Which include obedience if they are only measuring PhDs.

It depends on how you define intelligence. If you go broad, grit and such are part of it.

A broad definition is ability to solve problems. Beauty is outside it unless it really solves some problem... which it well might in some occupations.

You forgot the 2 that count the most luck and network.

#2 is also genetic. Stamina and attention span count for a lot.

It's the same as the crime triangle of motive, method, and opportunity.

Opportunity counts the most. You can't win if you never get the chance to play.

Motive is next, as you can't succeed unless you have the will to do whatever is necessary. At some level, sufficient motive can generate additional opportunities, but there is an upper limit on how much you can supplement the genuine opportunities arising from pure chance.

Method is least important. There are often many ways to accomplish the same results, ranging from dead simple to prohibitively complex. If you have simple goals, you can still achieve them simplemindedly.

. . . And I think I now have a hypothesis about why so many rich folks seem like crooks.

> Are you a success if you have as many kids as possible?

That's the usual yardstick. Hence the expression, success breeds success.

Is it really that complicated? As I see it, success is achieving your goals. Set goals and achieve them and you've succeeded, whether that's family or money or building a hyperloop or grilling the tastiest grilled cheese known to man... whatever. Given enough time none of it will matter so just pick something and run with it. Don't bother with whether other people are successful by your criteria because they probably don't have the same goals as you (unless your goal is to somehow judge if other people are successful I guess, which sounds silly but I guess by my own rules I can't judge).