Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

Go Home

As you become more successful, your appetite for status grows stronger. Two independent teams of researchers replicated a study using representative samples of Americans. They collected standard demographic measures—income, occupational prestige, and education—and asked people how well they felt they were doing in life. They then measured interest in...

robkhenderson's profile picture

Rob Henderson

198,075 subscribers

12,057 views • 5 months ago •via X (Twitter)

LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

The strongest desire for wealth and recognition is found among those who already possess both. People who are at or near the top in terms of socioeconomic status and wealth report the highest levels of desire for status and recognition. In these studies, researchers collected objective measures of participants’ standing—income, education, and occupational prestige—and found something striking: those who ranked highest on these metrics were also the most likely to endorse statements such as, “It would please me to be in a position of power over others,” “I enjoy having influence over those around me,” or “I like being recognized when I walk into a room.” In other words, the strongest longing for distinction wasn’t concentrated among those struggling for status, but among people already doing very well by objective standards. When I read those studies, it immediately clicked. The pattern made intuitive sense. There was something psychologically consistent there: success doesn’t extinguish the desire for status—it often intensifies it. From my conversation with Garry Tan
0:44

The strongest desire for wealth and recognition is found among those who already possess both. People who are at or near the top in terms of socioeconomic status and wealth report the highest levels of desire for status and recognition. In these studies, researchers collected objective measures of participants’ standing—income, education, and occupational prestige—and found something striking: those who ranked highest on these metrics were also the most likely to endorse statements such as, “It would please me to be in a position of power over others,” “I enjoy having influence over those around me,” or “I like being recognized when I walk into a room.” In other words, the strongest longing for distinction wasn’t concentrated among those struggling for status, but among people already doing very well by objective standards. When I read those studies, it immediately clicked. The pattern made intuitive sense. There was something psychologically consistent there: success doesn’t extinguish the desire for status—it often intensifies it. From my conversation with Garry Tan

Rob Henderson

10,368 views • 6 months ago

For years, I've been studying a philosopher named René Girard. He showed me how much the drive for prestige shapes our ambitions, and pushed me to ask: “What opportunities am I missing because they’re not prestigious enough?” In my experience, the lust for prestige is the strongest amongst high-status people. When looking for jobs, children from high-status families tend to value prestige the most. In another world, these people would take bets on exciting, but non-prestigious projects with big upside. But here’s the thing: the very best opportunities are rarely prestigious. My friend Justin Murphy nailed it, when he wrote: "You don't really outperform your peers with quality per se. You outperform your peers by finding underpriced quality that others don’t judge to be valuable.” The less prestigious an opportunity, the more likely it is to be underpriced. And yet, despite the financial rewards, few people are willing to work on low-status projects, even if they have big upside. For example, most of the people who are now hopping on the Artificial Intelligence bandwagon weren’t willing to commit before the boom started. Girard's philosophy reveals how the world is filled with under-priced opportunities that are only available to people who are comfortable with promising, but low-status projects. Beware of chasing prestige.
2:35

For years, I've been studying a philosopher named René Girard. He showed me how much the drive for prestige shapes our ambitions, and pushed me to ask: “What opportunities am I missing because they’re not prestigious enough?” In my experience, the lust for prestige is the strongest amongst high-status people. When looking for jobs, children from high-status families tend to value prestige the most. In another world, these people would take bets on exciting, but non-prestigious projects with big upside. But here’s the thing: the very best opportunities are rarely prestigious. My friend Justin Murphy nailed it, when he wrote: "You don't really outperform your peers with quality per se. You outperform your peers by finding underpriced quality that others don’t judge to be valuable.” The less prestigious an opportunity, the more likely it is to be underpriced. And yet, despite the financial rewards, few people are willing to work on low-status projects, even if they have big upside. For example, most of the people who are now hopping on the Artificial Intelligence bandwagon weren’t willing to commit before the boom started. Girard's philosophy reveals how the world is filled with under-priced opportunities that are only available to people who are comfortable with promising, but low-status projects. Beware of chasing prestige.

