and I found out differently. Everyone I've talked has had an inside hand
>my dad got me a job at a pipeline company in high school
>I ran my family's farming corp during undergrad
Judging from your attitude, you'll be saying the same thing in a few

>he fell for the "turning one's vast youthful potential into a complex and elaborate inner world that no one knows about and is absolutely useless" meme

fuck, think that one might have got me too, on second thought

This is so faked

Being charming and known socially is one of the top 3 important aspects of being successful in life.

Let me break it down for you:
1) Picking a lucrative career and being very good at a given profession
2) Being socially known and liked by as many people as possible, but especially high-ups
3) Being good looking

Thats it folks. That's your life recipe for success.

IT'S NOT TOO LATE TO CHANGE YOUR HIKIKOMORI WAYS!

Loners can't succeed

If you don't have friends in your life, you will never be strong

If you want to go quickly, go alone. If you want to go far, go with friends.

Just because someone believes something doesn't make it true. Of course social connections are immensely important. And of course you build them aggressively as a successful business person. Growing up in that kind of environment can do you wonders in your future career.

No one who is successful is ever going to devalue themselves.
Ive seen shitbags who get off the hook by being friends with the right people.
Ive seen hardworking people out on their asses because a shitty manager takes their credit.
Do you think those people are claiming success because of luck and connections? Fuck no. Its always mah hardwork paid off.

The same is true for poor people though.
No one wants to claim failure.
A small fraction of people are poor purely on a lack of connections and luck.
However we all know that white people turn to wiggers purely from living in the ghetto.
A lot of poor people are poor because thats all they know.

>wealthy people don't notice
Wealthy people don't notice the things that made them wealthy? That's a bit naive.

>Then I graduated in the worst economy in 30 years, and I found out differently.
This is the problem with the Millennials -- the generation raised where everyone gets a trophy. You all think you're precious snowflakes with boundless potential.

In truth, the world is a meritocracy. The cream rises to the top. Maybe you just found out that you were mediocre all along?

>These facts upset me so they must be false.
Here's the source so you cry some more. infocaptor.com/dashboard/how-do-you-get-rich-and-successful

>Just because someone believes something doesn't make it true.
No, but when a lot of people believe something and when those people are the one's in the best position to be knowledgeable about the subject, that carries weight.

Asking poor people about the keys to success is like asking virgins about the keys to getting laid.

>No one who is successful is ever going to devalue themselves.
Since when are connections "devalued"? We live in a society of connections. People define themselves by those connections (religion, race, nationality and regionality). I don't think rich people are embarrassed to admit their connections. In fact, I think they celebrate them.

That doesn't mean its the key to their successes.

>Ive seen
Citing one-off examples isn't really useful or illustrative. People win the lottery, but playing the lottery isn't a pathway to success.

>Its always mah hardwork paid off
Maybe if you tried it, you wouldn't be in a position to dismiss the value of hard work.

Or maybe you did try it and just found out you didn't have the talents, skill or intelligence to make that hard work pay off?


Keep it coming folks; I've got cold, hard truths for everyone.

Sorry dog but Im a real life person who makes $50k a year working for lockheed and martin as a SPY baseline 9 contractor. I did 12 years in the military and got out as E-6. Im talking about people in positions closest to me. I have a shit ton of connections and am in a decent position in life. My hard work has paid off but I admit I was in the right place at the right time to succeed. Tell me about yourself man. You could be living off your parents as far as I know.

define wealthy
i have no friends at all and by some standards am wealthy

This is me btw.

>Sorry dog but Im a real life person who makes $50k a year working for lockheed and martin as a SPY baseline 9 contractor. I did 12 years in the military and got out as E-6.
Well thanks for proving the accuracy of the chart I posted. Since you're middle class, we expect you to credit your qualifications (which you did) and believe in connections (which you apparently do). That you don't believe in the value of hard work is a bit surprising, but the chart is only a statistical sample and you're only one person.

As for who I am, I'm not sure I see the relevance. Like you, I'm just one person and my personal opinions aren't necessarily the same as the group to which I belong ("Rich People" to use the label from my chart). For example, I don't put much stock in "entrepreneurial spirit" or "courage" despite the relatively high ranking given those attributes by my peers. But I do agree that "connections" is the least important factor, which is why I posted the chart in the first place.

>Literally a poorfag meme that actual wealthy people know is false
That makes no sense, you can be a poorfag and make valuable social connections. In fact it's easier to be friends with rich people than to be wealthy yourself..

