I don't have the energy for an intellectual debate, but personally, I have the sense that Youtube is net bad for the world and the monetization of Youtube has incentivized and amplified mediocrity, stupidity, and social decay.
I don't follow or watch Mr Beast videos, but from what I've seen, they are largely driven by a money fetish and as far as "creativity", it feels on par with the more boring "What would you rather" conversations I had in middle school.
Maybe he has unlocked the key to virality by vigorously analyzing data, but looking at his videos, at a glance, it seems to more be formulaic, predictable, and simply having an actual budget that sets it apart (if it is actually set apart, as I find it hard to tell how much of it is others copying his work versus hius work being unoriginal).
I'd argue if you take away nothing unique from reading something that everyone else also read, that's its own problem.
I have the opposite issue, I tend to think a little differently which makes it hard to be a good communicator some times, but I have had some luck seeing things a new way when working on some problems.
I think you shouldn't avoid reading something just because others do unless your plan is to just parrot some lesser-known author, pushing their thoughts off as your own. Gather all the data you can from all available sources and think critically. Anticonformity IS conformity.
I know that some facets of my thinking are exceptional, but I am not always aware of what I am good at until I do it. This often leads to people being surprised by my abilities after they have written me off already. Its a novelty, but I'd rather be consistent.
I am very successful in my career, but I failed my way through school and struggled with addiction when I was younger. It's not easy to live with ADHD. I have a lot of anger, people frustrate me so much. They are too slow and don't take enough risks.
The only accurate quote in the whole article: "my job involved juggling a lot of balls"
He was cupping them as well, and he clearly still is. It's easy for someone to seem smart when a team of people feed him talking points all day, and you're a huge admirer of him as the author seems to be (which is why he made the not very obvious stretch from the student's question of Bush's level of involvement to his level of intelligence).
I know several people who speak English as a second language who are more articulate than Bush in English. I don't care, I refuse to believe that he is some secret genius. I am confident if he were born to a poor family, that he would have risen to the average or lower expectations of those around him.