For example, if a core belief of your explanation for your own success is "optimism and daring shapes events, and I won because I was optimistic and daring" you'll tend to explain everything else in terms of the effect of optimistic-daring. Several secondary features:
You "do your own research" a lot
You are acutely aware/sensitive to the flaws in how other people think
When people disagree with you, you look for hidden agendas/backstories first, examine the merits of their arguments second If this sounds similar to crackpot reasoning patterns, it is not an accident. It IS the same pattern, except that it is accompanied by high success and comes from your own life. For most crackpots, it is sort of "borrowed" from charismatic leaders they become true believers of. Ie, charismatic epistemologies that are born of successful and "different" people attempting to explain their own lives to themselves "seed" the crackpot epistemologies of... much less impressive people. But let's set that aside. This is not about the crackpot echoes. One interesting sign of this. The Peter Thiel "contrarian/heretic" question of a "secret" is designed to DETECT a charismatic epistemology at work. But it can't actually tell crackpots apart from the future outsize success types. So everybody who uses the "secret" question for diagnostic purposes tends to pair it with OTHER evidence to determine whether you're a genuine potential future success or a crackpot. Some people call it "earned secret" rather than just a "secret"