Meta comment - [update: oh, I see they changed the link to the paper too. i guess that makes it more defensible. but the original FT story covering the paper did add value, and now it is more lost ]
It's curious someone changed the title of this, and I'm of two minds about it:
Pro change:
- Yes, the original title "Pollution causes CEOs: study"is baity.
- Yes, the new title is the actual title of the underlying study, which is less baity.
In general, this is the kind of thing I love about HN.
Con change:
- The original title is the literal title of the FT article, whch is what the post is on, and it does provide commentary (some snarky) on top of the paper.
- The original title does more elegantly and effectively convey the conclusion of the research, whereas the paper title does not convey this at all. It's more crappy intellectualized science writing.
I think this is one case where the more engaging title is also the more effective one.
I scanned the article. Oddly enough, it is about the toxins in the environment where a CEO was born. From the article's conclusion:
>Superfund CEOs—those born in counties later designated as Superfund sites—excel in internally focused management domains where risk-taking remains adjustable and containable, yet struggle with externally focused policies where risks are immediately exposed to market consequences. [...] Superfund sites represent some of the most hazardous contaminated areas in the U.S., and our sample primarily includes executives born before industrial chemicals were widely recognized as developmental toxicants. [...] This historical setting provides a unique opportunity to examine how early-life conditions interact with career selection mechanisms that systematically filter executives based on risk-taking outcomes.