> Most wealthy and successful people I've met are intelligent, confident and likeable people.

This is the wrong metric. Are most intelligent, confident and likeable people wealthy?

To be at the far right of the distribution for any measure of achievement, you generally have to (a) start on "third base", (b) devote your life to learning and practicing from an early age, (c) have far more innate talent than most, (d) have the right personality, with irrational faith in yourself and drive, and (d) have far more luck than most people.

I think it's pointless to argue about whether people deserve great success, because whatever attributes you consider "deserved" vs "not deserved", the most successful must have all of them - otherwise someone else would take their place.

No they are not. But that's not what the article is talking about. It's saying that the distribution of wealth is essentially random with respect to abilities and I'm saying that is not that case.

> Most wealthy and successful people I've met are intelligent, confident and likeable people.

That is not a large sample. So not even close to being evidence for anything. As a counter argument: I have met more than one wealthy person who is a sociopath. So there.

I'm sure many successful people are sociopaths. Your counter example does not counter what I said. Sociopaths are often intelligent, confident and likeable when they want to be.