To answer the question, I don’t know. But there are any number of people who make a career of finding answers to this question. And we Americans have always been avid consumers of the latest big idea. At present, the secret ingredient is grit, but if we interpret that in old-fashioned terms like persistence, conscientiousness, hard work, it doesn’t seem like a new idea at all.
Here is another view about what makes for success in life–and what does not. The authors, Christopher Chabris and Joshua Hart, teach psychology at Union College in New York. They critique a book by Yale law professors Amy Chua and her husband Jed Rubenfeld, which claims to pinpoint the secrets of success.
If you recall, Chua wrote a bestseller a few years ago about how to turn your children into high achievers (“Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother”). She espoused a harsh disciplinary regime (“no excuses,” no fun, no wasted time). In their book, Chua and Rubenfeld identify a package of three characteristics that they say explain success: belonging to a certain ethnic group (e.g., Cubans, Jews, Indians); having a strong sense of personal insecurity; and strong impulse control.
Chabris and Hart say that their own research contradicts the conclusions of Chua and Rubenfeld.
They write:
“We found no special “synergy” among the triple package traits. According to Professors Chua and Rubenfeld, the three traits have to work together to create success — a sense of group superiority creates drive only in people who also view themselves as not good enough, for example, and drive is useless without impulse control. But in our data, people scoring in the top half on all three traits were no more successful than everyone else….
“Our studies affirmed that a person’s intelligence and socioeconomic background were the most powerful factors in explaining his or her success, and that the triple package was not — even when we carefully measured every element of it and considered all of the factors simultaneously.”
The trouble with all this reasoning, surveying, and speculating about success is that we operate from different definitions of success.
What is success? It all depends on what you value most.
Is it making the most money? Many who achieve billions have very unhappy personal lives.
Is it becoming famous? See the bit above about unsatisfying personal lives.
Is it achieving professional distinction?
Is it giving your life to a cause greater than yourself?
Is it being known as the most beloved teacher in your community?
Is it being a wonderful father, mother, friend?
Success depends on what matters most to you.

Funny you should ask, Diane! My mother always said, “What’s the secret of success? PAY ATTENTION!” 🙂
LikeLike
Reblogged this on David R. Taylor-Thoughts on Education.
LikeLike
There is not one singular secret to success, however, there are a few essential ingredients that must be present.
1. A clearly stated goal
2. A plan to accomplish that goal.
3. A sustained work ethic.
4. A support system (people that are there to pick you up and encourage you when times get tough).
5. Persistence: It took Edison nearly 2000 attempt to create the lightbulb.
Feel free to add to the list. I’m sure I missed something.
.
LikeLike
I don’t think we have to define it so narrowly. My eldest son is really ambitious and goal-oriented and he easily fit on that “track” – high scores, selective college. He does quite well financially but I’m not sure he’s “more successful” than my middle son who never had any interest in the “high achiever” track and took an apprenticeship as an electrician. I personally think my middle son would have wasted a lot of time bashing his head against a wall had he pursued a high ACT score rather than skilled trades. I think it made sense for him to go in a different direction. I don’t consider him “a quitter” for recognizing he really wasn’t suited to that track.
LikeLike
I don’t know if this is a secret to success, but as a teacher, I always considered myself a public servant and, to some degree, a patriot. I always said that teaching made me feel that I was contributing to the greater good. I could always look at myself in the mirror and feel that I had done my best to contribute to the betterment of our collective future. It may sound corny, but that to me was success. Most teachers are, by nature, idealists; otherwise, they would not choose such a difficult career. especially today.
LikeLike
The teachers whom I still remember from my public school years were like you-thank you, on their behalf.
LikeLike
Anne:
What you said.
😎
LikeLike
I thought the secrets to Success were to keep out the undesirables, pressure those who manage to slip in, constantly drill the remaining ones on test prep and cheat if necessary.
Oh, sorry, that’s not the Success you’re talking about….
LikeLiked by 1 person
That was funny…..Best laugh I’ve had today.
LikeLike
In our social system, success is defined as excess. But I certainly would not like to share a beer with Trump, Gates, or Hillary.