Social connections are indisputably important though because they put you into contact with potential suppliers, mentors, customers, investors... or even just people who can generally advise you so you don't reinvent the wheel.

Not to mention that socially active people are generally happier

>Also your graphic is riddled with self-serving biases in every class

What's with this "be good looking" meme. Do you think young Bill Gates was good looking? Do you think Young Steven Spielberg was good looking?

Posture and Mannerisms are way more important than physical attractiveness.

Physical attractiveness helps. I'm pretty good looking and I've noticed people def buy into my sales pitch during interviews more just because of looks. But yea, it's not required

Connections are only important if you are in a profession or trade that you are interested in and want to grow in.

Theres no point making 'connections' in your wagie job if you fucking hate it and all your bosses are assholes.

>All three classes rank luck as one of the least important factors
Laughing my fucking ass off. This just goes to show that financial success and intelligence are clearly unrelated.

Success can happen without hard work, but it cannot happen without luck. If you get fucked by simple random chance, you have no recourse, you cannot control it, and there's nothing you can do about it. Luck is the #1 most important factor in success at anything, period. If you think otherwise you're either ignorant or lying.

Jawline pics pls

True that

>ITT: taking care of one's own family is imoral and oppressive

Never change, poorfags

bait

I dunno, it totally does help in some circumstances but I think it's just another excuse that self-elected victims use to excuse themselves like the user said above about social connections.

Then again, maybe I'm more attractive than I think I am and am misattributing shit

>What's with this "be good looking" meme
idk man it's like people don't look at Forbe's billionaires list and look at all the ugly/average fucks.

This is a striking examples of an incorrect conclusion due to failure in reading comprehension.

exactly!

It's a fact that people naturally respond more positively to good-looking people, even if they don't want to fuck them.
Lots of studies have been done on this.
People don't like uggos.

Luck is irrelevant because you can simply try again. Most successful people failed multiple times

godfather had been CFO of a handful of fortune 500 companies since the earlys 2000's, told me to get a finance degree and now i do finance for a small rum company in miami and shitpost all day for 60 bucks and hour, too bad homes here cost a fucking fortune. I am an actual NEET

>In fact it's easier to be friends with rich people than to be wealthy yourself.
I really have no idea where you're going with this. Yes, it's easier to be friends with a rich person than to get rich yourself. That's because getting rich takes hard work, plus talent, skill and intelligence. Connection? Doesn't fucking matter.

>Physical attractiveness helps
/r9k/ is over there, kid. I personally know at least 100 millionaires, and 92 of them are average to ugly. I'm a millionaire and I'm no model myself.

>This just goes to show that financial success and intelligence are clearly unrelated
ORLY?

>Luck is the #1 most important factor
according to 9 out of 10 poorfags who feel the need to rationalize their life failures.

>bait
I don't blame you for being skeptical, but in this instance it's really a case of HARD truth. I'm just telling you the stuff that people don't talk about in real life because it's not ((politically correct)).

>Connection? Doesn't fucking matter.
You hit the nail on the head, that's exactly where I was going with it: not having "social connections" is no excuse for not being wealthy.

>I am an actual NEET
do you know what NEET means?

>Luck is the #1 most important factor
>according to 9 out of 10 poorfags who feel the need to rationalize their life failures.

dude YOU posted the graph that shows, very clearly, that most people don't attribute success to luck. Including poor people. Each group rated luck as one of the *least* important factors in success. Here's your graph again, in case you lost it: Notice how "fortune, good luck" is listed as one of the least-cited reason for success?

All of those is true depending on where you start.

If poor: You need connections to start becoming successful. Hard work (manual) will not be enough

If middle class: You need to study and know what you're doing. People rarely take a persons opinions seriously if he can't back them up with proof.

Rich: You're already have the connections and probably have studied. Now you need to work hard to become more successful.

So 3 out of 9 poorfags then? I don't see your point, nerd.

Since when are connections a function of wealth? It's not like they hand you a rolodex of important contacts when you become rich. Last time I checked, the ability to be social isn't tied to your economic status.

People call it luck but let´s be realistic here. It´s more about connections+location+mentality. If you are in some country with low population density, you bet your sorry ass, that connections will find you something BUT only if your mentality is similar to the majority... don´t expect a wealthy life when you are surrounded by breeders and family oriented fuckboys with princess-wannabes if you are going to focus on wealth, cause you are going to be called a sociopath and weird... you get to be called a smartass and appreciated if your actions give some know-hows to the other monkeys... welcome to the age of feewings mah friend, where people need to ... relate...

