Yep, I really don't think that makes it better (can anyone explain why it is always psychologists who invent these kind of measures? Is there some test we can perform at age 13 so we can identify people who will go on to do this kind of research? A follow up paper perhaps, this will surely add to the "eminence" of the authors).

I have met my fair share of Fortune 500 executives, the majority are borderline braindead. Equally, I am unclear what "award-winning" journalist/writer might mean...it clearly doesn't mean success in any general way..."eminent" is just a very weird definition. Equating "eminent" with "highly impactful" and "creative"...dear God, are the authors actually human?

What is especially bizarre is this is a paper from psychologists who, presumably, should understand that equating success with other people thinking you are successful (which "eminence" clearly measures) is a fairly dysfunctional habit...the irony never ends.