> "If somebody swears at you in traffic, you decide if you just shrug on it ("He's had a bad day") or freak out, swear back, and think about it for the rest of the day."
and
> "I am convinced that what most people call luck or bad luck is partly due to their own decisions (previous or current)."
These two statements have no relation to each other.
The first one is obviously true. The second one is much more ambiguous - and comes with a lot of baggage. The same stance has been used to blame the victim throughout history, and continues today. For example, we continue to blame the poor for their own poverty, despite putting up barriers at every turn for them. It's a despicable stance that is entirely devoid of compassion or perspective, and does no good except to inflame the ego of the accuser.
The second argument was meant to clear up the misunderstandings about my opinion being taken out from "The Secret". They do line up, in a way: The second person would call it bad luck ("Whoa, fate gives me a hard time today"), while the first person has made no negative experience. It at least screws the perception of luck/bad luck.
You can't reason from my first argument to the second, that's correct. But it's hard to deny that we are responsible for our reactions, as illustrated by the traffic example. If life rains down on you as a startup founder (no real progress or no funding for a year), you can react by giving it all up, or just continue for some more months. The latter will increase your chances of success, naturally - it's a simple statistics game of throwing the dice more often. That's why I'm convinced that everybody forges a PART of her own destiny - it's my opinion, no fact ;)
The same stance has been used to blame the victim throughout history, and continues today. For example, we continue to blame the poor for their own poverty, despite putting up barriers at every turn for them.
Or people blame the blacks for being poor and "underachieving", not understanding that they started off in the US as slaves (much worse than anyone starting off as a poor migrant), and were still under segregation rules and heavy racism until at least the 60's.
Slave parents aren't exactly a guarantee of success. Sharecroppers parent's (the next generation) aren't either. Then, if you play your cards correctly, you end up with country and urban dirt poor parents, and maybe a small percentage of them can get to middle class --while still seen under suspicion by the wealthier and more white middle and upper class.
That a few people can overcome those things and be, say, even the first black President, doesn't mean that statistically everybody can --you don't judge a population by the outliers. The truth is, if they can get to college or get rich, for example, it's a far greatest achievement than the children of a 3rd generation immigrant achieving the same thing.
> "If somebody swears at you in traffic, you decide if you just shrug on it ("He's had a bad day") or freak out, swear back, and think about it for the rest of the day."
and
> "I am convinced that what most people call luck or bad luck is partly due to their own decisions (previous or current)."
These two statements have no relation to each other.
The first one is obviously true. The second one is much more ambiguous - and comes with a lot of baggage. The same stance has been used to blame the victim throughout history, and continues today. For example, we continue to blame the poor for their own poverty, despite putting up barriers at every turn for them. It's a despicable stance that is entirely devoid of compassion or perspective, and does no good except to inflame the ego of the accuser.