What about all the big companies run by non-addicts (the majority)?
What about all the addicts who don't run big companies (the majority)?
These things need to be addressed before I'll start to buy the argument. And this comment coming from a habitual risk-taking leader himself.
Sure, but the real question is whether "addicts" are over-represented amongst successful CEOs more than the general population.
If there was no association between having an "addictive personality" and being a successful CEO, we would expect "addictives" to be CEOs just as often as non-addictives. If being an addictive helps with being a successful CEO, we'd expect a higher concentration of addictives amongst the population of successful CEOs.
The grandparent is presenting a argument a much stronger straw-man: that the majority of successful CEOs have addictive personalities. The original post does not make that claim.
edit: Think this is actually the point you're trying to make, though I think you didn't quite nail it.
Would've been easier to write it out with math. :P