4 ms·
Executives are waaaaaaay more succussful than actors in hollywood. And you have none in your list. It might be enlightening to do a demographic study of industr
by 001sky 13y ago
Executives are waaaaaaay more succussful than actors in hollywood. And you have none in your list. It might be enlightening to do a demographic study of industry executives and their lobbyists in Washington. And then report back with your findings. =D
- untog 13y agoExecutives are waaaaaaay more succussful than actors in hollywood. In what sense?
- eru 13y agoMore money on average?
- untog 13y agoDoes that mean they're more successful? Honest question. Millions of people adore Brad Pitt, very few people know who the CEO of Apple is. Now don't get me wrong, there are plenty of downsides to being a famous Hollywood actor. But I wouldn't assume success is absolutely all about money.
- 001sky 13y agoFor the person who thinks "money" is a shallow, why would "celebrity" be any "more fulfilling"? This is like comparig the health of two kinds of junk food.
- untog 13y agoI'm just questioning why one junk food (as you put it) is more valuable than the other. I am unconvinced that it is.
- 001sky 13y agoInterestingly, this leads to the heart of the analysis. Which is probability of success, control of success factors, and second best outcomes, given success doesn't happen. If you consider those more "rational" metrics (agnostic of money/fame), how would they compare?
- eru 13y agoSecond best outcomes (or even median outcomes) cuts to the heart of the matter. C list executives still get good money. C list actors not so much, and not even fame.