I think we want this to be true. We want a meritocracy based on intelligence. But I’m very skeptical it’s true.
I think he could be a total moron combined with some money, some connections, luck, and the lack of the things that hold many of us back such as self doubt, fear, morals and ethics, and obeyance to the law.
Risk taking can be bitcoin, deception or leveraged property ownership. Without morals and self doubt you get a way bigger field in the risk taking arena.
Rarely have I seen knowledge as a main factor, because renting knowledge-workers is easy and cheap.
now in some sense you can still be very smart but "a total moron" meaning you make stupid and bad decisions and ruin your life and cause all kinds of disasters.
my read on him is he was sharp, and able to succeed for a while as long as someone else put up guardrails that would compensate for his terrible judgment and executive functioning -- which you get in school or working for a large firm. when he struck out on his own, he lost all that, but his reputation + connections + stupid risk appetite took him far until he blew up.
Isn't he a legacy admission (different Ivy League, but the moral equivalent)? Which assistant professor will flunk the son of two tenured professors?