I have two problems with this line of reasoning. Not just this article, but this line of reasoning in general.
First, it postulates that "if you want to master something, you should study the highest achievements of your field". I don't think this is obvious at all. Exceptional achievement is often attained through a unique combination of individual traits and random luck, which it is not necessarily useful to study or trying to replicate. As an example, people who have attained extreme wealth have often done so by being very lucky at very concentrated financial bets, and this is definitely not an approach that it is advisable to mimic. In the same vein, the article talks about home schooling and exposing children to exceptional circumstances, which sounds like it may increase the volatility more than the mean.
Second, it fails to run the reasoning through Bayes rule. The relevant question is not whether exceptional people have certain traits or experiences in common, per se. The more relevant question is whether these traits and experiences make you more or less likely to become exceptional than people who don't share those traits and experiences. For that, you also need a sense of the prevalence of these traits and experiences, and associated outcomes, in the broader population.
First, it postulates that "if you want to master something, you should study the highest achievements of your field". I don't think this is obvious at all. Exceptional achievement is often attained through a unique combination of individual traits and random luck, which it is not necessarily useful to study or trying to replicate. As an example, people who have attained extreme wealth have often done so by being very lucky at very concentrated financial bets, and this is definitely not an approach that it is advisable to mimic. In the same vein, the article talks about home schooling and exposing children to exceptional circumstances, which sounds like it may increase the volatility more than the mean.
Second, it fails to run the reasoning through Bayes rule. The relevant question is not whether exceptional people have certain traits or experiences in common, per se. The more relevant question is whether these traits and experiences make you more or less likely to become exceptional than people who don't share those traits and experiences. For that, you also need a sense of the prevalence of these traits and experiences, and associated outcomes, in the broader population.