David Perell

157,175 views • 3 years ago

This study blew my mind. It found there’s ONE main key to earning a higher income. The study looked at kids from poorer families, and how they turned out as adults. Turns out, the number one indicator of their future income was not the socioeconomic status of their family. It was the socioeconomic status of the other people they’re around. This is called Economic Connectedness. What does that mean? Put bluntly, EC measures how many rich people and poor people are friends. When an area has higher economic connectedness, poor kids are more likely to make more money as adults. For example: • Minneapolis has an EC of 0.98. • Indianapolis’s is lower at 0.65. But… • Kids from low income families in Minneapolis reach the 43rd percentile of household income as adults. • Kids from the same background in Indianapolis only reach the 34th percentile. WHO you surround yourself with and WHERE you are has a huge impact on your monetary success. So we asked the question... Is it possible to be in the top 1% of earners without ever changing your environment? What do you think?
5:14

This study blew my mind. It found there’s ONE main key to earning a higher income. The study looked at kids from poorer families, and how they turned out as adults. Turns out, the number one indicator of their future income was not the socioeconomic status of their family. It was the socioeconomic status of the other people they’re around. This is called Economic Connectedness. What does that mean? Put bluntly, EC measures how many rich people and poor people are friends. When an area has higher economic connectedness, poor kids are more likely to make more money as adults. For example: • Minneapolis has an EC of 0.98. • Indianapolis’s is lower at 0.65. But… • Kids from low income families in Minneapolis reach the 43rd percentile of household income as adults. • Kids from the same background in Indianapolis only reach the 34th percentile. WHO you surround yourself with and WHERE you are has a huge impact on your monetary success. So we asked the question... Is it possible to be in the top 1% of earners without ever changing your environment? What do you think?

Codie Sanchez

509,831 views • 2 years ago

One of the biggest lies we tell young people is that more education leads to a happier life. Education raises your expectations. There's some research suggesting, for example, that education has little or no relationship with happiness. If you take two people and one has more education than the other, that alone doesn't tell you who will be happier. One explanation researchers have proposed is that education changes what people expect from life. You think, "Once I get the degree, I'll earn this much." People with more education also tend to predict that they'll have more free time, more vacation, and an easier, more comfortable lifestyle. But the reality is often the opposite. More education frequently comes with longer hours, greater responsibility, and more stress. Instead of gaining more leisure, you often end up with less. There's a mismatch between the life people expect and the life they actually get. And when those expectations aren't met, happiness suffers.
0:58

One of the biggest lies we tell young people is that more education leads to a happier life. Education raises your expectations. There's some research suggesting, for example, that education has little or no relationship with happiness. If you take two people and one has more education than the other, that alone doesn't tell you who will be happier. One explanation researchers have proposed is that education changes what people expect from life. You think, "Once I get the degree, I'll earn this much." People with more education also tend to predict that they'll have more free time, more vacation, and an easier, more comfortable lifestyle. But the reality is often the opposite. More education frequently comes with longer hours, greater responsibility, and more stress. Instead of gaining more leisure, you often end up with less. There's a mismatch between the life people expect and the life they actually get. And when those expectations aren't met, happiness suffers.

Rob Henderson

25,373 views • 1 month ago

Less than half of Americans without a college degree want to legalize drugs, but more than sixty percent of those with a bachelor’s degree or higher are in favor. Drugs are often seen as a harmless pastime for the wealthy, but for the poor they’re more likely a path to deeper suffering. If you look at who’s most supportive of decriminalization or legalization, it’s clear—the higher up you go in income or education, the more support you see. And that makes sense. People who haven’t seen up close the squalor and destruction that come from hard drug use are more inclined to treat it as an abstract issue of personal choice. But the reality is that the damage falls hardest on poor and marginalized neighborhoods.
0:20

Less than half of Americans without a college degree want to legalize drugs, but more than sixty percent of those with a bachelor’s degree or higher are in favor. Drugs are often seen as a harmless pastime for the wealthy, but for the poor they’re more likely a path to deeper suffering. If you look at who’s most supportive of decriminalization or legalization, it’s clear—the higher up you go in income or education, the more support you see. And that makes sense. People who haven’t seen up close the squalor and destruction that come from hard drug use are more inclined to treat it as an abstract issue of personal choice. But the reality is that the damage falls hardest on poor and marginalized neighborhoods.

