The 5 paths to being the best at anything

…the most elite violinists accumulated about the same number of hours of deliberate practice (about 7,410 hours) by the age of 18 as professional middle-aged violinists belonging to international-level orchestras (about 7,336 hours)! By the age of 20, the most accomplished musicians estimated they spent over 10,000 hours in deliberate practice, which is 2,500 and 5,000 hours more than two less accomplished groups of expert musicians or 8,000 hours more than amateur pianists of the same age. [Ungifted: Intelligence Redefined]

Even in this age of hyperspecialization in sports, some rare individuals become world-class athletes, and even world champions, in sports from running to rowing with less than a year or two of training. As with Gobet's chess players, in all sports and skills, the only real rule is that there is a tremendous natural range. [The Sports Gene: Inside the Science of Extraordinary Athletic Performance]

Heritability coefficients were strongest in music (.92), math (.87), sports (.85), and writing (.83) of the explained variance. [The Complexity of Greatness: Beyond Talent or Practice}

But, as Norton and Olds saw, as winner-take-all markets emerged, the early-20th-century paradigm of the singular, perfect athletic body faded in favor of more rare and highly specialized bodies that fit like finches' beaks into their athletic niches. When Norton and Olds plotted the heights and weights of modern world-class high jumpers and shot putters, they saw that the athletes had become stunningly dissimilar. The average elite shot putter is now 2.5 inches taller and 130 pounds heavier than the average international high jumper… Just as the galaxies are hurtling apart, so are the body types required for success in a given sport speeding away from one another toward their respective highly specialized and lonely corners of the athletic physique universe. [The Sports Gene: Inside the Science of Extraordinary Athletic Performance]

Overall, the surgeons didn't get better with practice. They only got better at the specific hospital where they practiced. For every procedure they handled at a given hospital, the risk of patient mortality dropped by 1 percent. But the risk of mortality stayed the same at other hospitals. The surgeons couldn't take their performance with them. They weren't getting better at performing coronary artery bypass grafts. They were becoming more familiar with particular nurses and anesthesiologists, learning about their strengths and weaknesses, habits and styles. [Give and Take: A Revolutionary Approach to Success]

Even though they were supposed to be individual stars, their performance wasn't portable. When star analysts moved to a different firm, their performance dropped, and it stayed lower for at least five years. [Give and Take: A Revolutionary Approach to Success]

Frank Lloyd Wright's drought lasted until he gave up on independence and began to work interdependently again with talented collaborators. It wasn't his own idea: His wife Olgivanna convinced him to start a fellowship for apprentices to help him with his work. When apprentices joined him in 1932, his productivity soared, and he was soon working on the Fallingwater house, which would be seen by many as the greatest work of architecture in modern history. [Give and Take: A Revolutionary Approach to Success]

One striking finding was the beneficence of Nobel laureates, or as Zuckerman termed it, noblesse oblige. In general, when a scientific paper is published, the author who did the most is listed first.There are exceptions to this, and this can vary from field to field, but Zuckerman took it as a useful rule of thumb. What she found was that Nobel laureates are first authors of numerous publications early in their careers, but quickly begin to give their junior colleagues first authorship. And this happens far before they receive the Nobel Prize… By their forties, Nobel laureates are first authors on only 26 percent of their papers, as compared to their less accomplished contemporaries, who are first authors 56 percent of the time. Nicer people are indeed more creative, more successful, and even more likely to win Nobel prizes. [The Half-life of Facts: Why Everything We Know Has an Expiration Date]

What I find across various industries, and various studies is the Givers are most likely to end up at the bottom. That's primarily because they end up putting other people first in ways that either burn them out, or will allow them to get taken advantage of and exploited by Takers.

Then I looked at the other end of the spectrum and said if Givers are at the bottom, who's at the top? Actually, I was really surprised to discover, it's the Givers again. The people who consistently are looking for ways to help others are over-represented not only at the bottom, but also at the top of most success metrics.