There are some good folks on these lists too but yes they do seem to attract a concentration of the narcissistic self-promotional hussle-culture types that are all hype and no substance. Folks more concerned with the appearance of doing something great than actually doing something great. Unfortunately the media falls for these types hook line and sinker hence all the magazine covers, big talks, puff media pieces and other nonsense leading up to their eventual downfall when people figure out what’s really been going on.
Folks should be under no assumptions that some rigorous process goes into making up these lists. Much/most of getting on a list is the result of heavy targeted promotional efforts by folks or “their team” to get on the list hence the oddly high concentration of fraudsters and shysters. People are very serious these days when they say they’d triple check someone just because they appeared on one of these lists given the reputation for the above.
Media don't "fall for it", they have to fill columns / bait clicks. Do you ever get a day where news go "nothing really happened today, do something else"? No. If nothing happens, they'll make it happen. If there aren't decent candidates for "30 under 30" every year, they'll just wave in the first few hustlers pushing at the entrance.
There's an assumption that 30 under 30 means "here are 30 vetted folks under 30" instead of "here are 30 people with less than 10 years experience lapping veterans, take note" -- and that note is either a techtnonic shift in an industry the old guard is asleep on, or... something else.
Given the incident rate, maybe there's a more profound shift in our society. I hate the term post-truth, but maybe financiers are either more gullible, or more willing to look the other way? Nah, it's just the cheap money and the end of it will fix this up in a jiffy.
By definition, you can't be a celebrated avant-gardiste. The people who will be lauded as precursors in the future are necessarily out of sync with what is fashionable today.
That's why list aimed at celebrating promising people are doomed to be wrong more often than not. Amusingly, it also means that extremely fashionable people are less likely to be highly remembered in the far future than people marginally famous.
Early in my career I thought it would be a cool thing to get, but as I started meeting people who touted it and so many of them were sketchy I realized... Forbes 30u30 just means I'm going to vet you extra hard.
Since you’re aspiring to be on the list, you might already be a grifter. Might as well just put “Forbes 30 under 30” in a resume or LinkedIn profile with no context and you’ll get most of the benefit without actually being on the list. No one is going to check. If they ask just have some random placeholder website for a professional looking “tech consulting” business or something to direct people to, where the income is impossible to verify.
In all seriousness, I was alluding to the likely way that people get on these lists. Success doesn't necessarily mean being a great technical person, it means knowing exactly where, when and how to grease the wheels.
In life, being a "grifter" is often what it takes to be successful. It's a different kind of hard work. Not everyone really understands it, I wouldn't discount it.
As someone on this list, there’s an open secret that the way to get on is to get referrals from existing people and link to 1-2 articles about you. It’s not merit based and there is no rigorous evaluation.
It’s also important to note that every year hundreds of people are put on Forbes 30 Under 30. They have categories like 30 Under 30 for Education, 30 Under 30 for Music, 30 Under 30 for Enterprise Software, and many many more. It’s a lot more than 30 people.
Since there are so many people, there are many amazing people and inevitably scammers too.
I am appreciative of the list because it helped some people take me more seriously as a young person who was trying to do something meaningful in the world, but who didn’t finish high school and wasn’t from a high net worth background.
I'm not rich enough to know, but I'm not sure if this is a thing.
If you have a serious, unknown disease, throwing money at the problem to find a diagnosis could work. In general though, studies on healthy habits seem to be all over the place, and recommendations almost all turn into "eat food, not too much, mostly plants," (I'll add minimally processed), and exercise (strength and endurance). 95% of that is execution that's on you, even with the best doctors and personal trainers.
The other thing studies call out is not having too much stress and the importance of social connection. High-level wealth can work against those.
I don't think they were suggesting it was good lifestyle/eating via being able to afford a good doctor for that advice - but rather check-ups and early diagnoses. You could run a large battery of tests every x weeks if you wanted, if you were unsure about a mole you could skip the GP and have a top oncologist review it immediately, etc.
I expect though that that sort of money enables existing hypochondriacs (in the casual sense) like that, but that most billionaires etc. are no more inclined to have unnecessary tests from unnecessarily specialised doctors than the rest of us.
Counterpoint: if not all doctors are equal, and better doctors charge more, having more money makes you able to afford better doctors. If your doctor is 10% better at detecting cancer for example, that may translate to a longer life.
