So? What's your point here? At no point did I say the above logic was wrong, infer it, say that it was so. You're literally arguing against something I never said, and me pointing that out, and showing you where I said "most", hasn't resulted in you modifying your argument.

I get the impression that you're not reading my entire comment, and then responding with all of the info in mind at once.

For example, I discussed how "knowing someone" has caveats. That talking to someone once, doesn't give context, doesn't equate to "knowing someone". That working with someone doesn't equate to "knowing someone", if the result was "I'd talk to the guy for a few sentences once per month" or "occasionally seem them talking to other people".

The entire context of this conversation revolves around understanding the world view of someone. Not seeing how they act for an incredibly tiny slice, non-contextualized slice of their life. And to "know" someone, you need to have actual, detailed conversations with them.

Further, I've covered how "watch video of them talking" isn't actually 1st hand in many respects. That's because often context is removed. You've just skipped that part.

One other thing you've also missed, is how people change. Part of my post was also about how Jobs wouldn't be the Jobs known by anyone. He'd be "Jobs plus > decade more experience". People change as they age.

If you wish to reply, I'd ask you stop handpicking parts of sentences to respond to, and respond to context as well.