Connections include family, no? So people who are born rich are able to go to the best private schools because of their family's financial support and make lifelong friendships with other people who have families that can afford $100k a year for high school tuition.

>people who are born rich are able to go to the best private schools
Access to education is important, but its certainly no guarantee of success. The greatest teachers in the world and the best facilities available still can;t turn a dumb kid into a smart one. At the end of the day, even rich kids get judged on whether they have talents, skills and intelligence.

>make lifelong friendships with other people who have families that can afford $100k a year for high school tuition
Who fucking cares? Do you think rich kids all belong to some secret society that teaches them the keys to success?

>you are going to be called a sociopath and weird
It's sad when people like you think they're disliked because you "focus on wealth." The truth is, you probably are weird, and you may be a sociopath (not enough data to make a judgment). Your kind gathers on r9k, btw.

>the world is a meritocracy

AHAHAHAHHAAHAHAH
AHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAH
AAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA

my sides are in orbit, 8/8 b8 m8

I'm going to prove OP wrong by becoming a cryptocoin millionaire.

Let me guess ... you think I'm wrong because you're some misunderstand genius who can;t become successful because the deck is stacked against you. You think you have above average talents and skills (your grandma told you that you a smart kid) and you have a very high IQ (according to many online tests). If the world was fair, you'd be rich, successful, and not still be a virgin.

Was I close?

>virgin
gnxp.com/blog/2007/04/intercourse-and-intelligence.php

Worst bait I have seen in a long time.
>1930261
You write like a pretentious redditor cunt who sounds like you are 16 years old.

Anyone responding to your posts with actual thought and effort is getting trolled.

>not an argument
I know you don't like the facts I'm telling you, kid ... but they're still facts. You can;t stick your fingers in ears screaming "lalalalalala" your whole pathetic life.

Looks are not a prerequisite, but they absolutely give people a turbo boost in most careers.

top-tier post friend

You have obviously never had the Lady at odds with you,it's nothing to fuck with.

>Looks are not a prerequisite, but they absolutely give people a turbo boost in most careers
Medicine?
Accounting?
Engineering?
Law?

>protip: these 4 fields encompass the 20 highest paying careers in America

Survivorship bias

digitalsynopsis.com/inspiration/privileged-kids-on-a-plate-pencilsword-toby-morris/

If you're born into the middle class in a developed country healthy with not much childhood trauma, lady luck is on your side

it's pretty pathetic how much better this makes me feel about my younger self

>if you are going to focus on wealth, cause you are going to be called a sociopath and weird...
I thought that's all the fuckbois want? To focus on wealth. Also if you look at the real big players most of them are ussually extroverts, machiavellis who can at least feign social interaction

>Access to education is important, but its certainly no guarantee of success.
This. Also I know some girls who went to private school and it's a fascist shitfest of bullying and absurd attention paid to dresscodes.

>Do you think rich kids all belong to some secret society that teaches them the keys to success?
Gonna nitpick here, as a kid you mimic your parents. If your parents have worked out the keys to success, or to be less airy fairy, the work ethic and problem solving skills to make bank; as a child of rich people your more likely to organically copy those skills, without even realizing.

You people really like to assume that having rich parents gives you some fasttrack to success, while ignoring the fact that actually achieving success requires talent, skill, intelligence and hard work. It's just another way to rationalize your own failures: blame your parents. Sad.

You're just assuming the conclusion, as is that stupid comic. An equally accurate comic would show the rich kid being a fuckup and falling prey to drugs and ennui, while the capable poor kid gets a great job and excels due to her superior intelligence and skills.

>as a kid you mimic your parents
>the work ethic and problem solving skills to make bank
Last time I checked, rich parents don't have a monopoly on work ethic or problem solving skills. Anyone can have or develop these skills, and anyone can learn them from your parents.

>Last time I checked, rich parents don't have a monopoly on work ethic or problem solving skills.
Who said monopoly? I said their children are more likely to organically learn them.
I specifically chose the word "likely".

As a child of multi-millionaires the odds are stacked in your favour towards being "wealthy" more so than a middle class kid, who themselves has way more odds than trailer trash (I'm being glib here, but it's a gradiated continuum). Some people on this thread will look at that as an excuse to never try and blame their circumstances of birth for not being wealthy, others will just accept their lot and make the most of it.

The grass is always greener in someone else's backyard, but some people don't even have grass

How many ugly doctors, lawyers, engineers, or accountants do you know?