My intuition tells me that at a personal level (instead of statistical on a population) it's even more important to avoid things that can cause an early death, because at the statistical level it's "compensated" by people to which it will never happen, but not at the individual.
Nutrition and fitness are very important to delay aging, which will kill you in the end, and improve your chances at surviving "death chance event" like getting a cancer. But having top professionals help you face these events (cancer, depression, car accidents (by means of having a better car, the help is indirect but still comes from money)) can have a huge and maybe even bigger impact.
As for the stress and social connections, I'm not sure I agree. At an equal amount of stress/social connections, someone with high wealth will have most/all of the time more options compared to someone with low stress. Sure some people might be putting pressure on themselves, but there is a big difference between internal/external expectations and having to work a high stress job to afford food.
I may be completely wrong but having a lot of money, especially if you earned it by conventional definitions, might intrinsically motivate you to take better care of your health to live longer and enjoy your achievements. Kinda like an article I read that said poor people have unhealthy diets in some part due to the temporary relief from daily stresses offered by high sugar fatty foods might be more valuable to them than saving up money and health for a life that is pretty much going nowhere.
EDIT: It was a passage from a book called Hired by James Bloodworth
I have an old friend (though we haven't talked in about a decade) who was on the list back in 2018 under the marketing and advertising category. From what I see him posting on LinkedIn, 90%+ of his posts are generic empty platitudes about how to be successful, the same sort that you would see from a lot of people that seem to be famous for being rich or famous for being famous. As far as I can tell his company is legit, but most of the people who end up on that list seem to fit a certain "slick salesman" persona regardless of the actual merits of their company, so it's not surprising that a good number of scammers make it on as well.
To pick two highly disparate people, in your calculus 1 x Ghandi is equal to 1 x Adolf Hitler.
Now I'm pretty sure both were complex people both smaller and larger than the imprint they have on history: pretty sure Ghandi had many days when he got out of the wrong side of the bed and wasn't amazing, and probably even Hitler did some laudable stuff (history is silent on whether he ever, eg, helped an old lady across the street or similar small moments of useful behavior that most of find ourselves doing).
Anyway, I definitely know an amazing person; and I'm married to them. :-)
My understanding is that Hitler lost and I don't agree with the industrialized killing machine he enabled or deliberately pursued.
I am capable of seeing how my understanding would be different under a different regime, where it would be merely edgy for me to evaluate the constitutional merits of an event that was merely a footnote about a gap in the census population between 1939 and 1945 and beyond.
All people are of equal worth in terms of how society should by default interact with them, in terms of how the government should respect and protect their rights, etc.
All people are not equally talented. I'm not of equal worth to Messi in soccer, Brad Pitt in appearance, and on and on.
The opportunity you gained was an opportunity that someone lost.
While you may have deserved it (and I sincerely think you do as you were forthcoming enough to write this) you have to admit such non meritocratic system with its perceived legitimacy is more harmful than valuable
I knew a guy that came to work one day and found out that he had been named best cfo of the year from a local organization, out of the blue. He was sent a plaque and was invited to a dinner in his honor. It turns out that he worked for a very large company and the organization was trying to score some points with the company. Who better than the man that handled the finances?
This made me wonder if these magazines are just trying to score points with people that can mean future business for them. Or access to them if they make it big.
The Forbes 30 under 30 is a vanity list. People spend a lot of time marketing themselves, doing fake work, and virtue signaling in order to get on this list so they get publicity for their own vain self and their startups. The entrepreneurs under 30 that will create enduring companies are not doing this.
Between investors, executives, media and the stock market, the economic dynamics of modern companies have become complex enough that not everyone loses money when fraud happens. The 30-under-30 reporting is in a weird spot where, by accident, their criteria happens to pick up those cases.
Forbes generally has been going downhill for a while. It often has dramatic stories about some security warning "issued" by Google or Apple or .. about their products.
It doesn't help that they're 51% owned by a HongKong based company (since 2013) and have been accused by WSJ about editorial meddling in stories about China.
At this point they're just parasitising the memory of the Forbes family. Hope it doesn't last too long.
