How Do You Become Successful?

[quote]unearth wrote:
Imen de Naars wrote:
averaging CEOs and averaging their dependants, I think the CEOs would come out on top.

If the most intellingent amoung humans ran everything the world would be a much different place.

Instead we have unscrupulous, cutthroat, and well connected politicians and CEO’s.[/quote]

You do understand what “on average” means, right? I have no doubt that given a population of a size which is 10000 times the size of the CEOs you are going to find many individuals that are smarter than a give CEO, but that’s not what I mean.

[quote]Dweezil wrote:
JokerFMJ wrote:
That is absolutely incorrect. You can learn people skills. You need to practice, just like public speaking. PRACTICE, PRACTICE, PRACTICE.

You can read books and improve your interpersonal skills with the information contained within them. However, it’s one of those things you’ll have to learn the concepts and apply them in your own way. This is again where the practice comes into play.

To say you have them or you don’t is absolutely ridiculous, and because of that I didn’t finish reading your post.

I would say I cared that you didn’t finish reading my post, but that would probably be a lie.

The majority of ‘how to influence people’ books, or anything related to NLP, makes people telegraph themselves whether they know it or not to anyone who’s seen the tactics before. Can you learn how you should act? Yes, though most of the books on the subject won’t be helpful, and will become increasingly detrimental the more you use of them. If you can pick up a few things it’s fine, if you’re going to use everything in one of those books you’re going to look like a shithead.[/quote]

I agree, every person that purposefully tries to utilize learned social skills is going to look phony to the eyes of anybody who has at least a little experience of the field.

[quote]Imen de Naars wrote:
You do understand what “on average” means, right? I have no doubt that given a population of a size which is 10000 times the size of the CEOs you are going to find many individuals that are smarter than a give CEO, but that’s not what I mean.
[/quote]

CEOs… some CEOs… are good at what they do. That doesn’t make them smarter, in a general sense, than the people that work for them. If you’re telling me that the CEO of Dow doesn’t have a ton of scientists working for him that are more intelligent in just about any way you can think of other than business savvy… well, then we can’t have any more of a discussion. Being a CEO isn’t even necessarily about any sort of acumen, of course, depending on how you get there.

If CEOs are “smarter” simply because they’re running the game as it were, then I think that’s a rather small sphere for the application of intellect.

[quote]Imen de Naars wrote:
You do understand what “on average” means, right? I have no doubt that given a population of a size which is 10000 times the size of the CEOs you are going to find many individuals that are smarter than a give CEO, but that’s not what I mean.
[/quote]

The average CEO has average innate intelligence.

The average worker has average innate intelligence.

Your confusion lies with your unfounded belief that CEOs got to be CEOs because they’re “smarter” than everyone else. Here’s a bit of reality for you…CEO’s are in the position they’re in because they are less scrupulous, more cutthroat, and better connected than their rivals.

[quote]nephorm wrote:
Imen de Naars wrote:
You do understand what “on average” means, right? I have no doubt that given a population of a size which is 10000 times the size of the CEOs you are going to find many individuals that are smarter than a give CEO, but that’s not what I mean.

CEOs… some CEOs… are good at what they do. That doesn’t make them smarter, in a general sense, than the people that work for them. If you’re telling me that the CEO of Dow doesn’t have a ton of scientists working for him that are more intelligent in just about any way you can think of other than business savvy… well, then we can’t have any more of a discussion. Being a CEO isn’t even necessarily about any sort of acumen, of course, depending on how you get there.

If CEOs are “smarter” simply because they’re running the game as it were, then I think that’s a rather small sphere for the application of intellect.[/quote]

GOSH damn the scientist analogy is exactly what I was trying to prevent when I placed my emphasis on AVERAGE.

Obviously if you compare the daddy’s son CEO to the brightest scientist in a given firm, then you are obviously right.

But, I am pretty sure that there is most definitely a component of smarts in making the RIGHT decisions at rhe RIGHT time. If a person becomes a CEO via ladder-climbing, he cannot be dumb, otherwise his decisions would be wrong.

[quote]unearth wrote:
Imen de Naars wrote:
You do understand what “on average” means, right? I have no doubt that given a population of a size which is 10000 times the size of the CEOs you are going to find many individuals that are smarter than a give CEO, but that’s not what I mean.

