I got the impression that the author was arguing exactly against this kind of equivalency. People can be unusual and also successful. This doesn't mean that being unusual is a valid predictor of success. Also that its pretty ironic for something that would be seen as a potential red flag for someone making a relatively low risk decision (i.e. hiring a branch manager) would suddenly be viewed as an asset by someone making multi-million dollar investments. I'm not sure I agree with the premise that everyone is blinded by some "great man" theory of innovation except for we street-wise low-middle class. But I feel the point about the double standard is valid.