http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04...
It is related to your observation in that I think it shows even once someone is extremely successful in their field, the context of social proof still matters a lot -- if nobody is around who "knows" you're successful, you're just some schlub in the Metro with a violin.
I don't think most people are taken seriously until they're successful. You're typically going to be valued based on how other people value you. It's why networks become so powerful (such as YC or Ron Conway). That's sometimes an effective system regarding efficiency of time (faster due diligence); and sometimes it's bogus when the reputation is wrong (either direction). Sometimes it accelerates innovation by getting the right people the right resources; sometimes it holds back innovation by ignoring potential buried under a non-existent reputation. The difference between being in one camp versus the other is often how hard (and intelligently) you work to get noticed. On the up side, once you're in, you're usually golden, the work to get noticed pays off.
The only ones that complain are the rocks that never get picked up.