The average CEO has average innate intelligence.

The average worker has average innate intelligence.

Your confusion lies with your unfounded belief that CEOs got to be CEOs because they’re “smarter” than everyone else. Here’s a bit of reality for you…CEO’s are in the position they’re in because they are less scrupulous, more cutthroat, and better connected than their rivals.[/quote]

I did not say that CEOs are smarter than everyone else, I said that ceteris paribus they are smarter than the average of the people they administer. This might, or might not be true, but it makes sense IMO.

Right…

And those intelligent humans just can’t seem to figure it out, can they?

The world is a big conspiracy.

[quote]unearth wrote:

If the most intellingent amoung humans ran everything the world would be a much different place.

Instead we have unscrupulous, cutthroat, and well connected politicians and CEO’s.[/quote]

[quote]unearth wrote:
nephorm wrote:
CEOs aren’t necessarily “smarter,” although a lot of them think they are…

Agreed.

Intelligence has little to do with becoming a CEO.

CEO’s are less scrupulous, more cutthroat, and better connected than their rivals.[/quote]

Sounds a tad too general. There is ample evidence that this is true, but the 80/20 rule probably holds here too.
I find myself guilty of class envy at times, wanting to believe that the major obstacle in my life isn’t me.

I agree, but that’s not what I said. I said you learn the concepts and apply them in your own way.

If you take it straight out of the book you’ll go in there sounding like you’re reading from a script and of course you’ll come off as phony.

But again, I said use them to learn the concepts.

[quote]Imen de Naars wrote:
Dweezil wrote:
JokerFMJ wrote:
That is absolutely incorrect. You can learn people skills. You need to practice, just like public speaking. PRACTICE, PRACTICE, PRACTICE.

You can read books and improve your interpersonal skills with the information contained within them. However, it’s one of those things you’ll have to learn the concepts and apply them in your own way. This is again where the practice comes into play.

To say you have them or you don’t is absolutely ridiculous, and because of that I didn’t finish reading your post.

I would say I cared that you didn’t finish reading my post, but that would probably be a lie.

The majority of ‘how to influence people’ books, or anything related to NLP, makes people telegraph themselves whether they know it or not to anyone who’s seen the tactics before. Can you learn how you should act? Yes, though most of the books on the subject won’t be helpful, and will become increasingly detrimental the more you use of them. If you can pick up a few things it’s fine, if you’re going to use everything in one of those books you’re going to look like a shithead.

I agree, every person that purposefully tries to utilize learned social skills is going to look phony to the eyes of anybody who has at least a little experience of the field. [/quote]

[quote]jp_dubya wrote:
Sounds a tad too general. There is ample evidence that this is true, but the 80/20 rule probably holds here too.
I find myself guilty of class envy at times, wanting to believe that the major obstacle in my life isn’t me.[/quote]

80/20 rule? What a crock of shit.

CEOs of multi-national billion+ dollar corporations are ruthless and well connected.

It doesn’t matter how hard you work or if your IQ is two zillion. Unless you have a ruthless personality, a loose moral code, and are well connected you’re never going to be the CEO of a multi-national billion plus dollar corporation.

Comprende?

[quote]shawninjapan wrote:
Right…

And those intelligent humans just can’t seem to figure it out, can they?

The world is a big conspiracy.
[/quote]

Hey, well thought out post. Please point out where I said “the world is a big conspiracy”.

Do you seriously believe that CEOs of large multi-national corporations and politicians got to where they are because they’re the most intelligent amoung us?

I suppose you believe in the Divine Right of Kings too.

[quote]unearth wrote:
nephorm wrote:
CEOs aren’t necessarily “smarter,” although a lot of them think they are…

Agreed.

Intelligence has little to do with becoming a CEO.

CEO’s are less scrupulous, more cutthroat, and better connected than their rivals.[/quote]

Truth.

[quote]CaliforniaLaw wrote:
unearth wrote:
nephorm wrote:
CEOs aren’t necessarily “smarter,” although a lot of them think they are…

Agreed.

Intelligence has little to do with becoming a CEO.

CEO’s are less scrupulous, more cutthroat, and better connected than their rivals.

And smarter.[/quote]

Smarter than who? The average idiot on the street?

Certainly not smarter than their educated employees but less scrupulous, more cut throat and better connected is a great description.