I remember talking to one of the military guys a part of the Blackhawk Down mission. He was still very young (or I’m very old) but so wise beyond his years. He came back from the service a different person. Mostly, he said, he had a low tolerance for people lacking authenticity. Now, he seeks out “real” people. To him, success will be finding peace in life.
LikeLike
I feel like we SAY we value non-monetary or lower-key “success” but we really don’t. If we did we wouldn’t celebrate and promote the people we celebrate and promote.
No one ever says “wow, Microsoft must have had a great group of employees for Gates to pile up all that money- let’s see what they think about education and the issues of the day!”
It’s always the lone CEO who (apparently) created all of that by himself. Let’s face it- we only value big shots and we prove to to kids every day in everything they see and hear.
LikeLike
” But I certainly would not like to share a beer with Trump, Gates, or Hillary.”
Hell I would. Now whether they’d want to stay for another round with me is the question.
Because I’d be talking education and as my youngest son says to anyone who brings up the subject: “Stop, you REALLY don’t want to get my dad started on education!”
LikeLike
Michael Young coined “meritocracy” in the late 50s in a book of speculative sociological fiction. The meritocrats are countered by a movement that publishes “the Chelsea manifesto”. I encourage everyone to read the slim book, Young is an uncanny predictor of many discussions we are having today. Here is an excerpt from the manifesto, in answer to your questions maybe:
“Were we to evaluate people, not only according to their intelligence and their education, their occupation and their power, but according to their kindliness and their courage, their imagination and sensitivity, their sympathy and generosity, there could be no classes. Who would be able to say that the scientist was superior to the porter with admirable qualities as a father, the civil servant with unusual skill at gaining prizes superior to the lorry-driver with unusual skill at growing roses?”
LikeLike
The secret to success is writing a book about the secret to success which makes you several million dollars.
LikeLike
SomeDAM Poet:
Yep. Just like the folks touting their real estate seminars as the way to wealth, health and happiness—somehow find it more lucrative to charge people outrageous sums of money to attend their seminars rather than the [supposedly] more rewarding pursuit of, er, real estate wheeling and dealing.
Words. Deeds. Grand Canyon gap.
😎
LikeLike
To answer your question, Diane:
Being born to the “right” well-heeled parents.
LikeLike
I wish one could select his/her parents! Poverty will be abolished once and for all, since they will never have any children.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Good one Raj!
LikeLike
While I need to think this through, it seems that Tiger Mom (and such like-minded people) seem to cherry pick the traits they think are most important, with those traits simply projections of themselves and the Happy Thoughts they have of themselves.
And those supposed “traits of/to success” keep circling back to “character” and “merit” and a Social Darwinian kind of “fitness.
Or to put it another way: a variant of the old “it’s not what you know but who you know” aka “it’s not what you are or do or could be but who your parents are.”
😎
LikeLike
Don’t get me started on the Tiger Mom manual for child abuse! (Too late, you already did! 🙂 ) She talks about the demanding model of Chinese schools (kind of sounds like Success Acadamy on steroids). The book contains an anecdote from her childhood describing an assembly attended by families where she was awarded a 2nd place trophy in math. Later at home, her father berated her angrily, telling her never to humiliate him like that again; I.e., it’s #1 or don’t bother. So by that standard, in a Chinese school with a graduating class of, say, 1000, there are 1 success (the valedictorian) & 999 failures – not the most impressive record. But then, what do I know? I’m just another magna (not summa) cum laude failure! 🙂
LikeLike
Context is everything:
For the Big Mac it’s the secret sauce!
LikeLike
Is Mr. Trump a success?
J. H. Underhill
LikeLike
Is there some global state we can call success? What do you do when you reach “it?” Striving for success makes life sound so one dimensional.
LikeLike
Nirvana??? Heaven???? or for others Hell???? Or for Pastafarians to be in rapturous communion with His Noodly Appendages???
