For example, "3,000 pentamillionaires to discuss their path to success. Perhaps not surprisingly, none of them had a cushy union job down at the DMV. The vast majority — 80% — either started their own business or worked for a small company that saw explosive growth. And almost all of them made their fortune in a big lump sum after many years of effort."
I'm sure Nasim would have laughed at this. Firstly, selecting a group of successful people and asking what made them successful makes u fall into a trap of believing that these factors led them to success and hence whoever adopts these factors will be as successful as them. Secondly, for each millionaire there would be many other normal people who did what the millionaire did but didn't see their bank account swelling. For a study to be insightful, the participants should have as many losers (if not more) as winners.
Moreover, article confuses correlation with causality.
The article is like: Google, Yahoo, Amazon, etc. have one thing in common: Silicon Valley hence being in Silicon Valley will get you to that status. Tell me how many startups actually become Google-like?