I'll move on to historical background here. This is the first scientist who studied achievement systematically, who studied high achievement systematically. And one of the reasons I study outliers like Will Smith is that, if you're going to reverse engineer something, like self-control or courage, why not take the positive outliers and reverse engineer them. Because it just, it's like in high relief. It's just easier. Plus they're easier to identify. So Francis Dalton had the same idea. And he summarized his review. I mean, he wasn't really asking people to fill out questionnaires. But he was looking at the biographies of eminent individuals, of people that had been well acknowledged to be eminent across fields like music and poetry but also science and so forth. And he says the truly eminent have “ability,” which Will Smith called talent, “combined with zeal and with the capacity for hard labor.” And my read of this is talent combined with passion and perseverance. And that's a convincing argument, says his cousin Charles Darwin, a slightly better known scientist. Who read the scientific reports. Who read the scientific report and wrote a letter back that said, “my dear Francis, I've always maintained that” well individuals, will have to update Darwin, “individuals did not differ much in intellect. Only in deal hard work.” He says you know you've collected evidence that convinces me that there are some meaningful differences between people in their intellectual ability. But he closes the letter saying, “I still believe that it is zeal and hard work that make the most important difference.” And this is why I think there's a theme here, here's another psychologist who picked up on it. A theme that when you look at high achievers, they are not merely talented, though they are talented, they are not only talented. Here's Catherine Cox who at Stanford University in the early 20th century. So we're going from 1869, which was when Galton wrote his treatise, and around the time that Darwin read it. Now, we're fast forwarding about a half century to Stanford University, and this psychologist who looked at 301 geniuses. And more systematically coded for their personality traits and also an estimate of their IQ based on thousands of pages of diaries, handwritten notes and correspondence that she was able to archive on these geniuses. So really, it was probably the most ambitious study ever done into the real life of what it is to be an outlying achiever. And what Catherine Cox determined was that they were, as a group, a very smart group. So if you estimate their IQ by looking at what they could do when they were four, or six, or eight, comparing it to what most four, six or eight year olds could do you see that these are precocious people. There's also variation, there's variance. So they're not all of the same estimated IQ. I believe that the highest estimated IQ in the sample was the philosopher John Stuart Mill. Galton was also I believe in her sample because he was fluent in several languages by I think four and doing fairly sophisticated mathematics when he was five. So that's high precocity, high talent. But she also said this, that, if you look at geniuses versus non geniuses, or even if you look at the most eminent geniuses compared to the least eminent geniuses, you find two predominant themes that set these people apart. One is the tendency not to abandon tasks from your changeability, not seeking something fresh because of novelty. Not always looking for a change. And that's why on my scale I have those questions about the abiding consistency of your interests. Sometimes people say you know so much about grit, and I'm like, I think about it all the time. And not only that I'm thinking about it every day for 365 days a year since 2002. I hope I know something about grit. And I think, you know, for those of us that have worked that long, I mean, shortcuts really. I think to expertise and to judgement even. Tenacity [INAUDIBLE] in the face of obstacles, perseverance, tenacity, doggedness. In other words, yes, talent might matter but you can see the same theme in what Will Smith said and what France Galton observed. And even Charles Darwin's letter. So that brings me to the study of grit. And here is my theory now when I first met you during immersion week. I explained to you that a hypothesis is a guess. And it ends in a period remember? So we all turned to each other and gave our hypotheses. Which I think have come along a little bit. Since that first week, in terms of you're starting to focus a little more on one thing over another for your capstone. But a theory is different. A theory is not just a statement that, girls are more self-controlled than boys during adolescence. That's a great hypothesis. But a theory takes a lot of facts or possibilities and wraps its arms around it and tries to explain a lot in a very elegant way. So PERMA is a theory. PERMA's not just I think in Scandinavia that. It's like, let me tell you about well being. It's got five dimensions. That's a theory, or eagle's depletion is a theory. Let me explain all the self control to you, here we go. And so, the decision between hypothesis and theory is kind of scale. You know, a theory of positive emotions like Weber Fredkison has. Like, broadening and building. Basically why we have. That's a theory, not just a mere little hypothesis. Now, Barbara will spend a long time testing a gajillion little hypothesis of chromatic theory. Here's my theory of achievement. That talent does matter. You multiply talent by effort and you get skill. So if you're someone who learns fast, and I give you an opportunity to try and get experience, then you will develop more skills than somebody who is a slower learner. By the same token, if you're incredibly precocious, and you're up in this neighborhood where they don't play tennis and where they don't have calculus, then that's going to diminish effort and so you also don't have skill. So there's two ways to not end up a skilled person. And then, importantly, I believe that skills are only latent, unused potential if they themselves are not unlocked by further effort. So it's always interesting to me when people decide to stop doing what they're doing and then obviously at some point we stop and then at some point. But I have seen professors for example who are really good at stuff. They don't have to do statistics, and how to think about things, and and they stop, they just stop producing, and there I would say, okay, they're high skill, low achievement, because they're not producing tangibly useful things in the world. So in this very specific way, all I think about talent and effort and achievement I think. Yeah, talent counts. Once. But effort, because enters into skill and into unlocking, the skills that you've accumulated counts twice.
