Robbins' argument leaves much to be desired. Many of the examples used in the text are never connected to studies, instead pushed aside with vague statements like "psychologists point out." The lack of facts cited in the paper leads me to believe it is more of a philosophical argument than anything else, which would be fine, if it made logical sense. Even the anecdotal examples are analyzed in a way that ignores critical counter arguments. Robbins cites Taylor Swift, Tim Gunn, and J.K. Rowling as examples of adults that were bullied in school for the same things that made them successful as adults, but never in the text is it considered that other factors might have caused them to be successful in the first place. Was it Taylor Swift's love of country music that got her famous, or did she have a relatively wealthy family that was able to make sure she had the best odds of success possible? These people's divergent talents seem only to be one factor in their success, not the reason for it, which renders Robbins' argument that ostracized kids are sure to grow up into successful adults pretty poorly.