Let's put it this way - if someone is really good at sales, I'd think they're more likely to be good at general management, given enough time to learn that skill.
In the cases of companies, since the founder's job is usually to learn whatever skills are relevant for the current state of the company, and then execute those reasonably well, I'd expect the founder to learn the currently relevant skill of fundraising, then later to learn the currently relevant skill of managing a small startup, then later to learn the currently relevant skill of managing a larger company, etc.
When I was a TA at my college, in the introduction to CS class, I noticed the following:
1. There existed people who clearly were, in general, intelligent, hardworking people who completely and totally DID NOT GET computer science. It was frustrating dealing with them, because they were accustomed to the idea that if they put in effort, they mastered subjects -- but it wasn't happening for CS. At least, in a semester.
2. There were people who really "got" iterative programming but were completely flailing when it came to functional programming.
3. There were people who really "got" functional programming but were completely flailing when it came to iterative programming.
Now, on some level, I'm sure that there is an underlying general intelligent/merit thing going on. Nobody who got into my college was an idiot. I'm sure that even the people who were struggling were doing better than would a hypothetical person with a mental disability whose development never got past the 6-year-old level.
But it seemed clear to me that there is a measure of differential, narrow aptitude in the realm of computer programming, not just general aptitude. I would imagine that there is also narrow aptitude in sales, investing, running a company, etc.
FYI, You make a similar point to Joel Spolsky (I forget the article, but he specifically mentions recursion and pointers as things that some people just don't get).
Your argument essentially boils down to 'anyone great at X should (eventually) also be great at Y'. I don't believe that and it seems like a difficult thing to persuade you of -- at least right now.
Also, think about the time component. Even if your viewpoint were true, there isn't always time in a startup to become proficient in a skill you don't yet have. If it were that easy, startups would be a lot simpler.
"I don't believe that and it seems like a difficult thing to persuade you of -- at least right now."
Well, evidence to the contrary should persuade me. But isn't that pretty much the definition of IQ? A kind of "general intelligence quotient" which is broadly applicable to many different skills? E.g. I'd expect Stephen Hawking to be pretty good at chess if he ever decided to apply himself at it.
Let's put it this way - if someone is really good at sales, I'd think they're more likely to be good at general management, given enough time to learn that skill.
In the cases of companies, since the founder's job is usually to learn whatever skills are relevant for the current state of the company, and then execute those reasonably well, I'd expect the founder to learn the currently relevant skill of fundraising, then later to learn the currently relevant skill of managing a small startup, then later to learn the currently relevant skill of managing a larger company, etc.