Rob Henderson

23,588 views • 10 months ago

No disrespect to any tribe, but you see these 3 Hausa girls that said they want to study Medicine and surgery? I won’t be surprised if they are given the course and they study it and they actually become doctors Hausa people (the ones that care about education) are one of the most intelligent and brilliant people in Nigeria If you have encountered them before, you’ll understand what I’m saying The educated ones among them speak finest English A lot of people underrate them but you see the ones that are focus on education? They are mostly unbeatable in class I wish the 3 girls good luck, and I pray they become doctors 🙏🏽
3:00

No disrespect to any tribe, but you see these 3 Hausa girls that said they want to study Medicine and surgery? I won’t be surprised if they are given the course and they study it and they actually become doctors Hausa people (the ones that care about education) are one of the most intelligent and brilliant people in Nigeria If you have encountered them before, you’ll understand what I’m saying The educated ones among them speak finest English A lot of people underrate them but you see the ones that are focus on education? They are mostly unbeatable in class I wish the 3 girls good luck, and I pray they become doctors 🙏🏽

Big Uncle

265,161 views • 4 months ago

A 2025 study of American billionaires found large sex differences in marital behavior: 30% of the male billionaires married billionaires, whereas 65% of female billionaires married a billionaire. There used to be this belief that as women became more successful, more economically independent, and more educated, they would become more willing to “date down” in terms of the socioeconomic status of their male partner. The idea was that because women were becoming economically self-sufficient, they would no longer need to look for that quality in a partner. But if anything, it seems to go the other way. The more successful a woman is, the more likely she is to want a man who is at least as successful as she is. You can see this in research on women with advanced degrees, women with high incomes, women who are millionaires, and women who are billionaires. A female billionaire is far more likely to be married to a male billionaire than a male billionaire is to be married to a female billionaire. Male billionaires generally tend to marry successful women, but usually not women who are as financially successful as themselves. They tend to marry women who are educated, upper-middle-class or above, and accomplished in some way. But female billionaires are much more likely to marry men who are also at the very top economically.
1:05

A 2025 study of American billionaires found large sex differences in marital behavior: 30% of the male billionaires married billionaires, whereas 65% of female billionaires married a billionaire. There used to be this belief that as women became more successful, more economically independent, and more educated, they would become more willing to “date down” in terms of the socioeconomic status of their male partner. The idea was that because women were becoming economically self-sufficient, they would no longer need to look for that quality in a partner. But if anything, it seems to go the other way. The more successful a woman is, the more likely she is to want a man who is at least as successful as she is. You can see this in research on women with advanced degrees, women with high incomes, women who are millionaires, and women who are billionaires. A female billionaire is far more likely to be married to a male billionaire than a male billionaire is to be married to a female billionaire. Male billionaires generally tend to marry successful women, but usually not women who are as financially successful as themselves. They tend to marry women who are educated, upper-middle-class or above, and accomplished in some way. But female billionaires are much more likely to marry men who are also at the very top economically.

Rob Henderson

99,056 views • 2 months ago

“Revolutions almost never come from the very bottom of society.” “What actually drives revolutions is a clash between people who have some and people who have a lot.” “Elite overproduction: too many educated, ambitious politically aware people who believe they deserve more influence and status, but find the system is blocked at the top.” “They appropriate the common working man, they make it seem like they are part of the poor, fighting the good fight. But to them, the peasantry were just a tool to be mobilized to overthrow those above them so they could take their places.” (Credit: Tom Fitzgerald IG)
2:53

“Revolutions almost never come from the very bottom of society.” “What actually drives revolutions is a clash between people who have some and people who have a lot.” “Elite overproduction: too many educated, ambitious politically aware people who believe they deserve more influence and status, but find the system is blocked at the top.” “They appropriate the common working man, they make it seem like they are part of the poor, fighting the good fight. But to them, the peasantry were just a tool to be mobilized to overthrow those above them so they could take their places.” (Credit: Tom Fitzgerald IG)

