Grit is More Important than IQ
Summaries Written by FARAgent (AI) on February 16, 2026 · Pending Verification
In the late 2000s and early 2010s, “grit” was sold as the missing ingredient in success: passion and perseverance for long-term goals, more important than raw talent, and in some settings “as good as or better than IQ.” That idea had an obvious appeal. Schools and employers had long seen people of only ordinary measured ability outperform brighter but less steady peers, and Duckworth’s early studies, including work on West Point cadets and spelling bees, seemed to put numbers on a familiar truth. It also fit the policy mood. Intelligence looked fixed, grit looked teachable, and “character” sounded more democratic than aptitude.
Then the claim grew larger than the evidence. As grit moved from journals to TED talks, bestsellers, and school reform, critics argued that the construct was not especially new and might be mostly conscientiousness under a fresh label. Meta-analyses in 2016 found that grit predicted performance, but modestly, and that the “perseverance” half did most of the work while “consistency of interests” often contributed little. Later work in broader, more representative samples reported that grit had negligible effects on educational and economic success compared with intelligence, and that the strongest early findings came from selective settings where range restriction made IQ look weaker than it was.
The debate now is not whether persistence matters, it plainly does, but whether “grit” is a unique, superior predictor that deserved the hype. A substantial body of experts now rejects the stronger version of that claim, holding that IQ and conscientiousness remain more robust predictors across many outcomes. Duckworth and allies still argue that noncognitive traits matter and that grit captures something useful, especially for sticking with hard goals over time. What has faded is the old slogan that grit outranks intelligence. The current dispute is over how much it adds, whether it is distinct, and whether schools were wise to build so much around it.
- Angela Duckworth was the University of Pennsylvania psychologist who almost single-handedly turned grit into a household word. In 2007 she published a paper on West Point cadets that appeared to show grit predicting who would finish training better than any other measure, then followed it with a 2013 TED talk seen by more than seventeen million people in which she declared that grit was as good or better a predictor of success than cognitive ability. She wrote a bestselling book, advised school districts, and became the public face of the idea that perseverance and passion for long-term goals mattered more than talent. Even after meta-analyses questioned her claims she continued to defend the concept's practical value while acknowledging some measurement problems. [2][3][5][6]
- Marcus Credé was the Iowa State University psychologist who became the most persistent internal critic. In 2017 he published a meta-analysis of eighty-eight studies involving more than sixty-six thousand people that found grit correlated only modestly with grades and overlapped so heavily with conscientiousness that it added almost nothing new. He warned that the hype had far outrun the evidence and that perseverance alone drove whatever small predictive power existed. His work was cited repeatedly by later skeptics yet failed to slow the spread of grit curricula in schools. [3][4][5][6]
- James Heckman was the Nobel Prize-winning University of Chicago economist who lent academic prestige to the broader claim that personality traits outpredict IQ. In the 2016 PNAS paper he co-authored with Borghans and others he argued that measures of non-cognitive skills explained more variance in life outcomes than cognitive tests, a position he had advanced in earlier work as well. The paper was treated as authoritative in policy circles until re-analyses using the same datasets reached the opposite conclusion. Heckman continued to emphasize skills formed outside formal schooling. [1][13][14]
The U.S. Department of Education embraced grit with remarkable speed. In 2013 it released a report calling grit a promising lever for student success and recommended that schools teach it, a stance that influenced state policies and charter networks. The department's Institute of Education Sciences went further, explicitly calling for the development of interventions to increase students' grit. These endorsements helped move grit from academic journals into thousands of classrooms before the first large-scale replications appeared. [3][7][8][9]
The Knowledge Is Power Program (KIPP) charter network built grit directly into its model. Schools administered grit questionnaires, hung posters about perseverance, and incorporated grit lessons into the curriculum on the theory that character traits could be deliberately cultivated. The approach was copied by other charter operators and became a visible symbol of the belief that non-cognitive skills could close achievement gaps where cognitive interventions had fallen short. Later reviews questioned whether the programs produced measurable gains beyond what conscientiousness already predicted. [6]