Their reporting on Apple is uniquely bad clickbait. They want to stand out from the crowd so they manufacture bizarre takes that no one else would even think to make. I basically ignore all Forbes reporting on Apple now, after having been burned a few too many times.
The Forbes family is part of the problem. The current scion (Steve Forbes) largely writes conservative drivel and attacks on social and liberal policies (such as same-sex marriage, marijuana usage, healthcare, etc.).
I can personally vouch for one of them drunkenly admitting at a college party to falsifying his HS transcripts to get into our college (years before the 30 under 30 obviously)
They don’t require a certified transcript sent directly to the institution like every other college in the world?
I never had to send HS transcripts because I started out at community college after the army but for the couple other times I did they were pretty strict on what they would accept.
Humbolt State, some random private school that’s probably bankrupt now and Arizona State University (who decided I wasn’t a resident so I couldn’t take any classes there) were all this way.
Tbf most colleges these days are expensive diploma mills with a social element. I’m sure there are some degrees that are worth pursuing but apparently most students don’t take it seriously and instead try to cheat and bully their way through college.
To be fair, for every one of these sub-30 wunderkinds there are dozens of 50+ year olds hoping to make a fortune by propping them up… who often avoid such public derision.
As someone on the list, here’s a moderating view against to the popular take of narcissists campaigning to get on the list (which definitely has some truth to it).
I made no attempt to get on the list and didn’t even find out I was on the shortlist until I received a questionnaire asking for more information. Filled it out while commuting to work and forgot about it.
Didn’t hear back from Forbes at any point and only found out I made it when someone messaged me to congratulate me the day it was published.
Still don’t know who nominated me. Never bothered to ask.
Similar to another commenter, it has been useful given I have a degree from a relatively unknown University in Australia. Maybe it’ll be more counterproductive now? Who knows…
There was once a CNN program named Pinnacle. I remembered watching it and then as the years went by I noticed that a large number of the executives on the program later got arrested, were accused of fraud, and other such nonsense. GM, Sunbeam, Tycho...
Not sure that tracks. For a show that ran for 20 years and apparently had basically every successful exec on it… odds are some percent will turn out to be frauds.
I went to a birthday party once for a guy who just got on 30 under 30. The facebook event (made by him) was called "Mr. 30 under 30's Birthday". The whole event was presented with deliberate irony, as if to say "Wouldn't it be funny if I was such a narcissist that I couldn't stop telling people I'm on the Forbes 30 under 30?" And he was right.
68 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 126 ms ] threadFolks should be under no assumptions that some rigorous process goes into making up these lists. Much/most of getting on a list is the result of heavy targeted promotional efforts by folks or “their team” to get on the list hence the oddly high concentration of fraudsters and shysters. People are very serious these days when they say they’d triple check someone just because they appeared on one of these lists given the reputation for the above.
Given the incident rate, maybe there's a more profound shift in our society. I hate the term post-truth, but maybe financiers are either more gullible, or more willing to look the other way? Nah, it's just the cheap money and the end of it will fix this up in a jiffy.
To say that she's a miserable ass of a charlatan who made my work life (and pretty much anyone she's encountered) hell, this comment jives.
By definition, you can't be a celebrated avant-gardiste. The people who will be lauded as precursors in the future are necessarily out of sync with what is fashionable today.
That's why list aimed at celebrating promising people are doomed to be wrong more often than not. Amusingly, it also means that extremely fashionable people are less likely to be highly remembered in the far future than people marginally famous.
In all seriousness, I was alluding to the likely way that people get on these lists. Success doesn't necessarily mean being a great technical person, it means knowing exactly where, when and how to grease the wheels.
In life, being a "grifter" is often what it takes to be successful. It's a different kind of hard work. Not everyone really understands it, I wouldn't discount it.
It’s also important to note that every year hundreds of people are put on Forbes 30 Under 30. They have categories like 30 Under 30 for Education, 30 Under 30 for Music, 30 Under 30 for Enterprise Software, and many many more. It’s a lot more than 30 people.
Since there are so many people, there are many amazing people and inevitably scammers too.
I am appreciative of the list because it helped some people take me more seriously as a young person who was trying to do something meaningful in the world, but who didn’t finish high school and wasn’t from a high net worth background.
