zlacker

>>moored+(OP)
> There's an ongoing debate over whether or not people skills are undervalued, and perhaps for many people they are, but it's hard to deny that there are many, many more ways for someone who doesn't like social interaction much to get rich. If ads and sales are on the same continuum, then the world's best salespeople are engineers, data scientists, and product managers.

This seems completely wrong to me. If you look at who is the top 0.1% it's either inherited wealth, a few professionals (lawyers, certain medical specialties, etc.) who own their own practices, or people who've managed large groups of people (i.e. business executives). The third group is overwhelmingly full of people with good social skills, and skilled professionals are almost always personable too.

>>jeffre+km
Don't look at the top .1%. Look at the top 5% and you find some very rich people who are "self made". They didn't inherit. Even in the top .1% you find the likes of Bill Gates who started out pretty average (there is a lot of luck in his story or course)

>>bluGil+KY
Even in the top 0.1% many are self made. My comment wasn't about whether they are self-made or not (and many people who got a head start in life have done very impressive things, one of the surgeons who pioneered transplant surgery was from a very wealthy midwestern family who made their money from the railroad industry). My comment was about Byrne's assertion that there are more ways to become rich that don't require social skills than ones that do. That doesn't seem true to me.