Chris, I'm glad that you recommended it too. I have enjoyed this discussion immensely, and I like seeing different sides of the same issue. It think it is my scientific background that keeps me from accepting the strong influence of chance and luck. I still believe that people make their own luck by watching the flow of events around them, reading the subtle changes in their surroundings, and being willing to act to create new experiences. I think that some people will watch the world around them closely enough to position themselves in a place where they can take advantage of an opportunity as it presents itself. Humans just ascribe this process to luck.
Perhaps I am biased in the fact that I believe people with a high IQ are "better" at this than someone on the opposing side of the bell curve. (oh boy,
that will probably cause a firestorm!) But I think you need to be inquisitive and constantly seeking new experiences in order to create "luck". And I see a correlation between that inquisitive nature, one that is unwilling to accept the standard answer and constantly asks 'why', as one of the hallmarks of high IQ. However, I do see that if a person with a high IQ is never challenged, is never pushing the boundaries to learn more, and falls in the trap of underachievement, then they will probably stop asking those questions that lead them to see the subtle shifts in the world around them. And that is the biggest gripe that I have with the way our school teach our kids. Rote memorization and test score are seen as more important than inquisitive critical thinking.
I think that all kids should be taught to analyze their world critically. All kids should be taught to question 'why' and to seek out clues to how the world around them works. Do high IQ kids do this more naturally than normal kids? Or do the parents of high IQ kids reward and encourage this behavior from the start? This question might lead to a chicken verses the egg argument.
But I am speaking without reading the book. So I will thank you Chris for making me curious enough to move Outliers out of the 'to be returned' pile and put it next to my comfy chair on the top of the stack. I may write back in a few days to say that my above argument was completely off base. But then, that is what I love about reading a good book. It can have to power to alter, shape, or at least cause us to question our beliefs.
added to the end of the post....
I think, after I went back and reread your post, Chris, that we are really saying the same thing. We are just using different words and coming at it from a different angle.
In part 1, he describes a quality of the successful talented person that he says is part of why a high-iq person might out-succeed a very high-iq person: creativity. I think most folks here have creativity on their radar, I know the gt program my ds is in has a strong emphasis on problem solving, divergent thinking skills, mapping out problems to see other ways to solve them.
We are both saying that creativity/inquisitive thinking is the best indication of success.
