Now you are moving the goalposts from singular they are good at the game, to their family as a collective is good at the game. A statement perfectly compatible with that particular family member being an idiot.

Idiot usually means someone who doesn't know basic facts or has trouble anticipating consequences for their actions. But I think part of GPs comment was to note that the concept of idiot needs to be readdressed. For example, if your hypothetical person has a family network (just another tool; but a v. good one!) that helps them, then they choose to either stick with their family or try to strike out on their own. We're already discussing the situation where they have chosen to leverage their family network.

I have never, ever, once in my life ever heard anyone say "Isn't that person smart, they managed to get their dad to give them a job"

And maybe one could respect people who go their own way to get out of their family's shadow so they can be seen as making it on their own. But if that's not the game then both people are 'idiots' (in this thought experiment).

Success is not guaranteed just because someone was sent to an Ivy League school by his rich parents.

This is the blank slate fallacy where people believe (for political correctness reasons) that any kid had same chance of success if he was given the same opportunity as the success of kids.

> Unless by "good at the game" you refer to the skill of dropping out of the right vagina, like royalists do.

And some people are born athletically gifted, or extremely attractive, or with very high IQ and a temperament for grit.

There are lottery winners that lose everything in a few years.

Just because you are born into money, doesn’t mean you will succeed.

In the end it's not about the money. As you said, there are lottery winners who lose everything in a few years, and there are people who build a new fortune after losing everything.

That doesn't mean that being born into a privileged life doesn't have advantages, but it's about way more than just the money. It's also the connections you have. The best example right now is Trump, who is a complete and utter failure as a businessman yet people keep throwing money at him.

> who is a complete and utter failure as a businessman yet people keep throwing money at him.

Perhaps you are judging him by the wrong metrics?

Trump has always wanted to be a “great man” of history while being able to live a life of excess.

> Trump has always wanted to be a “great man” of history while being able to live a life of excess.

He's failing at that to. He'll go into the history books as the worst president the US ever had by a wide margin.

> He's failing at that to. He'll go into the history books as the worst president the US ever had by a wide margin.

Unlikely. Once the constant negative media coverage dies down the hate will fade as well.

Which means the parent of the idiot was good at the game, but does not mean the idiot himself/herself is good.

Unless by "good at the game" you refer to the skill of dropping out of the right vagina, like royalists do.

The child is probably playing a different game than the ancestor who acquired the wealth in the first place.

The game the (alleged) idiot is playing is "don't lose the family fortune". If you weren't born wealthy but want to be, you are playing the "make more than you spend" game in one of its variations. There is for example an obvious slow way that might give your children a better shot at the "don't lose the family fortune" game and there are also many also many higher variability games like the "lottery" and "startup" games.

Not every game requires the same skills and personality type.