Rothmus 🏴

54,339 views • 6 months ago

CNN’s Scott Jennings on Vice President JD Vance’s speech at #AmFest2025 and the right's support for Israel: “Well, JD Vance was and is trying to appeal to the most people possible because he anticipates being the nominee of the Republican Party in 2028 and he has had relationships with a lot of the people whose names you heard on the stage. You know, there's more information today than we had yesterday. They took a straw poll of all the people who went to Turning Point’s event. So, this is thousands and thousands of people, 87% of them in the straw poll said that Israel was either a top ally or an ally of the United States. On top of that, they asked the people who were there, what are the biggest issues facing the United States? Number one, radical Islam. So, when you look at what the people who were in the audience think, it sounds like they were really more with Ben Shapiro than they were with some of the other people who were attacking Ben Shapiro. There were rather clear eyed about who our friends are and the difference between right and wrong, at least as it relates to the people who were in the crowd.”
0:57

CNN’s Scott Jennings on Vice President JD Vance’s speech at #AmFest2025 and the right's support for Israel: “Well, JD Vance was and is trying to appeal to the most people possible because he anticipates being the nominee of the Republican Party in 2028 and he has had relationships with a lot of the people whose names you heard on the stage. You know, there's more information today than we had yesterday. They took a straw poll of all the people who went to Turning Point’s event. So, this is thousands and thousands of people, 87% of them in the straw poll said that Israel was either a top ally or an ally of the United States. On top of that, they asked the people who were there, what are the biggest issues facing the United States? Number one, radical Islam. So, when you look at what the people who were in the audience think, it sounds like they were really more with Ben Shapiro than they were with some of the other people who were attacking Ben Shapiro. There were rather clear eyed about who our friends are and the difference between right and wrong, at least as it relates to the people who were in the crowd.”

Curtis Houck

10,776 views • 8 months ago

CNN’s Jake Tapper: “More than 350,000 people from Haiti and Syria who have lived and worked legally in this country under TPS, will you be deporting all of them?… And when will these deportations start? Will it be immediately? DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin: “First of all, Temporary Protected Status was never intended to be permanent. And there's a lot of people that came over here 15, 20 years ago underneath TPS that's already changed their status.” “The whole time these individuals have been here underneath the Temporary Protected Status, they could have applied for a visa. They could have applied for LPR. They could have applied for different directions. But the status itself can be ended in its name itself by saying temporary.” “If I was talking directly to the individuals with the Temporary Protected Status, either try to fill out the paperwork and be here underneath a permanent status, or we will help you get back to your country.” “We will actually give you a plane ticket, plus roughly $2,100 to help you re-establish when you get there. But Temporary Protected Status, according to the courts and in its name itself, is not permanent status.”
1:29

CNN’s Jake Tapper: “More than 350,000 people from Haiti and Syria who have lived and worked legally in this country under TPS, will you be deporting all of them?… And when will these deportations start? Will it be immediately? DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin: “First of all, Temporary Protected Status was never intended to be permanent. And there's a lot of people that came over here 15, 20 years ago underneath TPS that's already changed their status.” “The whole time these individuals have been here underneath the Temporary Protected Status, they could have applied for a visa. They could have applied for LPR. They could have applied for different directions. But the status itself can be ended in its name itself by saying temporary.” “If I was talking directly to the individuals with the Temporary Protected Status, either try to fill out the paperwork and be here underneath a permanent status, or we will help you get back to your country.” “We will actually give you a plane ticket, plus roughly $2,100 to help you re-establish when you get there. But Temporary Protected Status, according to the courts and in its name itself, is not permanent status.”

