Barking Up the Wrong Tree: The Surprising Science Behind Why Everything You Know About Success Is (Mostly) Wrong

by Eric Barker

The problem lies in the huge gulf in the middle.

but there’s no real proof—and

Much of what we’ve been told about the qualities that lead to achievement is logical, earnest—and downright wrong.

The thing that sets you apart, the habits you may have tried to banish, the things you were taunted for in school, may ultimately grant you an unbeatable advantage.

When are our weaknesses actually strengths?

“Even though most are strong occupational achievers, the great majority of former high school valedictorians do not appear headed for the very top of adult achievement arenas.”

“Valedictorians aren’t likely to be the future’s visionaries . . . they typically settle into the system instead of shaking it up.”

Research shows that what makes students likely to be impressive in the classroom is the same thing that makes them less likely to be home-run hitters outside the classroom.

First, schools reward students who consistently do what they are told.

Grades are, however, an excellent predictor of self-discipline, conscientiousness, and the ability to comply with rules.

“Essentially, we are rewarding conformity and the willingness to go along with the system.”

not being the smartest kid in class, just the...

was more an issue of giving teachers what they wanted than actually knowi...

“career...

schools reward being a generalist.

That is not usually a recipe for eminence.”

This generalist approach doesn’t lead to expertise.

intellectual students who enjoy learning struggle in high school.

School has clear rules. Life often doesn’t. When there’s no clear path to follow, academic high achievers break down.

college grades aren’t any more predictive of subsequent life success than rolling dice.

Following the rules doesn’t create success; it just eliminates extremes—both good and bad.

To answer the big question of who makes it to the top, let’s come at it from another angle: What makes a great leader?

Some studies showed that great teams succeeded with or without a figurehead taking the credit.

The first kind rises up through formal channels, getting promoted, playing by the rules, and meeting expectations. These leaders, like Neville Chamberlain, are “filtered.”

The second kind doesn’t rise up through the ranks; they come in through the window: entrepreneurs who don’t wait for someone to promote them; U.S. vice presidents who are unexpectedly handed the presidency; leaders who benefit from a perfect storm of unlikely events, like the kind that got Abraham Lincoln elected. This group is “unfiltered.”

By the time filtered candidates are in the running for the top spot, they have been so thoroughly vetted that they can be relied upon to make the st...

indistinguishable from one ...

But the unfiltered candidates have not been vetted by the system and cannot be relied upon to make the “approved” decisions—many would not even know what the approved decisions are.

The filtered leaders didn’t rock the boat. The unfiltered leaders couldn’t help but rock it. Often they broke things, but sometimes they broke things like slavery, as Abraham Lincoln did.

“The difference between good leaders and great leaders is not an issue of ‘more.’ They’re fundamentally different people.”

The old ways didn’t work, and doubling down on them would have been disastrous.

“intensifiers.”

most kids are dandelions but a few are orchids.

“differential susceptibility hypothesis.”

it’s reliant on context.

Context made the difference.

Most people are dandelions; they’ll come out okay under almost any circumstances. Others are orchids; they’re not just more sensitive to negative outcomes but more sensitive to everything.

“the very genes that give us the most trouble as a species, causing behaviors that are self-destructive and antisocial, also underlie humankind’s phenomenal adaptability and evolutionary success.

hopeful monsters.

Professors Wendy Johnson and Thomas J. Bouchard, Jr. said, “A hopeful monster is an individual that deviates radically from the norm in a population because of a genetic mutation that confers a potentially adaptive advantage.”

nature occasionally made bigger changes.

“All of Silicon Valley is based on character defects that are rewarded uniquely in this system.”

making him more like a canoe.

geniuses might be considered hopeful monsters too.

Creators exhibit more psychopathology than average persons, but less than true psychotics. They seem to possess just the right amount of weirdness.”

Too often we label things “good” or “bad” when the right designation might merely be “different.”

“Eccentrics are the mutations of social evolution, providing the intellectual materials for natural selection.”

We spend too much time trying to be “good” when good is often merely average. To be great we must be different. And that doesn’t come from trying to follow society’s vision of what is best, because society doesn’t always know what it needs. More often being the best means just being the best version of you.

In the right environment, bad can be good and odd can be beautiful.

All this because the heads of Pixar gave us leave to try crazy ideas.