The premise of the work, citing examples of Silicon Valley pioneers, is that wealth emanated from more than their extraordinary talent, it occurred due to the right opportunities at exactly the right time. I call that luck, that tells the greatest stories, and sociologists have written and spoken about this before, and anybody that understands statistics will relegate huge success to the bell curve and rightly so. But the idea presented in the book that achievement at a high level is due to attitude over aptitude is incomplete high achievers are at the end of the bell curve because they dont follow conventional wisdom, nor do they strive to be normal because realistic people do not accomplish extraordinary things. If you like that idea, the best book to read is Overachievement. Outliers simply insists that cultural heritage, timing, persistence, and setting sights on the main chance are the determinants for success, which is fine, but lacks the punch to outright say that there is very little one can do, if anything, to manifest the kind of success that people wish for. Although some intelligence is necessary, beyond a certain level intellect doesnt matter. What does make a difference is the 10,000 hours of practice it takes to get to the top in any field. If you believe 10,000 hours of practice is required to become one of the best in any field, at four hours a day of practice it will take almost seven years, and for those folks that can only devote two hours per day it will take almost fourteen years! That itself is the reason why it is almost impossible for people to achieve their great wishes of success, but even so, the book misses again because mastery doesnt necessarily trump luck, and knowing when you must cash out. The ability to sell an idea is more closely linked to wealth than the ability to generate a promising idea.