Again you are changing the context to make your point and in doing so devaluing it. Of course there needs to be luck in anything, you simply wish to over promote it to support your point, you account for no individual skills simply luck. No point changing the context to suit your point if everyone else has a different context, it is pointless.
I haven't changed anything.
I have a range of examples, some of which extreme - others mundane.
Oh it is and if you are honest with yourself you know it is, see my point above.
I'm not going to debate semantics with you, I gave examples that we are the end result of a number of factors we have no say over.
This is an objective fact.
Oh I think you are very clear on that, you just don't want to agree with it so seek to take it in a different direction. Accept my and probably most peoples definition is different to yours and that doesn't mean your points are invalid but in the context of how people use the term they are. I don't think it needs to be defined as you know already.
The point is, no matter which definition used - (as the one above) people don't choose the personality traits they possess, I don't even believe free will exists - so why do you think I'd accept ANY definition of "self-made" as another other than tosh?.
They were examples so you could change the definition, nothing more and again you know that. Ask a man on the street what they believe self made to be and it would probably not involve the points you seek to uphold.
I gave examples which in reality greatly impact on an individuals chances in succeeding in life.
Just because you don't like them it doesn't make them invalid, just because a number of them may be considered extreme (for people in England, not globally) it doesn't make them invalid.
The overarching point (you have missed) is that we don't choose the circumstances of our childhood - which in turn determine if we are likely to be the kind of person who can succeed (in the business world) or on an interpersonal level.
No matter how you spin it, the term "self-made" implies a level of control which doesn't reconcile with our understanding of neuroscience & the reality of environmental influences.
Self made to me simply means you've succeeded in the business world with minimal / no outside help or funding, you’ve worked hard to ratchet your way up the corporate ladder or invested in others using your own gained knowledge, you've gone it alone to succeed and continue to succeed and prosper from your business ventures..
Ok, by this definition.
Where does the individual get the mindset that enables them to work hard without help/funding & ratchet their way up the ladder?
By what source were these personality traits obtained from? - what influences determined if this person was able to perform the above task & obtain success in the sense you laid out?.
If both of these factors were pendant on say, having good parents who instilled the right attitude required - which others didn't have, how are they self made? - while they didn't get the finical benefit they did receive a cognitive one.
This is why self-made is a fallacy, it's just a line drawn in the sand by people who wish to extract extra pride/reward/self-esteem over things which objectively they had no choice in to begin with.
