Disagree with "If I said that the top people in your field, at your experience level, are active participants professional societies, write popular blogs about your industry, get asked to write articles for magazines and regularly speak on conference panels, that's probably a reasonable estimation of what it means to be on top, right?"

That isn't a reasonable estimation of being on top. It's a reasonable estimate of someone who fits into that kind of [rather social] professional circle. Doesn't apply everywhere.

In any esoteric field, you find out who are the top people after you enter, and swim around for a while. The ones with the most exposure are just the ones with the most popular appeal.

I have a friend who is wicked smart. I asked him why he isn't full of ambition. He just doesn't give a frolicking fancy. He feels like he has what he needs. Who is just the opposite? Napoleon. Is there something going on here?

Maybe some top fellow will write about it in Psychology Today.