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
Hi Dweezil,

Budgeting is definitely crucial, and although I think it may seem self-explanatory, it still needs to be mentioned. If you don’t allocate every cent of the money that you earn, then it will be very difficult to ever really get control of your money, which is definitely something that you want to learn to do.[/quote]

Budgeting is also a long topic which I didn’t really want to put into my already long post. Allocation of income is dependent on each person, and much like my talk about an employer sponsored retirement plan, has too many variables to mention without dragging things on forever.

[quote]As far as credit cards go, yeah, if you were super diligent and really knew what you were doing, maybe you might be able to get away with a method of continually transferring your credit card balances to other cards with 0% APR. But, you are really playing with fire by doing so. The credit card companies are multi billion dollar industries that spend billions of dollars every year trying to figure out how you can make them money. So, most likely you are just going to end up getting yourself in trouble by trying to outsmart the credit card companies. Instead, I think it’s better to just not play their game.

That is one reason why I really don’t advocate credit cards. Another is because if you don’t have the actual cash to buy something, then quite frankly you probably shouldn’t be buying it (with the exception of a house/condo). Just save up the money for it and pay cash for it.[/quote]

Yes, you do have to know what you’re doing, and diligence is important. I considered doing it when I was first starting to build my credit, but I was living with my mother and I knew she’d have a heart attack if I told her I was purposely putting myself in debt. Now I’m almost at the million dollar mark as far as debt goes, but because it’s real estate she has no problem with it.

[quote]Also, cash will allow you to bargain much more effectively than a credit card will. Cash has an emotional component that credit cards don’t. Why do you think they have you use poker chips in casinos? Because even though those chips represent certain amounts of cash, they don’t have the same emotional connection that cash does. So, people can bet them without feeling the same emotional attachment to them like they would feel if they were gambling with actual cash.

Show someone a handful (or better yet briefcase full) of hundred dollar bills, and it’s going to be much more difficult for them to turn down your offer than if you just showed them a Visa card, even though the visa card might actually represent a larger sum of money.[/quote]

Cash will allow you to bargain more effectively, but there really aren’t as many places as people think to bargain anymore. You can’t really bargain online, unless it’s a small company and you’re buying something expensive. You can generally bargain in large electronic stores, but not nearly as effectively as certain television financial advisors would have you believe. Bargaining, unfortunately, is a mostly dead method of procuring and selling goods.

[quote]In regards to your comments about careers. I understand where you are coming from and I agree that you must earn enough money to support yourself and your family (if applicable).

However, I’d have to disagree with you that doing what you enjoy and doing something that makes you money are exclusive. Nor do I agree that the more you do something you enjoy the less you will enjoy doing it. If that’s the case then you might not have enjoyed doing it that much in the first place. And of course, I also realize that there is such a thing as doing anything too much, but that is a different discussion.

I think that if you asked professional athletes if playing the game they loved has made them grow to dislike it, they’d look at you as if you were crazy. The same goes of musicians, artists, and basically any other group of people who get paid to do what they love to do. These people get paid (albeit some more than others) to do what they love to do.

Personally, the more I do what I enjoy doing, the more I enjoy doing it because I get better and better at it, which makes it more and more enjoyable. So, if I can do something that I love and continually grow to love, and get paid for it, then I’d say that is a pretty sweet deal. And from what little experience I have had so far with getting paid for my vocation, it certainly hasn’t gotten any less enjoyable or satisfying as time has gone by.

Good training,

Sentoguy[/quote]

There is truth to this, but there are also things you’re missing.

Let’s say you’re a woodworker. You like working with your hands, your father taught you how to build basic stuff when you were a kid. A couple of years ago you spend ages building an awesome deck with stylized awnings and you even created the furniture by hand. People keep telling you you should do it professionally.

You start doing it professionally, and you take a few orders. People generally want the same things. A desk, a table. Maybe you’ll start getting into bigger projects if you do it full time. What happens when you get backed up, and you have to make 5 tables that are exactly alike? Are you going to love it then?

There is no better way to start loathing something than to have to do it when you don’t want to.

