52 ms·
Bad citations in this article. Original article: > Talent and the capacity for determined effort, sometimes called ‘grit’, depend a great deal on one’s geneti
by vorpalhex 6y ago
Bad citations in this article.
Original article:
> Talent and the capacity for determined effort, sometimes called ‘grit’, depend a great deal on one’s genetic endowments and upbringing.
Linked article (on 'depend') has the following conclusion which explicitly disagrees with this claim:
> Our results based on 584 effect sizes from 88 independent samples representing 66,807 individuals indicate that the higher order structure of grit is not confirmed, that grit is only moderately correlated with performance and retention, and that grit is very strongly correlated with conscientiousness. We also find that the perseverance of effort facet has significantly stronger criterion validities than the consistency of interest facet and that perseverance of effort explains variance in academic performance even after controlling for conscientiousness. In aggregate our results suggest that interventions designed to enhance grit may only have weak effects on performance and success, that the construct validity of grit is in question, and that the primary utility of the grit construct may lie in the perseverance facet.
Further, the logic here is unsound:
> According to Frank, this is especially true where the success in question is great, and where the context in which it is achieved is competitive. There are certainly programmers nearly as skilful as Gates who nonetheless failed to become the richest person on Earth. In competitive contexts, many have merit, but few succeed. What separates the two is luck.
The author asserts Gates was successful because he was a good programmer, and that therefore other good programmers should have equal success. Yet most people understand Gates is not an amazing programmer but rather has his strengths in understanding business. Microsoft did well because of business positioning in a new and rapidly evolving field, not because they were a revolutionary future codebase.
- 1980phipsi 6y agoI would add that Malcolm Gladwell talks about how much Gates had been programming at his age compared to other people at the time. He wasn't competing with nearly as many people as programmers today are.