<p>
</p>
<p>I agree, but for different reasons.</p>
<p>For Perelmen, it’s no more his achievement than others. To be precocious, your mind has to be cultivated by a nurturing environment. For Perelmen, it’s no different. Having a mother who was a graduate student in Mathematics drop out just to raise you is more than enough for anybody to excel at mathematics a fair amount. </p>
<p>I say that there are three circumstances that lead to high achievements, and they are:</p>
<p>1) Being born into a family that develops one’s mind greatly.
2) Natural talent.
3) A combination of 1 & 2.</p>
<p>Natural talent and situational fortune that lead to a high aptitude are practically indistinct from each other. You either have to have one or the other to excel in a field at an impressively early age. For Perelmen, I would surmise it to be the third. The second circumstance is extremely rare when dealing with great individuals, and can be deduced by elementary reasoning. A genius born in an impoverished village in Central Africa has no chance of ever becoming something great. Chris Langan is a perfect example of this.</p>
<p>It’s very important to note though, that there can be varying degrees of talent and situational fortune. In Perelman’s case, it would be impossible to know now.</p>
<p>With that said, I don’t feel like the Field’s Medal is very fair. The family you’re born into or your talent prove do be the major factors of whether you’ll be capable of ever receiving it. Sure, mathematical ability tends to deteriorate as you age, but if you’re capable of outstanding achievements, they’ll eventually surface.</p>
<p>Unintentionally, I’m regurgitating what Gladwell wrote in his book.</p>