I think if you asked most professional athletes or large musical acts how they feel about their industry, they’d respond with an atypical response about loving the game and still being a fan, but you’d see in their eyes that they’ve started to see it as a business. The baseball player who signs autographs all year long to keep a steady income. The basketball player who was pushed from childhood to practice, practice, practice, to play in AAU leagues and to do whatever it took to get noticed by scouts. The band pushing out another album that’s over produced and sounds exactly the same as all their other music.

Martial arts may be great to teach, but if you’re in over your head on a lease and you’re not teaching what people want to learn it’s going to become very stressful for you. Stress + Something you enjoy = disaster. The belief that you can always do something you enjoy and make money off of it is inherently flawed, in my humble opinion. The second stress and demands play a role in something you used to do for the sake of leisure, it changes. It might be subtle at first, but it’ll build, and it stops being something you only enjoy and starts being another job that you happen to like some aspects of.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Smarter than who? The average idiot on the street?

Certainly not smarter than their educated employees but less scrupulous, more cut throat and better connected is a great description.[/quote]

Funny how all the schmucks working in cubes say this!

If you engineers are so smart, why haven’t you figured out a way to make mid-to-high six figures; and how to get out of a cubicle?

[quote]unearth wrote:
If the most intellingent amoung humans ran everything the world would be a much different place. [/quote]

If the “most intelligent” are so intelligent, why haven’t they figured out a way to take over the world? Perhaps because they are not nearly as intelligent as they think!

[quote]nephorm wrote:
If you’re telling me that the CEO of Dow doesn’t have a ton of scientists working for him that are more intelligent in just about any way you can think of other than business savvy… [/quote]

That’s like going up to a powerlifter and saying, “I am much stronger than you in every imaginable way - except for benching, squatting, and deadlifting!” In the business context, there is only one kind of intelligence that matters - and it’s exactly the type of intelligence most engineers lack. Which is why it’ll always be engineers in cubes "mocking’ the guys in private jets. LMAO.

[quote]unearth wrote:
jp_dubya wrote:
Sounds a tad too general. There is ample evidence that this is true, but the 80/20 rule probably holds here too.
I find myself guilty of class envy at times, wanting to believe that the major obstacle in my life isn’t me.

80/20 rule? What a crock of shit.

CEOs of multi-national billion+ dollar corporations are ruthless and well connected.

It doesn’t matter how hard you work or if your IQ is two zillion. Unless you have a ruthless personality, a loose moral code, and are well connected you’re never going to be the CEO of a multi-national billion plus dollar corporation.

Comprende?[/quote]

There are examples of this, I am sure. Prove these three ingredients are required, though.

[quote]CaliforniaLaw wrote:
That’s like going up to a powerlifter and saying, “I am much stronger than you in every imaginable way - except for benching, squatting, and deadlifting!” In the business context, there is only one kind of intelligence that matters - and it’s exactly the type of intelligence most engineers lack. Which is why it’ll always be engineers in cubes "mocking’ the guys in private jets. LMAO.
[/quote]

If the “powerlifter” can’t lift a couple of kegs to carry them into the houseparty, but I can, then your analogy holds. If the powerlifter can’t move his big screen tv by himself, but I can, then your analogy holds. If he can’t walk for a mile, or carry 50lbs on his back, or take out the garbage, or do a variety of other very useful and important things that require strength - but I can - then I think he deserves a little ribbing.

I’m not “mocking” CEOs. I also don’t think the ends justify the means or that money is the ultimate measure of intelligence or humanity. If anyone mocks anyone else, it’s usually the upper management who have the same sort of mentality that you’re showing: if you’re so smart, why am I here and you there?

Business schools seem to attract that kind of elitism and self-satisfaction. People who judge their own worth and the worth of others solely on the amount on their paychecks or how big their houses are.

Rather than accepting business skill as, at best, another skill (like playing piano or being a good lacrosse player), many people want to instead imply that business acumen is the apotheosis of man as master of himself and his environment.

Being treated like cattle does not incline one’s “inferiors” to want to make their bosses more money. CEOs seem to forget, sometimes, that they make their success from the backs of laborers who are not duty-bound to continue to support them.

And while I suppose it’s “smart” to make sure you have a golden parachute… so that when you run the company stock down 30% and get fired, you walk away with $200 million… it just seems sort of low and underhanded to me.

So what is successful exactly?

Sometimes i wonder why can’t we just try to be happy. I think the self improvement culture is a little bit much at times.