Perhaps not those events specifically, but even the qualities you mention are byproducts of success. A how-to book on the same subjects, written by different authors of equivalent writing ability, where one is a successful practitioner and the other a fraud, will net you two different books.
While the signals we look at to determine authority are varied and different for each person, style-of-writing is generally included in that list. Why would so much advice on etiquette and morality suggest ensuring one's written communications are of high quality?
I'll admit I didn't really read the links you posted but in looking over the first few paragraphs on http://www.paulgraham.com/taste.html he is clearing signaling his authority in how he name-drops MIT and talks about his MIT educator friend. (And I don't mean to imply there is anything wrong with that; writers are often advised to establish their qualifications early) I imagine the 18-year-old me would have felt confident about his essay simply from this reference.
Finally, the wannabe theory of thought leadership isn't a hard-and-fast rule. There are exceptions...