Originally Posted by broncosteven
I am reading a book called "Outliers" by Malcom Gladwell about extra ordinary people and how they got there, mostly he goes on about the 10,000 hour rule but I am at the part where he talks about the difference between people with really high IQ's. Apparently you don't have to great at everything just "good enough" to be successful. By good enough I don't mean stuff anyone could do, I mean good enough to get into med/law school. Sometimes the really smart people don't have the people skills to cope with daily life and be successful.
He goes into detail about a guy with a 195IQ who couldn't finish college because he couldn't figure out how to overcome some life obstacles. He is a smart guy and writing about physics but will never be published because he has no college transcripts. He is in his 50's and does it for fun, I would think he would have found a way to go back and finish his degree and be able to get published but that is the kind of point the author makes.
He went on to compare this guy with Oppenheimer who was younger than Gen. Groves, had no experience running anything and didn't know anything about the machines they were building but he was good at managing people and had the skills to find the right people and put them in a position to succeed.
Sometimes the smartest guy in the room is not the best guy to accomplish a task.
Reminds me of a particular polititian that is very popular.