If things generally worked out very well for you, it feels good to believe you got there because of your virtues, and that those who didn’t got there because of their vices.

It’s the narrative of least resistance.

While I do agree with your opinion, I think the opposite is also true. It feels good to believe you didn't get there because "The game is rigged", "You have to be born lucky", "The house always wins", etc, etc. This defeatist/powerless way of thinking may in fact make it worse for you. When hope is lost, what's left?

Sounds like we agree with each other!

>When hope is lost, what's left?

That is what all societies are finding out right now. Before, they could count on women having babies providing a need to hope, but now that children are optional, societies don’t seem to have a replacement mechanism.

The problem lies in the word "we". I personally don't think this, and neither do most other people who gave this subject some thought.

It's just that silly ideas get to live around for a long time, and simply proving them false has little to no effect.

You probably want to revisit the author’s sixth point. Perhaps the people who don’t agree have given it a lot of thought too?

It seems most likely that we do not have free will, and the implication would be that it's all just luck.

There's certainly an element of luck. But every individual, no matter how unlucky their circumstances, has the opportunity to make good or bad choices from that starting point. It is not like people are powerless victims of the unlucky birth they had.

A person born in a war torn country who is killed at a young age doesn't get much opportunity for good or bad choices. That's what I think of regarding bad luck.

>the invisible scaffolding of luck: being born in the right place, with the right wiring, at the right time...

That seems overly dismissive of the contribution of our ancestors, fighting against entropy, who paid it forward to their offspring, creating the civilization we now inherit.