>As a child of multi-millionaires the odds are stacked in your favour towards being "wealthy" more so than a middle class kid,
Well, duh. Generational wealth transfers are a thing, not to mention there is a certain "safety net" that comes from being born into wealth.

But if you're going to limit the discussion to people born into wealth, the entire topic becomes one dimensional and not particularly illustrative. We're supposed to be discussing the importance of connections in becoming wealthy. To only look at those who started wealthy really limits the analysis, and, frankly, curtails any insightful discussion.

Not to mention, being born rich isn't what people mean when they say "connections."

>How many ugly doctors, lawyers, engineers, or accountants do you know?
Quite a few, to be honest. None of those professions particularly trade on their looks, with the possible exception of trial lawyers (a small subset of the field).

You should know that most doctors don't look like the actors on Greys Anatomy, and that most lawyers don't look the dudes on Suits. Conversely, most engineers and accountants look exactly like they're portrayed on television -- which isn't exactly flattering.

>I have ugly doctors

intelligence has a direct correlation with what we percieve as aestetic qualities and beauty.

>But if you're going to limit the discussion to people born into wealth, the entire topic becomes one dimensional and not particularly illustrative
Forget the actual generational wealth transfers, it's a culture thing.

Connections however can be acquired on your own, however like I said it's a gradiated continuum, if you're poor white trash or a slum kid in Bangladesh there are a whole compendium of factors which make the likelihood or the resistance towards becoming "wealthy" which is an arbitrary notion in itself.

Compare this to someone from a middle-class background, who's parents or members of the community have access to "power brokers" be those venture capitalists, people who have the power to employee people, or even mentors and sage advise givers -- i.e. CONNECTIONS.

Not to mention the cultural factors and mentality that even an intelligent person would absorb in a lower class environment.

As you ascend up the uni-polar class scale (which of course is a glib, oversimplified one but for the purposes of a Veeky Forums post I won't bother elaborating on the geographical, sub-cultural vicissitudes of) access to connections and being imued with a culture/ethos of wealth making increases... this is before we even consider generational wealth transfers.

Now, as I said but which you totally missed: the grass is always greener in someone else's backyard... there is always someone with more connections, who got a better education in how to ascend the corporate ladder or make better investments... but there is always someone who had LESS.

Connections however can be generated, it's rather easy but if you look at it as a race it is more difficult to become wealthy if you need to first make the connections, develop an ethos disposed towards accumulation of wealth, and then actually act upon it... not that that should stop anyone from trying... but again: the grass is always greener... but some people don't even have grass.

I don't dispute that people can trade on their looks to a certain degree, but there isn't a qualified, successful doctor in practice who got their solely on their appearance. Seven years of medical school, the whole residency thing, and the rigours of medicine as a practice weed out the unqualified.

Life is a meritocracy.

>it's a culture thing
Fine, then stop bringing up rich kids. Because I agree that some cultures emphasize traits and skills that have an increased chance of leading to future life success. You see this in many communities and cultures: e.g., Judaism, Asians, Indians.

None of this has to do with "connections" though. It has to do with "hard work," "education," and "drive" -- which happen to be #1, #2, and #3 on the list of most important factors according to rich people.

Where you go off the rails is by assuming that "wealthy" connections are more important to success than "not wealthy" connections. And that's just not tenable, especially in modern times. Nepotism is dead in the corporate world. I know people who have specifically NOT been hired because their parent already worked at the business.

(And, to be clear, I'm excluding family-owned businesses here, because that's more a form of generational wealth transfer than "connections" in the sense we're discussing.)

You also continue to assume your premise. You assume that connections are important, and then you manufacture arguments for why poor people have fewer connections. Not only is that false factually speaking, but it sheds no light whatsoever on the question whether connections are important to the attainment of success.

In other words: it doesn't matter that some people don't have grass if grass isn't a factor that leads to success. Which is not only my opinion, but the opinion of most other wealthy people, according to the chart I posted. So you can stop telling me how little grass some people have because I already know that.

>Where you go off the rails is by assuming that "wealthy" connections are more important to success than "not wealthy" connections.


Until you're trying to get into the contract assignment gig and all your drug addict retard short-term-living friends don't have the means to be a part of your venture.

>Until you're trying to get into the contract assignment gig and all your drug addict retard short-term-living friends don't have the means to be a part of your venture.
Perhaps, but that would actually be "presence of initial capital" and not "connections." Completely separate items (see ).

