3 ms·

> What about all the big companies run by non-addicts (the majority) Sure, but the real question is whether "addicts" are over-represented amongst successful C

• jey 15y ago
  Looks like I should explain myself: If there was no association between having an "addictive personality" and being a successful CEO, we would expect "addictives" to be CEOs just as often as non-addictives. If being an addictive helps with being a successful CEO, we'd expect a higher concentration of addictives amongst the population of successful CEOs. The grandparent is presenting a argument a much stronger straw-man: that the majority of successful CEOs have addictive personalities. The original post does not make that claim.
  • corin_ 15y ago
    That isn't how statistics work. If 10% of people are "addicts", and 20% of CEOs are "addicts", it's fair to say that there is correlation - despite the fact that there are still five times as many non-addict CEOs. edit: Think this is actually the point you're trying to make, though I think you didn't quite nail it.
    • jey 15y ago
      I mis-spoke when I wrote "expect 'addictives' to be CEOs just as often as non-addictives". I meant to write "expect to find 'addictives' amongst the population of CEOs at the same rate at which they occur in the general popluation" or something. Would've been easier to write it out with math. :P