And then I find this interview with Friedman that makes a little more sense.
http://www.apa.org/monitor/2011/12/longer-life.aspx"We were amazed to uncover lots of evidence overall that it is not random who will become ill. Rather, there are large differences in susceptibility to injury and disease. Some of these are a function of personality. Others are tied to social relations, including marriage, family, friendship and religious observance. Most eye-opening is our finding that the risk factors and protective shields do not occur in isolation, but bunch together in patterns. For example, the unconscientious boys — even though very bright — were more likely to grow up to have poor marriages, to smoke and drink more, achieve less education, and be relatively unsuccessful at work. And they died at younger ages. Such health risks and relationship challenges, such as divorce, are usually studied independently, which I think is a big mistake. Conversely, certain personality constellations predicted more achievement, better social relationships, and other elements of thriving that led to longer, healthier lives."
Here he is distinguishing between unconscientious bright kids, boys in this example, and the rest of the sample. Underachievers anyone? Disengaged? That fits with the data from acceleration that says students who aren't given appropriate educationL opportunities are more likely to drop out of have lower educationL attainment.
