Now, the author is probably just bullshittng things out of his fingers, an assumption I make based on the lack of any evidence being provided.
Nonetheless, since stackability and doubling at each turn mean you can trend toward 100% very quickly, then you can look at people you see as very successful, no matter what is your favorite measure of success, and observe for yourself.
Now I like “social impact” as a measure of success, but it’s a lot easier to go with “f’ing rich people” because data is being compiled every year by different business magazines. So when you take the list of Billionaires, you can realize that only one thing, sometimes two, where involved.
Now if someone would like to apply a statistical analysis to this, I think it would favor The null hypothesis, which is: there is no relation between the number of skills stacked and the amount of money in ones’ bank account
Also based on the author talking about "doubling probability". What does that even mean?
I know many people like this, but I suspect the No True Scotsman fallacy would get invoked.
It’d be a bit like me trying to sell myself as a master of multiple instruments.
> They’re clearly not skilled enough at their diverse skills
One of my skills is accurate predictions, it turns out.
In technical terms, what you are suggesting is that the article is making a claim which is unfalsifiable. But actually it is falsifiable. All you have to do is find a person who has diverse skills but is unsuccessful.