LikeLike
There’s a documentary, “Triumph of the Nerds” , about the early pioneers in personal computing during the 1960s-70s. Not all of them became famous & fabulously rich; some just went quietly on with their lives, sometimes not even in the computer field, while others building on their ideas (not stealing, just the course of events) made billions. One of them is asked how he feels about not partaking in the riches some of his contemporaries enjoy. I was impressed by how unconcerned he is; he explains that in the 60s-70s, in a certain segment of society, the set of values in play was different from today’s; that their goal never was to make a lot of money, but rather, “We wanted to change the world; & we did that.” By his own personal standards, he’s wildly successful, & I agree with him: success is largely subjective.
LikeLike
LR, great example.
LikeLike
I read Chua’s book. Personal preferences–I would have had family take advantage of being in a foreign country (and trusted that our subconscious operates even during time off) rather than mandate musical practice instead of sightseeing.
For some children, Success might be not having your parent publish your personal business. I would have detested having my family interactions made public, but maybe royalties assuage the loss of privacy.
LikeLike
The reigning definition of success in education is to study hard so you get good grades, so that you get high test scores, so that you get into a good college/university, so that you can graduate with honors, get a high-paying job, and make lots of money so you can buy a lot of things. This definition was decided on by the wealthy and powerful, but has apparently been accepted by parents. So now we have ESSA (Every Child Succeeds!) But if ALL children “succeeded” by that definition, I have to wonder who would maintain the cars, grow the food, make the clothes, serve the food in restaurants, drive the taxis, write the poetry and music, etc. Pretty obvious that the folks who enjoy all those services know that not all children will “succeed” by their very limited (and limiting) one-size-fits-all definition, so they can be assured there will still be people to provide them with their services. Or is that the whole point of one-size-fits-all standards and standardized testing, which has, since the time of Taylor and Thorndike, been used to separate the wheat from the chaff.
LikeLike
Judith, you certainlyhave captures the thinking in ESSA and elsewhere, specifically foundations that cannot decide whether children are social assets or future liabilities.
Here is the definition of success from the Robinhood Foundation. The infographic shows the logic of economic thinking. Click on the “metrics” link to see how that the definition of sucess is that you do not create costs that others pay for. Success is thus a zero-sum game, either you are a winner or a loser. Trump’s thinking… https://www.robinhood.org/metricsinfographic
LikeLike
Not to mention the very clear explanation of the purpose of schools in this quote from Exxon CEO Rex Tillerson in Fortune Magazine.
“I’m not sure public schools understand that we’re their customer—that we, the business community, are your customer. What they don’t understand is they are producing a product at the end of that high school graduation…Now is that product in a form that we, the customer, can use it? Or is it defective, and we’re not interested?”
As long as the mission statement of the DOE continues to focus solely on training people to “successfully compete in the global economy,” they certainly aren’t going to give students and their parents the right to define success in their own terms. And until we manage to wake parents up to the fact that the rich and powerful see their kids as “products” to serve the economy, all of our rhetoric isn’t going to do much of anything.
LikeLike
“Are You Successful? If So, You’ve Already Won the Lottery,” from the NY Times
Protecting the Mona Lisa, circa 1913. It gained fame partly because of a theft. Roger Viollet/Getty Images
Chance events play a much larger role in life than many people once imagined.
Most of us have no difficulty recognizing luck when it’s on conspicuous display, as when someone wins the lottery. But randomness often plays out in subtle ways, and it’s easy to construct narratives that portray success as having been inevitable. Those stories are almost invariably misleading, however, a simple fact that has surprising implications for public policy.
Consider the history of the Mona Lisa, perhaps the most famous painting in the world. After having languished in obscurity for most of its early existence, Leonardo da Vinci’s work was pushed into the spotlight in 1911 when it was stolen from the Louvre.
The widely publicized theft remained unsolved for two years until Vincenzo Peruggia, an Italian maintenance worker at the Louvre, was apprehended after trying to sell the painting to the Uffizi Gallery in Florence, Italy. His arrest provoked a second wave of publicity, with images of the Mona Lisa splashed around the world.
