This whole post is basically ridiculous, and the reason is because there isn't any science in it: There's no attempt to balance it with a control group of peop

This whole post is basically ridiculous, and the reason is because there isn't any science in it: There's no attempt to balance it with a control group of people who are always successful but never attract any real notoriety, or people who are rarely successful but have a giant hit that catapults them forward, and there's no methodology for defining what these antecedent success markers actually are. This part however illustrates the biggest problem: > Most successful people build on an increasing track record of successful events before hitting their big success. Most people don't have "track records" until they are notable, at which point they have the ability to retrospectively define themselves however they please, since they most likely haven't been under journalistic surveillance the entire time.