Yep sure.

For example, "3,000 pentamillionaires to discuss their path to success. Perhaps not surprisingly, none of them had a cushy union job down at the DMV. The vast majority — 80% — either started their own business or worked for a small company that saw explosive growth. And almost all of them made their fortune in a big lump sum after many years of effort."

I'm sure Nasim would have laughed at this. Firstly, selecting a group of successful people and asking what made them successful makes u fall into a trap of believing that these factors led them to success and hence whoever adopts these factors will be as successful as them. Secondly, for each millionaire there would be many other normal people who did what the millionaire did but didn't see their bank account swelling. For a study to be insightful, the participants should have as many losers (if not more) as winners.

Moreover, article confuses correlation with causality.

The article is like: Google, Yahoo, Amazon, etc. have one thing in common: Silicon Valley hence being in Silicon Valley will get you to that status. Tell me how many startups actually become Google-like?

Your response does not address the passage you quoted. First of all, the author didn't ask them what made them successful. The quote has facts about their lives, not their thoughts on what made them successful. Second of all, the author doesn't claim that these traits are a sufficient condition for becoming rich; only that they'll help.

And what the article says is closer to: "Google and Yahoo and most other successful internet companies have being in Silicon Valley in common, hence if you want to be a successful internet company, being in SV will help." Which is absolutely true.

Amazon is in Seattle.

but he's saying, in order to get rich very likely you will need to do those things other people dare not to do, i.e. doing these things raise your chance of getting rich, which is true.