The basic principle of the theory is that everyone in the world has 100 points. These points are distributed in different skills and aspects that make up any person. For a simplified example, a model may have 80 points in looks, leaving 20 points for intelligence. Whereas a computer nerd may have 90 points for intelligence but 10 for looks.
There are of course other aspects to people's characteristics like charisma, business skills, musical talent, fitness, artistic talent etc etc. The theory claims that everyone is essentially equal. My friend also says that these points do not necessarily manifest in the persons life. For example, a man who has lost all his money due to bad business skills may have a large weighting to something like chess playing. So if he had the opportunity to recognise and develop this talent it would get him far in the chess playing world. However, this opportunity may never arise and he may just die homeless in a gutter!
I have a few problems with this theory.
1. I don't believe that everyone has equal points. There are definitely those in the world who are quite skilled at many things and blessed with many fruits of success. There are also those people who are terribly "unlucky" and lead a simple mediocre life.
2. If the "skill" doesn't manifest itself then why should it be significant? What use is a chess playing championship to a homeless guy? Wouldn't he rather have more points in business management? Surely 1 point in business skills trumps the 1 point in chess skill. So I think that different skills should have different "weightings".
So MY theory is that everyone is on a scale of 0-100 points.
0 points means that the person isn't compatible with life! Eg a baby who is born with a heart defect.
100 points are those people who are talented with everything and enjoy bountiful successes in their life. Beautiful, intelligent, artistic, musical, great parents etc.
Majority of the population falls somewhere in between.