Also, started as a poor kid in India doesn't really present the whole picture. He was lucky that his family moved to New York when he was 9 which broadened the scope of opportunities he had.

From the Wiki article, "Ravikant moved to New York City with his family at the age of 9".

I still think what he has achieved is great and love some of what he shares but Naval can sometimes make things sound grander than they are.

And moving to the US with your whole family is not a cheap or easy operation; it costs money, you need a job, a house, and from abroad, a working visa. I find it hard to believe he was a poor kid.

It is not an easy operation and neither cheap. However, in those days getting a working visa was probably a no brainer. I really applaud his parents for taking that route. Usually employers sponsor the airfare. Still, a very gutsy move.

One of my uncles went to Carnegie Mellon on a full scholarship in the 80s.He hailed from a village where education was the least priority. He was very poor but figured his way out without any money. It can be done.

I don't. There are millions of immigrants who move to the US and live very poor, despite affording the journey to the US.

Anyone that manages to pass the gauntlet of residency/green-card/naturalisation has shown some deluxe skills IMHO: almost by definition his parents are well above "normal" because they managed to win the game.

> Naval can sometimes make things sound grander than they are.

Please share a specific thing. Just curious.

When he was 9 his parents moved to New York and he then attended one of the best schools in the US. Referring to his childhood as "I started as a poor kid in India" ignores that and makes it sounds like his later success has nothing to do with his privileged (but no less well-earned and deserved) education.

> his parents

He said he was raised by a single-mom, so shouldn't that be singular?

She also apparently worked two jobs just to make sure he had an education. In that sense Naval was certainly lucky to have someone that supportive, but from what I have heard about him he was also working every little job on the side he could to make money in his early teens'. So they were poor but they seemed definitely hard working.

Take this "if I can do it, anybody can". If he would be a regular Indian guy, he'd likely be fucked up and could not achieve what he did.

There's plenty of luck involved. He probably won some genetic lottery that contributed to his intelligence (genes = about 50% of intelligence). He (presumably, having only skimmed) also was lucky enough to have had a stable family life, managed to avoid major trauma as a child, and I can see from the rest of the thread also had a good education (environment = much of the rest of intelligence.)

Of course, he did apply himself and take initiative to get where he got. But, it's dangerous to work backwards from success stories and say "well, anybody could have really done what I did, ergo anybody who didn't is [....]"

That said, I wonder how many of the really driven entrepreneurs among us started from lower than middle rungs in society, and/or share the "immigrant mentality".

How much of his success is due to the high school he went to though? I think even given students with equal privilege, he is still within the top .1% of success. I'm not sure what would impress you though.

From the same wiki article what I gather is that attending Stuy has nothing to do with economic status or money. It is very selective in a merit based admissions test and the tuition is free.

It is very plausible that he was a poor kid in India, parents put all their savings to immigrate to US, and by sheer hard work he got into Stuy. You can't rule out that possibility.

It's not a guarantee, but the right kind of schooling - in the educational sense, the networking sense, and the passing on of class-appropriate behaviours sense - hugely improves the odds of success.

As this article proves. The ability to invest disposable income is a defining class marker in the US.

You don't get to play the game if you literally have no surplus income - and many Americans don't.

> in the educational sense, the networking sense, and the passing on of class-appropriate behaviours sense - hugely improves the odds of success.

That's fair. I agree on this point. The network at an Ivy League can open doors for you that a state school could never open for you.

But I disagree on one point. It comes down to ambition. It's almost like a fire within your soul. If you have that fire kindled within you, it won't matter where you started from.

I have seen miracles in my life. A man with no arms and legs going around with a motorized wheelchair, using his chin to control acceleration/deceleration. When I saw this man, I realized that I was holding my self back. Anything is possible. If that man who had no limbs could walk, I had no excuses to give anymore.

> You don't get to play the game if you literally have no surplus income - and many Americans don't.

Except...he was a poor Indian immigrant who presumably did not have disposal income. So how then did he not only play the game, but seemingly win it?

It's an uncomfortable and often painful truth for many. Climbing an insurmountable mountain, whether it is a personal failing, or desire, one will start to justify their own failings. It's the human psyche after all. But what they miss is belief, a leap, faith, the fire within themselves, etc...

I like to think of Heracles. He had his twelve labours. It's a metaphor for not giving up, no matter how large the challenge is.