RedWave Press

282,187 views • 2 months ago

The people most committed to communism in the Soviet Union weren’t the workers—it was the educated elite. A retrospective study conducted in the 1990s titled "Work Ethics and the Collapse of the Soviet System," examined which groups were most supportive of the Soviet system. The researchers found that, compared to factory workers and semi-skilled laborers, individuals in white-collar positions—especially those with higher levels of education—were significantly more likely to express loyalty to the Communist Party. In some cases, support was two to three times higher among elites. In other words, the strongest support for the system came not from those at the bottom, but from those in relatively advantaged positions within it. This runs counter to the common assumption that egalitarian or redistributive ideologies are primarily driven by the least well-off. In practice, they are often most strongly endorsed by people closer to the top of the social hierarchy—those who benefit from the system’s institutional structure, or who are positioned to navigate it successfully.
0:41

The people most committed to communism in the Soviet Union weren’t the workers—it was the educated elite. A retrospective study conducted in the 1990s titled "Work Ethics and the Collapse of the Soviet System," examined which groups were most supportive of the Soviet system. The researchers found that, compared to factory workers and semi-skilled laborers, individuals in white-collar positions—especially those with higher levels of education—were significantly more likely to express loyalty to the Communist Party. In some cases, support was two to three times higher among elites. In other words, the strongest support for the system came not from those at the bottom, but from those in relatively advantaged positions within it. This runs counter to the common assumption that egalitarian or redistributive ideologies are primarily driven by the least well-off. In practice, they are often most strongly endorsed by people closer to the top of the social hierarchy—those who benefit from the system’s institutional structure, or who are positioned to navigate it successfully.

Rob Henderson

239,024 views • 5 months ago

Psychologists define power as “control over access to resources.” A person has power if they can determine whether you get a paycheck, or whether you can move into a certain neighborhood, or a join a certain organization. It is about access to material resources rather than about esteem or regard that lives in the minds of people. Power is evolutionarily novel. In small-scale hunter-gatherer societies, no single human gets to control access to resources. But in the modern era, humans now have the ability to stockpile resources, command large militaries, win the favor of large numbers of allies, and use organized force. Power necessarily entails violence or the threat of violence. If someone tried to control access to critical resources without the backing of violence, others would simply take what they have. The communist dictator Mao Zedong famously said that “Power grows from the barrel of a gun.” Olympic athletes have high status; they are prestigious and generally well-regarded. But they don’t control access to resources. They don’t have power. Nightclub bouncers and doormen don't necessarily have high-status, but they do have power; they control access to who goes in and out of nightclubs.
0:43

Psychologists define power as “control over access to resources.” A person has power if they can determine whether you get a paycheck, or whether you can move into a certain neighborhood, or a join a certain organization. It is about access to material resources rather than about esteem or regard that lives in the minds of people. Power is evolutionarily novel. In small-scale hunter-gatherer societies, no single human gets to control access to resources. But in the modern era, humans now have the ability to stockpile resources, command large militaries, win the favor of large numbers of allies, and use organized force. Power necessarily entails violence or the threat of violence. If someone tried to control access to critical resources without the backing of violence, others would simply take what they have. The communist dictator Mao Zedong famously said that “Power grows from the barrel of a gun.” Olympic athletes have high status; they are prestigious and generally well-regarded. But they don’t control access to resources. They don’t have power. Nightclub bouncers and doormen don't necessarily have high-status, but they do have power; they control access to who goes in and out of nightclubs.

Rob Henderson

18,284 views • 4 months ago

Harsh Truth: Most people don’t want you to be successful. They might say they do, but the second you are more successful than them, they want to knock you back down. The signs are always clear: - The subtle digs - The twinge of resentment/envy - The comments to “be realistic” Find the people who are genuinely rooting for you to succeed. No jealousy, no subtle envy, no little digs or comments to bring you back down to earth. Those are the people you want to surround yourself with. Those are the people to cherish.
0:25

Harsh Truth: Most people don’t want you to be successful. They might say they do, but the second you are more successful than them, they want to knock you back down. The signs are always clear: - The subtle digs - The twinge of resentment/envy - The comments to “be realistic” Find the people who are genuinely rooting for you to succeed. No jealousy, no subtle envy, no little digs or comments to bring you back down to earth. Those are the people you want to surround yourself with. Those are the people to cherish.

