Being too ambitious is a clever form of self-sabotage

In the spirit of July 4, John Lewis Gaddis explores a similar theme in "On Grand Strategy". This is one of my favourite explorations, where he compares Abraham Lincoln and John Quincy Adams:

> Compare Lincoln’s life with that of John Quincy Adams. Great expectations inspired, pursued, and haunted Adams, depriving him, at critical moments, of common sense. Overestimations by others—which he then magnified—placed objectives beyond his reach: only self-demotion brought late-life satisfaction. No expectations lured Lincoln apart from those he set for himself: he started small, rose slowly, and only when ready reached for the top. His ambitions grew as his opportunities expanded, but he kept both within his circumstances. He sought to be underestimated.

The point -- being too ambitious can slow you down if you're not strategic.

It almost seems like a tautology.

e.g. By definition the 99.9th percentile person cannot live a 99.999th percentile life, if they did they would in fact be that amazing.

> e.g. By definition the 99.9th percentile person cannot live a 99.999th percentile life, if they did they would in fact be that amazing.

This seems far too deterministic and I think is contrary to what you're replying to.

It sounds more like a 99.999th percentile person[0] that constantly reaches too far too early, before being prepared, will not have a 99.999th percentile life. A 99th percentile person who, on the other hand, does not constantly fail due to over-reach, can easily end up accomplishing more. (And there are many other things that might hold them back too - they might get hit by a car while crossing the street.)

[0] in whatever measurement of "capability" you have in mind

Well the critical thing is that we can’t determine who is at what percentile until after the fact. So for example an early bloomer genius type, who is 99.999th percentile among everyone in the same birth year cohort, could suddenly crash back down towards the average.

There’s no practical way to determine that looking forwards in time.

Significant part of what separates 99.9th (or even 90th) from 99.999th percentile is ego management.

In particular IQ is not associated with better life outcomes after you have "enough", and that "enough" isn't Mensa level.

John Quincy Adams was arguably such a 99.999th percentile person though.

Can we invoke a version of 80-20 rule here, that 0.1% people will easily capture success of 80% while subsequent marginal capture takes increasingly more investment and luck?

Some people grow to both crave praise but also when they get it not really value it; they want people to be always surprised at cool stuff they can do but are not motivated to do boring uninteresting work. This may be accompanied by one or more of: perfectionism, narcissism, rejection anxiety, etc.

I suspect this might have to do with praise patterns in childhood.

How could that possibly be true?

The former might be a literal genius (in the genuine unironic sense) in one field, say software engineering of astrophysics or banking or diplomacy.

The latter would be a literal genius in all four fields simultaneously.

IQ is just CPU power.

There's no CPU that can't be wasted by bad code.

According to who? And how does IQ relate to the comment in the first place?