> Whatever comparison you do, you should compare a representative subset of both populations in similar situations in life Well, yes and no. If you're an 18 y

> Whatever comparison you do, you should compare a representative subset of both populations in similar situations in life Well, yes and no. If you're an 18 year old who wants to program computers and you read Turing and Dijkstra for fun, then go study math or physics, which you won't have much time to do later. Or pick a subject in the humanities if you like to read and write. Is it a great way to become a programmer? Maybe not, it would be better to just go and get an internship or a job, but (1) smart companies are hard to find and (2) you'd be missing out on a chance to get a university education at the age when most people do so. On the other hand, if you're picking coworkers, go with the self-motivated one who had to learn everything they learned because they were interested in it, over the one who had to learn it to get a degree in a field that everyone knows is a ticket to a high-paying job. > Once in a plane I met a CEO who told me he would take any day an engineer for the decision making role or business related roles. Was he crazy Sure, this is the same point: if the only thing you're good at is your specialization, then you're probably not going to be very good at it. Unless it's something like chess that really has minimal relation with anything else in society.