Quote:
Originally Posted by iggy_oi
Would you mind clarifying what argument you are trying to make then? My response to Dirac was that being successful doesn’t mean that you’re naturally smarter and more productive than the population at large.
|
By and large, yes, it does.
Quote:
|
The fact that there are any examples at all of low intelligence individuals who are successful is exactly the point. Having success doesn’t mean you are naturally smarter and more productive than the population at large by default.
|
By and large, yes, it does.
Quote:
|
Are you suggesting the shareholders wouldn’t allow it? Are you aware that George Weston Ltd own around 50% of Loblaws? Do you wanna guess which family has the majority ownership in George Weston Ltd? That’s quite a bit of influence on the matter.
|
Again with the snark... If he was not qualified for the job (aka smart and hard-working), he would not have the job. End of story.
Quote:
|
Had he been born dirt poor I’m sure he would have still gone to Harvard as well, he would have just relied on his drive to be the best to get him there right?
|
I didn't say he would follow the same path, just that he would likely be successful, regardless of his starting point.
Quote:
|
No one is arguing that successful people don’t deserve credit for their actual accomplishments.
|
Good. It would be unfortunate if there was a resentful undertone in some posts that implied successful people weren't successful because they are intelligent and hard working, but rather simply because of circumstance.