The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences published the 2016 Borghans et al. paper that gave the personality-over-IQ view an imprimatur of elite science. The journal's prestige helped the claim spread through economics and education policy circles even though subsequent re-analyses of the same datasets found intelligence to be the stronger predictor. PNAS did not issue a correction or expression of concern when measurement critiques accumulated. [1][11]
The belief that grit is more important than IQ rested on a plausible observation: many smart people fail while less gifted people with unusual drive succeed. Early studies seemed to support this. Duckworth's 2007 West Point research found that cadets one standard deviation higher in grit were dramatically more likely to complete the first summer of training, and her spelling-bee work suggested grit predicted final placement better than IQ once deliberate practice was considered. These findings arrived at a moment when cognitive testing faced political criticism and when policymakers were eager for traits that seemed teachable rather than fixed. A thoughtful person reviewing the initial data could reasonably conclude that perseverance and consistency of interest offered a powerful, malleable path to success that cognitive ability alone could not explain. [2][5][6]
Yet the same studies that launched the idea contained seeds of its later troubles. The West Point sample was range-restricted on intelligence because only high-aptitude candidates are admitted, artificially lowering the observed importance of IQ. Grit's two factors, perseverance of effort and consistency of interests, overlapped so strongly with conscientiousness that meta-analyses found correlations between 0.80 and 0.98; perseverance alone carried most of the predictive load while consistency added little. A 2016 twin study of more than four thousand British sixteen-year-olds showed grit was about 37 percent heritable with no shared-environment effect, undermining the hope that it could be easily trained through school programs. [2][7][8]
Subsequent work using representative samples told a different story. Zisman and Ganzach's 2020 analysis of the NLSY97 found that intelligence was between 48 and 90 times more predictive of educational attainment than grit and 13 times more predictive of occupational success. Credé's 2017 meta-analysis of sixty-six thousand participants concluded that grit added almost no incremental validity once conscientiousness was accounted for and that its correlation with GPA was only 0.17. These findings did not prove grit irrelevant but showed the original claim of superiority had been overstated. [2][3][4]
The idea spread first through a perfect storm of accessible science and policy hunger. Duckworth's 2013 TED talk, her 2016 book, and glowing coverage in outlets such as NPR turned grit into a self-help staple and an education buzzword within three years. Popular writers like Paul Tough amplified the message that character could matter as much as cognitive skill, while the U.S. Department of Education and the Institute of Education Sciences gave it official blessing. Google Scholar counts showed publications on grit exploding from 76 in 2008 to 1,650 in 2018, outpacing both intelligence and conscientiousness research. [2][3][5][6]
Academic momentum reinforced the popular narrative. Large longitudinal datasets such as the NLSY, MIDUS, and Wisconsin Longitudinal Study were mined for evidence that non-cognitive measures predicted outcomes better than IQ scores. The 2016 PNAS paper by Borghans and Heckman lent the claim the weight of a top journal and was covered in Bloomberg View as showing IQ explained only one or two percent of income variance. Even after early meta-analyses questioned the distinctiveness of grit, education policymakers continued to cite the original studies in reports and grant proposals. [1][10][11][14]
Social and political channels carried the idea into unrelated domains. Some commentators invoked similar logic to argue that personality or willpower explained group differences better than cognitive ability, while others used the language of grit to frame debates about self-control and social policy. The rapid adoption created a feedback loop in which citations begat more citations and interventions begat more calls for interventions, even as the underlying evidence remained contested. [15][16][18]
School systems across the United States began measuring and teaching grit on the assumption it could be cultivated like a skill. Starting around 2013 districts introduced grit curricula, character report cards, and even plans to include grit in formal accountability systems by 2017. The U.S. Department of Education's 2013 report listed grit as a priority area for intervention, and the Institute of Education Sciences called for programs to increase it. Similar enthusiasm appeared in the United Kingdom where the Department for Education declared it would make the country a global leader in character education. [3][5][7][8][9]
West Point continued to collect grit scores for cadet selection and retention decisions, while Chicago public schools and some charter networks used similar measures to predict which teachers and students would persist. These policies were justified by the early Duckworth studies showing grit predicted completion rates even after controlling for cognitive ability. Later evidence that the predictive power was modest and largely redundant with conscientiousness did not lead to immediate reversal of the programs. [6][16]
