Well certainly, but that’s not an apt comparison. I’m comparing P(willingness to take massive financial gamble | safety net) with P(willingness to take massive financial gamble | no safety net). I think the former is greater, whereas the article seems to imply the latter by stating “people who are born on third base tend to be pretty risk-averse”. Are people born on third base over or underrepresented among tech billionaires?
They want people born on second base, those who didn't inherent millions but got an upper middle class education and a stable family to rely on. I know people who were born with millions, they are very risk averse as they don't feel they could rebuild what they have if they ever lost it.
Note how the successful founders weren't rich, they had educated parents and went to good schools, but they didn't inherent millions so they had to work through life.
I’d bet (and this is entirely anecdote-informed supposition, but I did spend several years as a professional poker player and then went through YC and did that whole world for awhile) that you’d find little to no correlation between someone’s fall back plan and their willingness to swing for the fences.
