Talent: How to Identify Energizers, Creatives, and Winners Around the World by Tyler Cowen and Daniel Gross (2022) is an important, timely, and evergreen book. Because it's so important and relevant, it’s centrality has been ignored by a lot of mainstream media. Which is a lesson in itself about how the media identifies talent and relevant stories to write about.
How this book is not a New York Times Bestseller should be disconcerting for those who think those lists are culturally significant. While Talent may be heavier on social science than the average reader today is prepared for; it’s incredibly well-written, engaging, and easy to read. In the NY Times, “Advice, How-To & Miscellaneous” section, Atomic Habits by James Clear has been number one for 149 weeks. It’s a very good book and would pair well with Talent, but it’s an indicator that the list is both bad and there are not enough good books being written in that genre. But enough mini-diatribe against coastal elite gatekeepers. This post is about a few interesting parts of Talent.
A central argument from the book is it's important to look for hidden talent because there is so much untapped potential and value all around us. In ourselves and others. From investors who "beat the market" or talent scouts in the NBA who consistently outperform their peers, it’s probably because they are are better at finding hidden talent. And they are sometimes using different criteria. But the real competitive advantage comes from using information in the right context. Cowen in Talent, and elsewhere, talks a lot about the importance of improving your context knowledge. The more context or mental models you can apply to changing environments and problems the more effective you'll be. This is also another way to distinguish between rigorous and multidisciplinary intellectuals, and those who are polemicists or one-trick ponies.
As a high school teacher, the idea of cultivating talent is very important to me. I try to bring out the talent in young people who may not believe in themselves or may not understand what is the best path to cultivate their nascent abilities. But two obstacles are cultural and institutional rigidity. Such as low-expectations and limited ambition, and stagnant bureaucracy, that is stuck in old models of pedagogy. (To name a few).
There are not a lot of obvious criticisms in this book. The real criticism is for the dearth of books that are only 243 pages long informationally dense. A similar book, albeit about a different subject is Zero to One by Peter Thiel. Thiel makes a few important appearances in the book, so I wonder if this was intentional or coincidental.
This book is a good reminder to be conscientious about the quality and quantity of the inputs you have in your life. Inputs are what you read or who you talk to. To become more talented you need to be conscious about your inputs, habits, and systems for self-improvement.
Daniel Coyle also wrote a book about talent (a 2009 NY Times Bestseller by the way), and the big takeaway from that book was that the most talented people utilize "dedicated practice", to build off existing genetic abilities. Gross and Cowen call this "focused practice", but it's the same thing. This idea is still underrated because many people still think practice is just about spending a few hours or so each day playing tennis or reading a book about leadership. But those who focus rigorously on specific improvements and have greater awareness of that progress are going to benefit the most from compounded growth over time. Assisting in this is where good coaches and mentors can a large positive effect.
The most important separator in talent for the best performers, (David Epstein may have written about this in The Sports Gene), is those who practice the longest and don’t get bored of the process. Athletes like Lebron James or Tom Brady have not stayed at the top of their profession for decades just off previous talent and genetic ability. They either love the process so much that they spend hours on exercise, nutrition, and focused practice, or they persevere in spite of the rigor, boredom, and challenges.
I often wonder why some NBA players succeed over others. And one answer is a lot of players don’t want to do the extra, uncomfortable work, that other (better) players are willing to do. When you have about 500 players, in a relatively small competitive space, it’s the extra and seemingly small things that are large differentiators in performance.
This book is not pro-capitalist or pro-economic growth the way Cowen's previous books, Big Business or Stubborn Attachments, were. But cultivating talent gets at the same end-result. Talented people will create successful (big) businesses that improve GDP, leading to better jobs, incomes, and quality of life. Talent can be read as Straussian critique of socialism or economic progressivism, but a more important takeaway from the book is that talent should be apolitical. As a society we should want to improve everyone’s talent. Regardless of ideology or political party affiliation. Government elections, market share, or salaries are typically zero-sum, but every decision one makes as a governor, CEO, or manager is not. Partisans forget this to their detriment, and the people they aim to help.
Talent is about egalitarianism. Anyone can improve their talent. Even those who have less opportunities because of financial background or educational opportunity. Internet and software businesses have unlocked certain barriers to entry pre-1980. But it has also led to massive fortunes for the winners like Mark Zuckerberg or Jeff Bezos. The proper framing here is not how do we bring those successful people down a peg or two, but how do we get as many others closer to their level?
Similarly, college should not be the only path to a good high-paying job. It should be one of the paths. And if employers could do without the credentialism or the requirement for an undergraduate degree in jobs that don’t need them, that would lead to a better job market. Smart employers or interviewers are already looking past an Ivy league degree etc. as proof of ability. This is still a potential arbitrage opportunity at a time in the U.S. where there are 10 million job openings. The question becomes, “How do you identify effective people without a college degree?” or “How do you train people who seem too rough along the edges to hire and train in the first place?” Employers may shy away from the high upfront costs or risks of these types of employees, but it may bring with it larger gains than a safer hire.
There are so many more good ideas that I’ve barely scratched the surface. This is a must read for anyone at all interested in talent, diversity, science, or progress. I’ve neglected to go in-depth on Daniel Gross’s outside contributions because I’ve followed his work less closely than Cowen’s. But it speaks volumes that a now 31 year old entrepreneur from Israel and a 60 year old economist from New Jersey partnered on a book. While a lot of the low-hanging fruit of economic and technological gains may have already been picked in the past 200 years. There are numerous gains still to be had in talent improvement. From writing books to creating new companies, talent improvement is a continuous process of building a better present and future.