I get what you’re saying, and I agree that there’s a survival bias for all winners. But the pendulum swings too far if you believe you can’t learn anything at all from winners.

Can you say that, for all winners of any field, there’s no correlation between the winners and the losers that is not attributable to luck?

I think there are probably some persistent differences between the superachievers and the normals but I am very skeptical in the ability of the former to teach (and of the latter to learn from the former).

Oh, this is an interesting point that I think I agree with on some level.

Are you saying superachievers can’t teach others to be superachievers, or are you saying that superachievers can’t teach non achievers to be achievers