Sahil Bloom

616,768 views • 2 years ago

Young children show prestige bias; they are more likely to copy a model that adults regard as being higher social status- for example, their head-teacher rather than an equally familiar person of the same age and gender. Young children are “selective copiers.” They are more likely to imitate their head teacher rather than an equally familiar person of the same age and gender. They prefer to copy high-status people. Five-year-olds assume that an individual who imitates another person is relatively lower in status, suggesting they have an intuitive understanding that the person being copied has higher status. People in general—both children and adults—favor mimicking prestigious people compared to ordinary people. For most of human history, our ancestors looked around and copied whoever seemed to be doing something effectively. If a hunter or fisherman brought home huge catches, others took note. They imitated his methods. They imitated his tools. But just in case, they would also imitate his clothes. They imitated the little song he hummed while cleaning the spear he used. The logic was straightforward. If you can’t neatly separate what works from what doesn’t, you copy everything. As belief systems developed, people came to see skill and good fortune as signs of divine favor. If a fisherman was successful, maybe the gods had blessed him. So people treated anything connected to the successful person as a possible source of power. A tool, a piece of clothing, a personal habit. Any of it might hold some of the magic that led to his success.
1:04

Young children show prestige bias; they are more likely to copy a model that adults regard as being higher social status- for example, their head-teacher rather than an equally familiar person of the same age and gender. Young children are “selective copiers.” They are more likely to imitate their head teacher rather than an equally familiar person of the same age and gender. They prefer to copy high-status people. Five-year-olds assume that an individual who imitates another person is relatively lower in status, suggesting they have an intuitive understanding that the person being copied has higher status. People in general—both children and adults—favor mimicking prestigious people compared to ordinary people. For most of human history, our ancestors looked around and copied whoever seemed to be doing something effectively. If a hunter or fisherman brought home huge catches, others took note. They imitated his methods. They imitated his tools. But just in case, they would also imitate his clothes. They imitated the little song he hummed while cleaning the spear he used. The logic was straightforward. If you can’t neatly separate what works from what doesn’t, you copy everything. As belief systems developed, people came to see skill and good fortune as signs of divine favor. If a fisherman was successful, maybe the gods had blessed him. So people treated anything connected to the successful person as a possible source of power. A tool, a piece of clothing, a personal habit. Any of it might hold some of the magic that led to his success.

Rob Henderson

21,438 views • 3 months ago

Many people mistakenly think that the main battles in society are between the haves and the have-nots. But what’s really happening is that the haves are trying to seize money, resources, and status from the have-mores—and they disguise this motive as concern for the have-nots. You even saw this recently in New York, where Mamdani failed to win over poor and working-class voters. But he did win support from the upper-middle class. Then, when you move to the very top of the income scale, the dynamic flips again—the wealthiest New Yorkers were more likely to back someone like Cuomo. So a lot of these political battles, especially around socialism, aren’t being driven by the poor. They’re being driven by people who are doing well, but who are angry they’re not at the very top. It’s less about the 99% versus the 1%, and more about the 9% versus the 1%. The bottom 90% aren’t really part of that fight. I’m reading We Have Never Been Woke by sociologist Musa al-Gharbi, and he makes a similar point. He notes that during the Occupy Wall Street protests in the early 2010s, most of the participants were white, college-educated, upper-middle-class people—people who were objectively doing fine, but were upset they were in the top 10% instead of the top 1%.
1:39

Many people mistakenly think that the main battles in society are between the haves and the have-nots. But what’s really happening is that the haves are trying to seize money, resources, and status from the have-mores—and they disguise this motive as concern for the have-nots. You even saw this recently in New York, where Mamdani failed to win over poor and working-class voters. But he did win support from the upper-middle class. Then, when you move to the very top of the income scale, the dynamic flips again—the wealthiest New Yorkers were more likely to back someone like Cuomo. So a lot of these political battles, especially around socialism, aren’t being driven by the poor. They’re being driven by people who are doing well, but who are angry they’re not at the very top. It’s less about the 99% versus the 1%, and more about the 9% versus the 1%. The bottom 90% aren’t really part of that fight. I’m reading We Have Never Been Woke by sociologist Musa al-Gharbi, and he makes a similar point. He notes that during the Occupy Wall Street protests in the early 2010s, most of the participants were white, college-educated, upper-middle-class people—people who were objectively doing fine, but were upset they were in the top 10% instead of the top 1%.

