Thread by @swardley

X : How common is imposter syndrome?
Me : In execs?
X : Yes
Me : Common. Most twig their position has little to do with talent but more with luck and privilige. It can be a shock.
X : The rest? Talent?
Me : No, the rest are mostly psychopaths disconnected from reality.

X : So talent has no role?
Me : It has a role but it's relatively minor. There are outliers etc. But wealth and position are not gaussian distributions correlated to talent but appear to be power laws more clostly linked to luck, inheritance and other reinforcing mechanisms.

X : Is that fair?
Me : Depends upon your poisiton and whether your interest is in making the system more competitive. If so, you'll tackle inequality and shift the system to a more gaussian distribution based on talent.
X : Anyone doing this?
Me : Watch China, this year.

X : Explain?
Me : If you want a more competitive system then the majority of wealth and power must be distributed based upon talent, hardwork and ability (application of above) rather than luck, inheritance and ROCE being proportional to C (i.e. gravity of wealth) ...

... to do this, your intent must be on the "system as a whole" i.e. you'll need a strong collective or "we" focus such as a Confucian based collective like China. In the West, our collective tend towards more "me" focus hence our collectives will not tackle inequality.
X : And?

Me : To cut it short, China will end up with a more competitive economic system with better leaders precisely because it is a "We" focused collective and hence will tackle issues like inequality.
X : The West?
Me : Keep doffing your cap to privilege for another hundred years.

X : GameStop?
Me : It's a good start especially those collective skills forged in online games starting to shine through. These processes take time though, there is a lot of inertia, a lot of constrained thinking baked into education etc. It's a long journey.