"... they've all achieved 1% status much more through intelligence, creativity, commitment and resourcefulness than by birthright, luck or psychopathy ..." I d

"... they've all achieved 1% status much more through intelligence, creativity, commitment and resourcefulness than by birthright, luck or psychopathy ..." I don't disagree with this statement for founders being truly having the 'intelligent, creative, committed and resourceful' attributes you state but are they 100% responsible for the outcome? Are these attributes true indicators of their success? Is this misattribution bias after the fact? Follow the money. What would a 'high-flyer' breakdown look like? Would they be mostly US based (including foreign born), White/Asian, tertiary educated males? (bias acknowledgement). Did they need extra funding? How many received VC money? How did the VC choose one particular company/idea over others (by skill or luck?) How did the founders get their money? (hint: is it harder for non validated entities to raise VC money or not?) Given the high failure rate of Startups and VC investment, the article may well apply to those who supply capital.