If I knew someone who was in a hard place, and they were stuck in a rut about how terrible their life was because of their parents/race/class background/asshole boss/whatever, I'd parrot your advice to them. When individuals believe they have the ability to effect change in their own life, they become more able to. This is borne out by statistics and experience.
I question, though, whether that spiel is appropriate here. Most people who haven't met success and are stuck in that blaming-external-factors rut don't post on Hacker News.
In an abstract sense, a sufficiently motivated person can accomplish nearly anything. But I use the phrase "sufficiently motivated" purposefully, because that kind of person bears a resemblance to the fabled compiler. It's true that there are a series of actions that can lead an unprivileged person to whatever level of success you imagine. More than that, such an unprivileged person exists, at least often enough to be relevant. But it passes over key structural issues by pushing all responsibility to the individuals who are stuck in some unhappy situation and ignores the reality that the average person can't be expected to have above-average judgment and motivation.
Taking the point to the extreme: Frederick Douglass was born a slave and worked himself up to the point where he was a world renowned intellectual. Diocletian was born a slave but eventually became Emperor of Rome.* Despite those facts, it's not controversial to say that we can't blame slaves for their misfortunes, even though through enough perseverance and skill it was theoretically possible for any slave to end up in a tolerable place.
For an individual seeking success, it's best to focus on yourself and self-improvement. But that fact doesn't change the reality that some people have to focus an exceptional (and unrealistic) amount on self-improvement in order to get what comes to other people with little effort.
* Interestingly enough, the ancient Romans practiced manumission for their best slaves with some regularity, holding up the freedman as an example of what a slave could achieve if he worked hard enough for his master.
I question, though, whether that spiel is appropriate here. Most people who haven't met success and are stuck in that blaming-external-factors rut don't post on Hacker News.
In an abstract sense, a sufficiently motivated person can accomplish nearly anything. But I use the phrase "sufficiently motivated" purposefully, because that kind of person bears a resemblance to the fabled compiler. It's true that there are a series of actions that can lead an unprivileged person to whatever level of success you imagine. More than that, such an unprivileged person exists, at least often enough to be relevant. But it passes over key structural issues by pushing all responsibility to the individuals who are stuck in some unhappy situation and ignores the reality that the average person can't be expected to have above-average judgment and motivation.
Taking the point to the extreme: Frederick Douglass was born a slave and worked himself up to the point where he was a world renowned intellectual. Diocletian was born a slave but eventually became Emperor of Rome.* Despite those facts, it's not controversial to say that we can't blame slaves for their misfortunes, even though through enough perseverance and skill it was theoretically possible for any slave to end up in a tolerable place.
For an individual seeking success, it's best to focus on yourself and self-improvement. But that fact doesn't change the reality that some people have to focus an exceptional (and unrealistic) amount on self-improvement in order to get what comes to other people with little effort.
* Interestingly enough, the ancient Romans practiced manumission for their best slaves with some regularity, holding up the freedman as an example of what a slave could achieve if he worked hard enough for his master.