That's great, and I'm genuinely glad to hear you've done well, but your story in no way negates the data in the article. It's not claiming that nobody coming from an adverse childhood succeeeds - just that it's a lot harder. Your post is a great example of survivorship bias. I doubt that there are many people in poverty who post to HN.
Well of course no, there us simply no logical way how that could work, and claim what you (not you personally) can, reality and society are at base level quite logical, even if obscure way.
If you start life race very far behind athletes who had best training and nutrition, how easily you can even catch them, not even going into overcoming.
But adversity is a great, massive stimuli for those few with right mindset on their own, even if it stuns most. They would wither and get comfortable in comfort and security, instead they gather drive and focus that very few can match eventually. Often great men and women, albeit broken deep inside.
That is not what the person said, you are unfairly mischaracterizing the reply because you obviously did not understand it. I agree with the poster that it is great that person succeeded but I think the Op is rather crass to spend a hundred words describing how they succeed with literally no explanation. Which safety nets? What did he/she do to overcome? Feels more like BS without some details about the important parts.
I'm suggesting nothing of the sort, and it's disingenuous to suggest I did. I'm just saying that him being one of the purple group in his cohort doesn't in any way contradict the fact that that group is smaller than among people with easier childhoods.
That was obvious from the main article, and you had zero reason to rub it in Alex’s face except some sort of pervasive need to discredit his achievements because he didnt succumb to playing the role of a perpetual victim.
