I guess I just don't see the "talent doesn't matter" as a legitimate position to take, so that may affect my reaction to this piece. IMO, people who say that talent doesn't matter are actually saying other things ("I don't want to admit you are smarter/better at something than me", "I don't know how to teach this kid", "I resent the fact that you can do something better than me with significantly less practice"). Of course talent matters, everyone knows this deep down. Most of the major developments in our society have been produced by people who were able to perceive the world differently than everyone else, not people who practiced alot. But those who won't admit this are just not going to be convinced by a piece like this and I worry that it would just make them more resentful or disinterested. That's all. But, honestly, perhaps it is also my own residual tendencies to hide my own talents, (not admitting to being the student who screwed up the curve on an exam, "dumbing down" my vocabulary, etc.). I just don't feel like an article like this being read by my teachers/peers/colleagues would have been helpful in any way.

But, as a social scientist, I also challenge the variables they provide here as measures of real world success.

"those who were in the 99.9 percentile � the profoundly gifted � were between three and five times more likely to go on to earn a doctorate, secure a patent, publish an article in a scientific journal or publish a literary work. A high level of intellectual ability gives you an enormous real-world advantage."

I do not see that as a logical leap. It sounds to me like the profoundly gifted are much more likely to max out the educational possibilities available, (perhaps in an attempt to avoid the "real world"?).

I think a more interesting outcome variable might be innovation in their fields. PGs should be more highly represented in this category by virtue of their abilities to think differently than others, rather than their ability to complete more school. This may overlap to the variables they list, but not necessarily. Much of what is published in academia is significantly devoid of creative thought and still tends to reward following rather than choosing your own path for a significant portion of your career.

(Please note, any unintended bitterness in this post is not directed at the article or any other posters here, but to the way this article hit a nerve with my own personal history. lol}