Success, talent and feeling “anti-system”

Today I was arguing with an acquaintance (both in their mid-20s) about the meaning of success, wealth and how these related to one’s abilities. In particular, we talked about the film about the life of an entrepreneur (now owner of multinationals) and how this had made him feel extremely motivated to become an entrepreneur himself in the future. Not knowing the film in question, I spoke about the fact that often these types of stories are then readapted a posteriori to make them adhere to personal narratives on how, starting from disadvantaged situations, with only one’s own strength, with motivation and genius , we have achieved success and wealth, often with the implicit message: you too, even if you don’t have much now, if you really put in the determination and talent you will surely become rich. However, ignoring the fact that perhaps that entrepreneur was the son of the owner of a diamond mine or had family ties with figures capable of moving politics at a national level.

In essence, my perception at that moment was that he was a “victim” of the propaganda aimed at the lower-middle classes that the key to success is only talent and that, if they commit themselves and do their part, they too will be able to take the lead. their piece of the pie. I, however, “understand” that the system is set up by those who already hold power to hide that power is essentially passed down, except for a few cases resulting from fortunate circumstances. In most cases, those who are successful are because they already come from wealthy families. Clearly I don’t do much with this knowledge but it makes me feel “smart”.

Thinking about it, however, it seems to me that he usually sees himself as “anti-system”, the one who “understands the game and doesn’t get fooled”. Which is a bit of the attitude that makes the various conspiracy theorists laugh so much.

Now, it must be said that I do not present that reasoning as an absolute rule or as a system manipulated to obtain a certain result, but more as a spontaneous trend that simply exists and which must be taken into account. More than anything, I am against motivational speeches and ad hoc biographies that minimize this factor, perhaps creating an aura of genius on certain figures whose success is however strongly influenced by contingent elements. But I was left with this unpleasant sensation of being, after all, a “conspiracy theorist”.

So the questions are: How do you view the rhetoric of motivational speeches (particularly those about economic success)? Is thinking that the economic system is a slightly rigged game a conspiracy thought? Have there been times when you realized you were a bit of a conspiracy theorist too? When does trying to understand the “system” behind things become conspiracy theory?

I add two links to articles that I think can contribute to the discussion and help frame it in statistical terms:

Social mobility, it takes 5 generations to escape poverty (truenumbers.it)

Social mobility, Italy last among industrial countries. Denmark and Norway in the lead – Il Sole 24 ORE