I learned recently that there have been studies where researchers have subjects play Monopoly, but give one subject more money at the start. When those advantaged players (obviously) won, many would still insist it was because they played well.
Yup! And this is the problem with politicians also. Once they are in the habitus of other with large freedom, they will start to believe that freewill is a natural law and will make laws and structural assumptions by that belief. Environmental/ecological impacts to the choice are instead "solved" by referring to the individual responsibility, which will not change the enviromental factors. The point is - once you're a well paid politician you will naturally be unfit to lead.
I'd argue you could still lose with more money as the game depends on how lucky you roll the first rounds and how fast you can reserve (buy) streets for yourself.
They're still a tiny minority among those who started out with as much as they did. The vast majority of people having a few hundred thousands as fuck-it money to start with still don't become billionaires.
That doesn't mean they earned it, just that lots of other lucky coincidences have to occur as well. And every bit of intelligence and hard work you put into it lowers the number of lucky coincidences required just a tiny bit - yet for the one at the very top, that was apparently not necessary, which does make it a remarkably odd case.
…you realize you can become successful and have money with starting with nothing right? Most millions don’t start as millionaires. That’s a reddit falsehood
14
u/futuristicplatapus Aug 14 '26
Most millionaires or billionaires are not the smartest they just learned to play the game