I noticed that too about the three things that don't appear to drive great performance. My jaw dropped. Are they kidding?
What I find astounding is that all of the apparent fans of Colvin's ideas were not bothered by that part.
Perhaps one of them would like to explain what he really meant.
These aren't necessarily Colvin's ideas. It's all based on research provided by much more qualified people. All Colvin has done is assemble and present the research in his own style or format.
If you believe great performance is the direct result of experience or innate talent or intelligence, then every person with experience, talent, and intelligence should be a great performer. But that's not the case -- not even close. So, as Colvin writes, it doesn't appear that these things are what drives great performance.
There are plenty of very experienced people in every field of study, but experience is subjective. Experience is certainly not proof of or indicative of great performance.
You can spend years doing something over and over again and never be great at it. So it's true -- experience does not seem to be a driver of exceptional performance. Instead, it's something in addition to experience that drives greatness. That's what Colvin is saying.
Here's a real life example: I once told a pulmonologist that the peak value was set too high on a ventilator. He asked how I would know that, if I was in the medical field, and I told him I had read the operating manual for the machine and calculated the correct value based on the patient's body mass. He said, "Well, I've been doing this for over twenty years...." I asked him to at least look at it, told him this specific machine was only a year old and asked if he knew the difference between it and the older machines. Doing something for 20 years only means a person has been doing the same thing for 20 years. It's not a validation that they've improved or expanded their skills or knowledge during that time. Anyway, he grabbed the operating manual from my hand and walked out. Naturally he did not like being challenged or questioned. Afterall, he was the doctor and I was a nobody.
About an hour later he came back into the room and lowered the peak value to the appropriate setting. He apologized to me, but also told me it wouldn't make much of a difference. The setting was twice as high as it should've been, so I doubt he was being completely honest with me about it not making much difference.
As far as intelligence (IQ), it is also not a driving factor when it comes to great performance. It has been shown that a person's emotional intelligence (EQ), how you deal with stress and other emotional challenges, is more of a determining factor when it comes to success and quality performance.
So I don't see anything wrong with what Colvin has written. These things alone, based on plenty of research, don't appear to be as important as deliberate practice. Quality, deliberate practice drives great performance. He's not saying experience, talent and intelligence aren't important. He's just saying these things are not enough to drive greatness. Something else is needed, something deeper within us that sets us apart from everyone else that has experience, talent, and intelligence.