If you have a serious, unknown disease, throwing money at the problem to find a diagnosis could work. In general though, studies on healthy habits seem to be all over the place, and recommendations almost all turn into "eat food, not too much, mostly plants," (I'll add minimally processed), and exercise (strength and endurance). 95% of that is execution that's on you, even with the best doctors and personal trainers.
The other thing studies call out is not having too much stress and the importance of social connection. High-level wealth can work against those.
I expect though that that sort of money enables existing hypochondriacs (in the casual sense) like that, but that most billionaires etc. are no more inclined to have unnecessary tests from unnecessarily specialised doctors than the rest of us.
My intuition tells me that at a personal level (instead of statistical on a population) it's even more important to avoid things that can cause an early death, because at the statistical level it's "compensated" by people to which it will never happen, but not at the individual.
Nutrition and fitness are very important to delay aging, which will kill you in the end, and improve your chances at surviving "death chance event" like getting a cancer. But having top professionals help you face these events (cancer, depression, car accidents (by means of having a better car, the help is indirect but still comes from money)) can have a huge and maybe even bigger impact.
As for the stress and social connections, I'm not sure I agree. At an equal amount of stress/social connections, someone with high wealth will have most/all of the time more options compared to someone with low stress. Sure some people might be putting pressure on themselves, but there is a big difference between internal/external expectations and having to work a high stress job to afford food.
EDIT: It was a passage from a book called Hired by James Bloodworth
Now I'm pretty sure both were complex people both smaller and larger than the imprint they have on history: pretty sure Ghandi had many days when he got out of the wrong side of the bed and wasn't amazing, and probably even Hitler did some laudable stuff (history is silent on whether he ever, eg, helped an old lady across the street or similar small moments of useful behavior that most of find ourselves doing).
Anyway, I definitely know an amazing person; and I'm married to them. :-)
Judged by modern standards, at least. Gandhi is reputed to have been a racist, misogynist, and possibly a pedophile.
> probably even Hitler did some laudable stuff
As I understand it, Adolf was kind to his dogs.
...
And Mother Theresa wasn't so awesome, either.
People are complex. Narratives and mythologies are propagated to serve a purpose.
I am capable of seeing how my understanding would be different under a different regime, where it would be merely edgy for me to evaluate the constitutional merits of an event that was merely a footnote about a gap in the census population between 1939 and 1945 and beyond.
Such is life.
Who won the war decided their legacy.
Power by any means is the deciding factor
His non standard sex activities are known only because he himself shared all about his life with everyone. And he stopped when people pointed it out.
Gandhi by standards of his days was probably one of the least misogynistic leaders.
Lots of heroes aren’t worth worshipping. But let’s not throw the baby with the bath water.
All people are not equally talented. I'm not of equal worth to Messi in soccer, Brad Pitt in appearance, and on and on.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
While you may have deserved it (and I sincerely think you do as you were forthcoming enough to write this) you have to admit such non meritocratic system with its perceived legitimacy is more harmful than valuable
This made me wonder if these magazines are just trying to score points with people that can mean future business for them. Or access to them if they make it big.
Is this too sinical on my part?
It doesn't help that they're 51% owned by a HongKong based company (since 2013) and have been accused by WSJ about editorial meddling in stories about China.
At this point they're just parasitising the memory of the Forbes family. Hope it doesn't last too long.
I never had to send HS transcripts because I started out at community college after the army but for the couple other times I did they were pretty strict on what they would accept.
Humbolt State, some random private school that’s probably bankrupt now and Arizona State University (who decided I wasn’t a resident so I couldn’t take any classes there) were all this way.
Again I’m sure there is value to be had at many universities, I just don’t believe most students care anymore.
Yes, I have never been particularly impressed by any of the 30u30 I've met in real life, either.
I'm not sure it adds much information that's not already covered by the article, but it is funny.
I made no attempt to get on the list and didn’t even find out I was on the shortlist until I received a questionnaire asking for more information. Filled it out while commuting to work and forgot about it.
Didn’t hear back from Forbes at any point and only found out I made it when someone messaged me to congratulate me the day it was published.
Still don’t know who nominated me. Never bothered to ask.
Similar to another commenter, it has been useful given I have a degree from a relatively unknown University in Australia. Maybe it’ll be more counterproductive now? Who knows…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinnacle_(TV_program)