In (say) literary achievement or academia, the divergence between visible charisma and actual impact seems much less extreme, especially if you weight by critical discounting. So Gladwell is big, but is also more strongly discounted by critical perceptions than say Pinker.
-
-
Show this thread
-
I guess the existence of a publicly active in-group serves as a check and balance against public charisma. What other writers or academics think of you matters in a way what other billionaires think of you doesn't. The "community of billionaires" is much more opt-in.
Show this thread -
And financial wealth, as opposed to intellectual capital, can be enjoyed much more easily in complete privacy. You can go billionairing on an island by yourself in a way you can't be a writer or scholar on an island.
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Yeah, he's wealthy, but his charisma is more as a tech leader still, not as a wealthy person
End of conversation
-
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
If by top right you mean super high net worth, high media, then no. He is 2.3B but gets media comparable to say Bezos or Gates, who are an order of magnitude higher. So he'd be in the low end of the wealth axis, high end of the media axis. He's highly charismatically leveraged.
End of conversation
-
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
You cld say the same about political leaders.
-
All other things being equal how diff might things be if public-speaking ability/personae were eliminated in favor of pure results-driven likability/electability (or investment advice, as it were)?
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.