The broader policy current also included efforts to downplay IQ in favor of non-cognitive measures when evaluating public programs. Achievement tests and grades were treated as contaminated by personality in ways that supposedly made them superior predictors of life outcomes, shaping how economists and policymakers assessed everything from welfare programs to teacher effectiveness. These choices rested on the contested premise that cognitive ability mattered less than previously thought. [10][13]
The most immediate harm was the diversion of limited educational resources. Schools and districts spent time and money on grit curricula, character assessments, and teacher training that later reviews found had little evidence of effectiveness beyond what conscientiousness already predicted. This focus came at the expense of direct instruction and cognitive skill-building that meta-analyses have shown produce clearer gains. [3][6][7][8]
Students and teachers absorbed the message that success or failure hinged on personal perseverance, which risked fostering self-blame when structural obstacles proved more decisive. Commentators noted that an emphasis on grit could function as a way to locate problems inside individuals rather than in economic or racial inequities. At the same time, policymakers drew on related claims about personality and crime to justify stricter immigration measures, contributing to heightened public anxiety and, in some cases, attacks on refugee shelters. [18][21]
The intellectual opportunity costs were subtler but real. Decades of research showing the predictive power of general cognitive ability were partially eclipsed in policy conversation, potentially slowing progress on interventions that target the traits that actually explain the largest share of variance in outcomes. When re-analyses using representative samples found intelligence to be many times more predictive than grit, the earlier policy enthusiasm looked like an expensive detour. [2][13]
The assumption began to lose altitude in 2017 when Credé and colleagues published their meta-analysis of eighty-eight studies. They reported that grit correlated only 0.17 with grade-point average, that it overlapped almost completely with conscientiousness, and that passion for long-term goals added essentially nothing to prediction. The paper received attention in scientific circles and prompted Duckworth to make partial concessions about measurement and hype. [3][4][5]
Representative-sample studies delivered a sharper blow. Zisman and Ganzach's 2020 analysis of the NLSY97 found intelligence to be between 13 and 90 times more predictive than grit depending on the outcome. Re-analyses of the same datasets used by Borghans and Heckman reached similar conclusions once proper intelligence measures were restored. A 2016 British twin study showed grit was heritable, showed no shared-environment influence, and added almost nothing to the prediction of GCSE results once Big Five traits were included. [2][8][11]
By the early 2020s the accumulated evidence had produced a contested but substantial body of work challenging the original strong claims. Meta-analyses, longitudinal replications, and measurement critiques made it difficult to maintain that grit was both distinct from conscientiousness and more important than IQ. Schools and policymakers continued some grit-related programs, yet the intellectual momentum had shifted toward more cautious statements about its unique contribution. [9][13][17]
-
[1]
IQ isn't everything but it's a lotreputable_journalism
- [2]
-
[3]
True grit may be a false conceptreputable_journalism
- [4]
-
[5]
MacArthur 'Genius' Angela Duckworth Responds To A New Critique Of Gritreputable_journalism
-
[6]
The Weak Case for Gritreputable_journalism
-
[7]
Grit: The Long and Short of Itpeer_reviewed
- [8]
-
[9]
Are the Benefits of Grit Exaggerated?reputable_journalism
-
[10]
What grades and achievement tests measurepeer_reviewed
- [11]
- [13]
-
[14]
James Heckman on the Relationship Between Intelligence and Successreputable_journalism
-
[15]
Willpower is overratedpeer_reviewed
- [16]
-
[17]
The fable of state self-controlpeer_reviewed
-
[18]
Bundeskriminalamt: "Zuwanderer sind nicht krimineller als Deutsche"reputable_journalism
- [19]
-
[20]
The Problem With Gritreputable_journalism
-
[21]
Research scholars to air problems with using 'grit' at schoolreputable_journalism
-
[22]
Grit and conscientiousness: Another jangle fallacypeer_reviewed
- [23]
- [24]
- Race-IQ Inquiry Must Be SilencedAcademia Criminal Justice Culture Wars Economy Education Europe Immigration Media Psychology Public Policy
- Affirmative Action Causes No Reverse DiscriminationAcademia Criminal Justice Culture Wars Economy Education Immigration Media Psychology Public Policy
- Benefits of Mass Migration Outweigh CostsAcademia Criminal Justice Culture Wars Economy Education Europe Immigration Media Public Policy
- Diversity is Our StrengthAcademia Criminal Justice Culture Wars Economy Education Europe Immigration Media Public Policy
- Immigration Compensates for Low Birth RateAcademia Criminal Justice Culture Wars Economy Education Europe Immigration Media Public Policy