Thanks a lot for this. I eagerly read it last year and found several valuable takeaways. Looking forward to reading the foundation handbook!
Just inserting a high-level description for other readers: I expected that their perspective would be too rigid (e.g., overly reliant on rigorous research on average effects and generalizing too strongly), cynical (as opposed to humanistic and altruistic), and overly focused on intelligence. Fortunately, my expectations were off. In fact, they were highly nuanced (emphasizing the importance of judgment and context), considerate (e.g., devoting a full chapter to women and minorities), and deemphasized intelligence (taking a multiplicative model of success—although, to be clear, they still claim that intelligence is very important). That said, their theory of change is quite distinct from ours (e.g., innovation and creativity are emphasized substantially more than morality and doing the most good).
I also appreciated their discussion of the evidence around intelligence, role models, and talent search in sports.
Not a ton of writing I love on the topic, but this book is one of the better ones I have read on it: https://​​www.amazon.com/​​Talent-Identify-Energizers-Creatives-Winners/​​dp/​​1250275814. We will also be publishing our foundation handbook in approximately 3 months, and that has a pretty large section on vetting.
Thanks a lot for this. I eagerly read it last year and found several valuable takeaways. Looking forward to reading the foundation handbook!
Just inserting a high-level description for other readers:
I expected that their perspective would be too rigid (e.g., overly reliant on rigorous research on average effects and generalizing too strongly), cynical (as opposed to humanistic and altruistic), and overly focused on intelligence. Fortunately, my expectations were off. In fact, they were highly nuanced (emphasizing the importance of judgment and context), considerate (e.g., devoting a full chapter to women and minorities), and deemphasized intelligence (taking a multiplicative model of success—although, to be clear, they still claim that intelligence is very important). That said, their theory of change is quite distinct from ours (e.g., innovation and creativity are emphasized substantially more than morality and doing the most good).
I also appreciated their discussion of the evidence around intelligence, role models, and talent search in sports.