In the years since, the painting has come to represent Western culture itself. Yet had it never been stolen, most of us would know no more about it than we do of the two obscure Leonardo da Vinci canvases from the same period that hang in an adjacent gallery at the Louvre. Like Kim Kardashian, apparently, the Mona Lisa is famous largely for being famous.
As in the art world, so too in the world of work. Almost every career trajectory entails a complex sequence of steps, each of which depends on those preceding it. If any of those earlier steps had been different, the entire trajectory would almost surely have been different, too.
Continue reading the main story
Inevitably, some of those initial steps will have been influenced by seemingly trivial random events. So it is reasonable to conclude that virtually all successful careers entail at least a modicum of luck.
One’s date of birth can matter enormously, for example. According to a 2008 study, most children born in the summer tend to be among the youngest members of their class at school, which appears to explain why they are significantly less likely to hold leadership positions during high school and thus, another study indicates, less likely to land premium jobs later in life. Similarly, according to research published in the journal Economics Letters in 2012, the number of American chief executives who were born in June and July is almost one-third lower than would be expected on the basis of chance alone.
Even the first letter of a person’s last name can explain significant achievement gaps. Assistant professors in the 10 top-ranked American economics departments, for instance, were more likely to be promoted to tenure the earlier the first letter of their last names fell in the alphabet, a 2006 study found. Researchers attributed this to the custom in economics of listing co-authors’ names alphabetically on papers, noting that no similar effect existed for professors in psychology, whose names are not listed alphabetically.
To acknowledge the importance of random events is not to suggest that success is independent of talent and effort. In highly competitive arenas, those who do well are almost always extremely talented and hard-working. As Charlie Munger, the vice chairman of Warren E. Buffett’s holding company, Berkshire Hathaway, has said, “The safest way to get what you want is to try and deserve what you want.”
Perhaps the most useful advice for someone who aspires to material success is to develop expertise at a task that others value. Such expertise comes not from luck but from thousands of hours of assiduous effort.
But talent and effort are not enough. Luck also matters. Even the most able, industrious people in South Sudan have little chance at success. Success is not guaranteed for deserving people in wealthy countries with highly developed legal and educational institutions and other infrastructure, but it’s substantially more likely.
Being born in a good environment is one of the few dimensions of luck we can control — that is, at least we can decide how lucky our children will be. But as a nation, we’ve been doing a bad job of it for at least a generation. The luckiest are getting luckier even as their numbers shrink. The unlucky population is growing, and its luck is getting worse.
These changes have stemmed in part from sharply diminished public support for education. According to a 2015 report by the nonpartisan Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, for example, state spending per student averaged about 20 percent less in 2014-15 than in the 2007-8 school year. More than 70 percent of students who graduated from four-year colleges in 2015 had student loans that averaged $35,000.
Continue reading the main story
It’s no surprise, then, that access to the benefits of a college degree continues to depend heavily on family income. According to a study from the Alliance for Higher Education and Democracy, at the University of Pennsylvania, and the Pell Institute for the Study of Opportunity in Higher Education, 77 percent of offspring of families in the top income quartile had earned college degrees by age 24 in 2013, compared with only 9 percent of those from bottom-quartile families. More troubling, the disparity persists even when controlling for precollege academic aptitude scores.
The human tendency to underestimate luck’s role has contributed to this troubling state of affairs by reducing the electorate’s willingness to support the public investments that make economic success possible. But the taxes people want to avoid need not be personally painful.
Evidence from the social sciences demonstrates that beyond a certain income threshold, people’s sense of well-being depends much more on their relative purchasing power than on how much they spend in absolute terms. If top tax rates were a little higher, all homes would be a little smaller, all cars a little less expensive, all diamonds a little more modest and all celebrations a little less costly. The standards that define “special” would adjust accordingly, leaving most successful people quite satisfied.
Happily, there is a simple remedy: Merely prompting people to reflect on their good fortune tends to make them more willing to contribute to the common good, according to a 2010 study published in the journal Emotion. So try to engage your successful friends in discussions about their experiences with luck. In the process, you may increase their willingness to support the kinds of public investments that will enhance the next generation’s odds of success. And you will almost surely hear some interesting stories.
LikeLike