Rob Henderson

247,403 views • 1 year ago

Steve Jobs gives a counterintuitive take on leadership: "a CEO should be at the bottom of the hierarchy" Most people think power flows downward in an organisation from the CEO to everyone else. But Steve Jobs believed the opposite. In the clip below, he explains what happens when you build a company around genuinely exceptional people (whether in technology or in creative work like Pixar): "Incredibly talented people that are also rare and in demand — if you don't treat them right, they can go get another job in 10 minutes." Because of that, something counterintuitive happens. The hierarchy of power inverts. Jobs puts it plainly: "The CEO is actually at the bottom. I sort of feel like I work for most of these people, because they're the ones doing all the brilliant work." This isn't Jobs's modesty shining through. It's a structural insight about where value is actually created. Whether in software, hardware, or creative production... the best people are extraordinarily hard to find. And they know it. Their leverage is real. So what does management's job become? "It's management's job to support them. Because they're on the front lines doing the work." The leaders who build the most extraordinary things aren't the ones who command from the top — they're the ones who clear the path for the people doing the real work.
0:55

Steve Jobs gives a counterintuitive take on leadership: "a CEO should be at the bottom of the hierarchy" Most people think power flows downward in an organisation from the CEO to everyone else. But Steve Jobs believed the opposite. In the clip below, he explains what happens when you build a company around genuinely exceptional people (whether in technology or in creative work like Pixar): "Incredibly talented people that are also rare and in demand — if you don't treat them right, they can go get another job in 10 minutes." Because of that, something counterintuitive happens. The hierarchy of power inverts. Jobs puts it plainly: "The CEO is actually at the bottom. I sort of feel like I work for most of these people, because they're the ones doing all the brilliant work." This isn't Jobs's modesty shining through. It's a structural insight about where value is actually created. Whether in software, hardware, or creative production... the best people are extraordinarily hard to find. And they know it. Their leverage is real. So what does management's job become? "It's management's job to support them. Because they're on the front lines doing the work." The leaders who build the most extraordinary things aren't the ones who command from the top — they're the ones who clear the path for the people doing the real work.

Big Brain Business

42,219 views • 4 months ago

105-year-old Walter reveals why your obsession with diet and health rules is shortening your life "Before they left, every single one of them asked me the same question. What's your secret, Walter? I always said the same thing, clean food, and I believed it. But I noticed the ones who ate perfectly, exercised for hours every day, and followed every rule, they left just as fast as the ones who didn't" "Diet was never the secret to a long life. People come here, reporters, doctors, neighbors, they all want the same thing, the list. What do you eat? How many hours do you sleep? Do you take vitamins? I give them the list, they write it down, they leave happy, but they missed the point" "The people who made food into a religion, who counted every calorie, who felt guilty every time they sat down at a table, most of them were miserable. And miserable people, in my experience, don't live long"
3:18

105-year-old Walter reveals why your obsession with diet and health rules is shortening your life "Before they left, every single one of them asked me the same question. What's your secret, Walter? I always said the same thing, clean food, and I believed it. But I noticed the ones who ate perfectly, exercised for hours every day, and followed every rule, they left just as fast as the ones who didn't" "Diet was never the secret to a long life. People come here, reporters, doctors, neighbors, they all want the same thing, the list. What do you eat? How many hours do you sleep? Do you take vitamins? I give them the list, they write it down, they leave happy, but they missed the point" "The people who made food into a religion, who counted every calorie, who felt guilty every time they sat down at a table, most of them were miserable. And miserable people, in my experience, don't live long"

Health Almanac

54,283 views • 2 months ago