>hurrdurrrdurrr wealthy isn't a measurement of connections

You must be really poor, or stupid.

>wow connections don't matter, having wealthy connections don't matter, it's about presence of capital!

Sophists should hang honestly.

>Life is a meritocracy.
I was reading a biography of Isabella Blow. Lazy, feckless party girl, got a job for Vogue, became a fashion icon. You disregard connections, yet she was the one who "discovered" Alexander McQueen.

I was reading a biography of Jackie Gleason, super talented but he was a bit of a lazy, frivolous party guy, still became massively wealthy. Working class too.

Walt Disney was a shithouse animator, most of his ventures lost money, he literally rested on the talent of others (particularly Ub Iwerks).

Explain?

>Explain
Lottery winners exist too.

You can't just point to a handful of exceptions to disprove a sociological truth. I made a generalized observation about society; it wasn't a math equation. Indeed, the fact that there are but few exceptions tends to prove the validity of the original statement. Literally, the exceptions that prove the rule.

You falsely believe that the exception is the rule.

You like to talk a lot about excuses and failures, well, if you're such a huge advocate of the gambler's fallacy, why not put your money where your mouth is and win the lottery?

...

>the gambler's fallacy
There you go, assuming your conclusion again. You're not going to get far in life until you develop a more agile mind, user. These games may impress your stoner friends, but anyone with intelligence can see that you're full of shit.

Life is a meritocracy, and you're going to be judged harshly unless you get your act together.

Let me know when you win that lottery, then I'll believe your meritocracy fairy tale.

Until then, anyone can become a billionaire, but not everyone.

>winning a random game of chance
>having anything to do with meritocracy

You dumb nigger.

Not an argument

>win that lottery
>meritocracy
Whew lad.

Also not an argument.

Um, actually, pointing out the inherent logical incongruity of your statement IS an argument. A pretty effective one too.

>stop being triggered

You didn't point anything out -- all you did was greentext and threw out a meme, just like you're doing now. All I get from this is that you're stumped. You'd better get buying those lottery tickets, son.

Why do you think people really pay that much to go to Yale

>He thinks he can out maneuver me with old /pol/ memes

Think again Fucko.

Now I know you're just baiting and laughing it up and having a good old time but I'm still going to break it down for (you).

Winning the lottery (a game of chance) is a random occurrence and requires no effort, education or input outside of walking up to a counter and buying a ticket. Someone winning the lottery is not proof that they worked hard for the money or even deserve it. They didn't win it out of "merit" they won it out of chance.

When people say meritocracy they are referring to a system in which people are rewarded based directly on their knowledge and willingness to work in any given field. It has nothing to do with gambling you unbelievable fuckwit.

Yes. Nepotism is the 1# way to get a good job and get ahead in life.

You've completely missed the point, once again revealing and solidifying your double-digit IQ.

>Winning the lottery (a game of chance) is a random occurrence and requires no effort, education or input outside of walking up to a counter and buying a ticket. Someone winning the lottery is not proof that they worked hard for the money or even deserve it. They didn't win it out of "merit" they won it out of chance.

Everything you've said can be applied to life, success, employment etc. Survivorship bias is a funny thing- in the same way that a wealthy man attributes his success solely to his own merits, so too does the gambler who falsely attributes rubbing the slot machine screen as the trigger to their previous big win. Ritualism is a product of the uneducated mind and a fragile ego.

>When people say meritocracy they are referring to a system in which people are rewarded based directly on their knowledge and willingness to work in any given field.

It doesn't exist. It's a fairy tale. If it did, you wouldn't be a failure and you could easily prove me wrong with your own actions, right?

Are you the janitor guy, because you sound just like him: delusional, autistic, and oblivious...

Again, not an argument.

Yeah, I recognize you from other threads. You always say stupid shit, and then you start repeating the same line over and over again. Eventually you start responding to yourself because no one wants to deal with you. Really strange.

Seems like you have a terrible habit of moving the goalpost after getting BTFO if multiple people have to repeat themselves to keep you on topic. Not at all surprising coming from the alt-right cuckold crowd of /pol/ and /r9k/.

>making excuses: the post

steemit.com/anthropology/@kyriacos/the-stronger-force-in-human-culture

Shit man, probably, I dont know, but it seems likely enough.

I try to keep it real with my homies.

>Rich people
>hard work
Yeah, sure.

Stop getting your ideas about the wealthy from TV and instagram. In the real world, most upper class earners are incredibly hardworking.