Earlier quoted context omitted.
Looks like I should explain myself: If there was no association between having an "addictive personality" and being a successful CEO, we would expect "addictives" to be CEOs just as often as non-addictives. If being an addictive helps with being a successful CEO, we'd expect a higher concentration of addictives amongst the population of successful CEOs. The grandparent is presenting a argument a much stronger straw-m…
That isn't how statistics work. If 10% of people are "addicts", and 20% of CEOs are "addicts", it's fair to say that there is correlation - despite the fact that there are still five times as many non-addict CEOs. edit: Think this is actually the point you're trying to make, though I think you didn't quite nail it.
Would've been easier to write it out with math. :P