Investing seems like a domain where charisma is particularly misleading. If you ranked billionaires in 2 ways, by how much their net worth has increased since the start of their careers (factoring in inherited wealth), versus how much they get talked about, what would you see?
-
Show this thread
-
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likesShow 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.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likesShow 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.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 likeShow this thread -
Replying to @vgr
Have you read "Finite and Infinite Games" by James P. Carse?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
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.