"Impactful" individuals are those that impact society "e.g., full professors at research-intensive universities, Fortune 500 executives, distinguished judges and lawyers, leaders in biomedicine, award-winning journalists and writers".

"stealth wealth" is not impact.

Ignore the stealth wealth part. I think many "eminent" individuals would also not want to draw unnecessary attention to themselves.

My rule of thumb is eminent people do not mention their PSAT scores as a reason why they are eminent.

It's like, say, bringing up your Mensa membership in a job interview.

Eminent means famous.

It has a different connotation. For example, almost no CS researchers or professors are "famous" in the traditional sense. Yeah, definitely a few here on HN, but not outside their profession, and certainly not to the general public. Even if you look at "Fortune 500 executives", outside of a small subset of CEOs, they're not "famous."

And those researchers would publish papers, which would have turned up in their searches.

Do you think there are Fortune 500 executives that have managed to remain so obscure that somebody who knows their name and life until age 23 would be unable to find out that they held the position?

What's an executive? C-level? Some places everyone is a vice president, right?

It occurs to me that the Fortune 500 is not the S&P 500, so I would question whether information about them is necessarily even as accessible as with a public company.

Sorry if I burst a bubble but that's not even close to "eminent".

this study isn't gauging wealth at all. which I think is refreshing, but limiting. and I think it also highlights how we are trained that "success" is some arbitrary form of linear or exponential wealth advancement that is assumed to be permanent