In who needs talent when you have intensity, I proposed that success has very little to do with talent. This blog entry by Brad Wardell offers even more proof:
In 1992, OS/2 came out and I felt I could get a competitive advantage by pre-loading OS/2 onto the computers I sold. I became quite familiar with OS/2. In early 1993, I thought there would be demand for an OS/2 video game. The only problem was that I didn't know how to program. So I bought a book called "Teach yourself C in 21 days" and a book called "OS/2 Presentation Manager Programming". With those two books I programmed Galactic Civilizations. Anyone who ever played the game and also knows programming can verify that only the techniques in OS/2 PM programming are in that game. What that meant is that all the "graphics" were merely iconic windows, not real images because OS/2 PM programming didn't include chapters on how to do graphics programming and I couldn't afford any more books.Even still, my plan once I graduated was to go work at some cool company. I sent my resume to Texas Instruments and tons of other big companies. No response. I later learned from a friend who worked at Ratheon at the time that these big companies won't look at resumes from minor colleges like WMU. He got in because he went to (wait for it) University of Michigan, the school I was accepted at but couldn't afford (my friend's parents paid his way through and drove a firebird).
So while failing to get a job, the little game I made did really well. Except that I didn't get paid any royalties. Our publisher ripped us off and because I was poor and couldn't afford a lawyer, I was screwed. If you bought a copy of Galactic Civilizations, that's cool but I never got a penny of it. But the game was such a success that I was able to use the good publicity to build Stardock up with other products while I waited to see if I could get a job anywhere.
Because I worked 3 jobs during college my gradepoint was only 2.6 so I was at a competitive disadavantage. But that time allowed me to keep working on Stardock stuff which led to Star Emperor (a GalCiv derivative I wrote for IBM) and Object Desktop for OS/2 which I teamed up with a fellow OS/2 fanatic Kurt Westerfeld to bring to market.
And the rest is history. By 24 I was a millionaire. And during the stock bubble, my company's valuation was ridiculously high (wish I could just stick with that number ) which fortunately coincided with my 10 year class reunion! So what's the excuse of able bodied people who are poor? I'm not particularly intelligent. I don't enjoy working any more than anyone else (just ask my mom). But I did what I had to do. And now I pay 6 figures in income taxes of which a large percentage of it goes to other people. If I can make it, why can't others? If you are able bodied, what's stopping you?
Even if you've never heard of Galactic Civilizations, you may know one of Brad's other products. The most notable are WindowBlinds and Political Machine.
But Mr. Wardell is either disingenuous or self-delusional in believing that he has no special intelligence or talent that helped him to succeed.
I don't think he's saying that he has NO talent-- just that an excess of talent isn't *required* to succeed. Dogged persistence and moderate skill are good enough.
Jeff Atwood on June 20, 2005 2:41 AM"I would say that being able to program in C at all (or C#, or Visual Basic well)"
You lost me at the VB part.
Tom Clancy on June 20, 2005 2:46 AMThanks for posting this. I relived the fun of running OS/2 back when Windows was just 3.0 and couldn't multitask. It was a fleeting reliving of the fun days, but that's what memories are all about!
Brian Hampson on June 20, 2005 3:50 AMI've met tons of people that CAN program but that doesn't mean they SHOULD program. I have to agree though - talent/intelligence does have little to do with success - basically the only thing that can kill success in the long term is quitting. Having intelligence on top of determination is just one more tool in the toolbox, but ultimately only aids in achieving success - it does not determine it.
Ryan McGinty on June 20, 2005 6:19 AMI'm not particularly intelligent. I don't enjoy working any more than anyone else (just ask my mom). But I did what I had to do.
Assumes facts not in evidence. I would say that being able to program in C at all (or C#, or Visual Basic well) is prima facie evidence of above average intelligence.
My point here is that you can't just take the inputs, an OS/2 machine and two books, cook them together with any person no matter how motivated, and find success. Certain professions do have absoloute minimum intelligence requirements, and programming is definitely one of them.
There are plenty of professions that don't have those requirements at which one can be successful. But Mr. Wardell is either disingenuous or self-delusional in believing that he has no special intelligence or talent that helped him to succeed.
Chris Behrens on June 20, 2005 1:21 PM"I would say that being able to program in C at all (or C#, or Visual Basic well)"
You lost me at the VB part.
I meant that in order to program VB well, as opposed to programming it poorly, you must have a minimum (an not minimal) level of talent and intelligence.
What I got from this was simply that in order to achieve something, you actually have to *do something* in the first place.
For me, the challenge has always been getting from "wouldn't it be cool if..." to actually *doing it*.
TristanK on June 22, 2005 6:11 AMThe comments to this entry are closed.
|
|
Traffic Stats |