<p>
</p>
<p>Good point!</p>
<p>…except that the real problem with this “intellect” discussion is that it is devilishly difficult to define, much less measure. Shawbridge may “know 'em when I see them” but for many of us, separating the brilliant from the super-brilliant Nobelist to be is a task we don’t want to undertake. </p>
<p>So pardon me if I disagree in your optimization hypothesis. It is a fine hypothesis for variables in which there are commonly accepted measures etc. Indeed, the business world has developed tools to address just such situations.</p>
<p>Unfortunately (unfortunate for your argument, at least), certain human traits are not so easily defined or measured.</p>
<p>And what really kills your argument is that it assumes independent distribution of these traits to be optimized. In other words, your argument assumes leadership and intelligence are independently distributed. In fact, though, much research shows high correlation among these attributes (and a number of others.)</p>
<p>So, shaw, I can’t assail your logic. But I can assail your use of the data that you plug into your logic paradigm!</p>