>Different occupations require different temperaments, personalities, and so forth.
No, I don't think I agree with that. Widely varying workplace cultures across businesses in the same field or market are driven by widely-varying temperaments, personalities, etc. in each business's labor force. (This is the saving grace of, say, police officers, where many decorated vets have been shown to be bullies and sociopaths; I would hope that there is some variance there.) There isn't just variance in how different companies and even teams do things, but across time; the job of a journalist today is quite different from the job of one at the occupation's inception, and even of one who is now retiring as this young man is beginning his career. In fact, assuming that in-built assets truly vary non-trivially, many retire BECAUSE theirs are incompatible with the shifting needs of a modern worker. That a job's responsibilities change over time would alone seem to falsify the notion that one can be born with a proclivity for it, the same as one's parents.
>How is any of that controversial, or worthy of your scorn?
No, I don't think I agree with that. Widely varying workplace cultures across businesses in the same field or market are driven by widely-varying temperaments, personalities, etc. in each business's labor force. (This is the saving grace of, say, police officers, where many decorated vets have been shown to be bullies and sociopaths; I would hope that there is some variance there.) There isn't just variance in how different companies and even teams do things, but across time; the job of a journalist today is quite different from the job of one at the occupation's inception, and even of one who is now retiring as this young man is beginning his career. In fact, assuming that in-built assets truly vary non-trivially, many retire BECAUSE theirs are incompatible with the shifting needs of a modern worker. That a job's responsibilities change over time would alone seem to falsify the notion that one can be born with a proclivity for it, the same as one's parents.
>How is any of that controversial, or worthy of your scorn?
It's unscientific, Panglossian garbage.