I think the truth is a mix of both hypotheses. I donât have time to make a full response, but some additional thoughts:
Itâs very likely that there exist reliable predictors of success that extend across many fields.
Some of these are innate traits (intelligence, conscientiousness, etc.)
But if you look at a group of people in a field who have very similar traits, some will still be more successful than others. Some of this inequality will be luck, but some of it seems like it would also be related to actions/âhabits/âetc.
Some of these actions will be trait-related (e.g. âexcitement-seekingâ might predict ânot following unwritten rulesâ). But it should also be possible to take the right actions even if you arenât strong in the corresponding traits; there are ways you can become less bound by unwritten rules even if you donât have excitement-seeking tendencies. (A concrete example: Ferriss sometimes recommends practicing requests in public to get past worries about social faux pasâe.g. by asking for a discount on your coffee. CFAR does something similar with âcomfort zone expansionâ.)
No intellectual practice/ââruleâ is universalâif many people tried the sorts of things Tim Ferriss tried, most would fail or at least have a lot less success. But some actions are more likely than others to generate self-improvement/âsuccess, and some actions seem like they would make a large difference (for example, âtrying new thingsâ or âasking for thingsâ).
One (perhaps pessimistic) picture of the world could look like this:
Most people are going to be roughly as capable/âsuccessful as they are now forever, even if they try to change, unless good or bad luck intervenes
Some people who try to change will succeed, because they expose themselves to the possibility of good luck (e.g. by starting a risky project, asking for help with something, or giving themselves the chance to stumble upon a habit/âroutine that suits them very well)
A few people will succeed whether or not they try to change, because they won the trait lottery, but within this group, trying to change in certain ways will still be associated with greater success.
One of Ferrissâs stated goals is to look at groups of people who succeed at X, then find people within those groups who have been unexpectedly successful. A common interview question: âWhoâs better at [THING] than they should be?â (For example, an athlete with an unusual body type, or a startup founder from an unusual background.) You can never take luck out of the equation completely, especially in the complex world of intellectual/âbusiness pursuits, but I think thereâs some validity to the common actions Ferriss claims to have identified.
I think the truth is a mix of both hypotheses. I donât have time to make a full response, but some additional thoughts:
Itâs very likely that there exist reliable predictors of success that extend across many fields.
Some of these are innate traits (intelligence, conscientiousness, etc.)
But if you look at a group of people in a field who have very similar traits, some will still be more successful than others. Some of this inequality will be luck, but some of it seems like it would also be related to actions/âhabits/âetc.
Some of these actions will be trait-related (e.g. âexcitement-seekingâ might predict ânot following unwritten rulesâ). But it should also be possible to take the right actions even if you arenât strong in the corresponding traits; there are ways you can become less bound by unwritten rules even if you donât have excitement-seeking tendencies. (A concrete example: Ferriss sometimes recommends practicing requests in public to get past worries about social faux pasâe.g. by asking for a discount on your coffee. CFAR does something similar with âcomfort zone expansionâ.)
No intellectual practice/ââruleâ is universalâif many people tried the sorts of things Tim Ferriss tried, most would fail or at least have a lot less success. But some actions are more likely than others to generate self-improvement/âsuccess, and some actions seem like they would make a large difference (for example, âtrying new thingsâ or âasking for thingsâ).
One (perhaps pessimistic) picture of the world could look like this:
Most people are going to be roughly as capable/âsuccessful as they are now forever, even if they try to change, unless good or bad luck intervenes
Some people who try to change will succeed, because they expose themselves to the possibility of good luck (e.g. by starting a risky project, asking for help with something, or giving themselves the chance to stumble upon a habit/âroutine that suits them very well)
A few people will succeed whether or not they try to change, because they won the trait lottery, but within this group, trying to change in certain ways will still be associated with greater success.
One of Ferrissâs stated goals is to look at groups of people who succeed at X, then find people within those groups who have been unexpectedly successful. A common interview question: âWhoâs better at [THING] than they should be?â (For example, an athlete with an unusual body type, or a startup founder from an unusual background.) You can never take luck out of the equation completely, especially in the complex world of intellectual/âbusiness pursuits, but I think thereâs some validity to the common actions Ferriss claims to have identified.