If you want a nice beach read (in November) that’s filled with light anecdotes, lots of “truthiness” and Wikipedia-based references, then I highly recommend Malcolm Gladwell’s new Outliers: The Story of Success. In it, you’ll learn such bold proclamations as:
- Talent takes practice (and lots of it)
- Success takes luck
- Success also takes access to social advantages
- Emotional intelligence (or, as Gladwell calls it, “practical intelligence”) is more important than IQ
So if you wanted the summary of the McDonald’s version of these McLite insights, there you have it. I just saved you $17, because Gladwell adds little to these observations other than stories that nicely highlight his points. There’s little critical thinking here, or even answers to obvious followup questions, such as why some people are able to put aside their cultural legacies, while others are not. How does one improve one’s emotional intelligence, when so much of schooling seems to be solely focused on grades? If one doesn’t have social advantages, can one still be successful? (Of course, but you wouldn’t necessarily know it from this book.)
The fact that success takes lots and lots of practice has been known for centuries. Look no further than the apprentice/master model of tradesmen to understand that to become a master of one’s craft, one has to toil as an apprentice for many years. Toiling long hours itself, however, is no predictor since most of us have done so. You need those social advantages and decent emotional intelligence too. And even then, without a bit of luck, well, you still might end up being Allen Einstein instead of Albert Einstein.
Outliers are data that don’t fall nicely within the predicted model, but they can be very successful or very unsuccessful. Naturally, Gladwell focuses on success, mostly defined by earnings (in keeping with many people’s concept of “success” in the U.S.). Gladwell provides an overview of what dozens of other researchers and authors have done before him — bottling the formula for “success” and selling it to the masses as simplistic explanations for extraordinary success.
But others do it better and more thoroughly, and if you want something more than the McSimple version of this topic, I highly recommend Talent Is Overrated: What Really Separates World-Class Performers from Everybody Else by Geoff Colvin or Daniel Goleman’s classic work, Emotional Intelligence: Why It Can Matter More Than IQ. Yes, both of these books are more in-depth reads, but are backed up by a lot more research and insights into what are key factors that lead to greater success in life.
One take away from Gladwell’s book that rules over anything you’ll learn in any of these books, however, is that life is ultimately unpredictable and one’s success is often as much a product of luck as it is any specific talent, skill, experience or learning. For instance, Ransome Eli Olds began automobile’s first assembly line, building the Oldsmobile. But it wasn’t until Henry Ford’s innovations which eventually led to the mass production of the Model T did the assembly line forever became etched in history with Ford’s name. For every one Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, there are dozens of Antonio Salieris who are largely forgotten by history’s pen.
One last note — Gladwell’s insights are male-based, so you won’t find any real discussions of what makes a successful woman in the book. He seems to think there’s no gender inequity in society (or in research), or simply doesn’t want to address this thorny issue.
9 comments
Mr Gladwell seems to have latched onto a successful formula for ‘pop’ psychology. I suppose in that sense he is to be congratulated because he exemplifies Vygotsky’s notion of the zone of proximal development. In other words if you are new to the topics he reports on then he provides a useful bridge to deeper exploration. His work should be read as ‘journalistic’ rather than in any academic sense of ‘contribution to knowledge’. For more original and erudite offerings readers should dip into Howard Gardner’s work – Frames of Mind
It’s really nice to hear you discuss his views on gender equality. It’s disappointing to hear that he doesn’t seem to think it exists, when I’ve heard him discuss how his ideas apply to racism.
@Robinson — Agreed. He’s like a very popular intro to psychology professor at the local college — full of charisma, personality and spunk. And perhaps in doing so, sparking a few people to dig deeper on these topics. But I think many authors find it frustrating, given they’ve said the same things years earlier with less attention.
@Jeanne Li — I don’t know that he doesn’t know it exists, but if you judged by the content of the book alone, he doesn’t seem to acknowledge it or the fact that women’s stories may be very different than the men he highlights throughout the book.
This is very interesting; I’ll have to take a look at the other book you mentioned, the Colvin one. I was always one of the kids in school who learned anything by being in close proximity to it, and I wish I had been told that what is rewarded in life is not intelligence but bullheadedness. Really, success is just getting up one more time than you’re knocked down.
I would also like to see a book like this that does focus on gender stuff; I’ve found that the “spunky, plucky genius” meme that these books promote simply doesn’t work for women. It gets met with more hostility, outright sabotage, or clumsy passes than respect for gutsiness or admiration for pluck.
As a result, I’ve found that, as with a lot of women, the only things I can become truly great at are things I do entirely myself, which is very tough for an extrovert like myself — and in a world where collaboration is increasingly important, it can be crippling.
Gosh and I thought i was just being a grouch… as there are several other gaps in his “model” too. The focus on men-related examples is such a throw-back. In this era when so much depends on how well we collaborate his topic also seems so 1980s.
Malcolm Gladwell, though he lacks the published research that many of his peers rely on, offers applicable information for everyone. He may not focus on gender-related issues, or even on many situations involving women, but his ideas on quick thinking and the ways in which to maximize success are applicable to everyone. I find it refreshing that his books are entertaining and applicable. He goes deeper than most “pop-psychologists” in that he does not provide some step by step program or guarantee that his ideas will work. He simply provides information in a logical manner with reasonable yet entertaining examples. His information is accessible and understandable to everyone, yet is still applicable even to those at the pinnacle of intelligence and success. I think this should be applauded.
I tend to look to this new breed of pop psychology books to see whether they offer anything the last breed did not. To date, I haven’t really found the compelling drive behind them.
Most people would look at a step by step program as something that goes “deeper” than simply providing well-known information couched in slightly different terms with different stories to illustrate that information, not the other way around.
He may not focus on gender-related issues, or even on many situations involving women, but his ideas on quick thinking and the ways in which to maximize success are applicable to everyone.
But the point people are saying — and we are people with experience — is that they aren’t, that there are differences that are far more than a little asterisk with “for the ladies, it’s a little teeny bit different” printed at the bottom of the page.
From my own life and the lives of the other women I know — highly successful academic officials, doctorates, and lawyers — the game is radically different for us, and books like these that pretend it isn’t don’t do us much good at all.
A book that can’t be applied even to the majority of its intended audience isn’t a very good book, and a writer who can’t write to the situation of over half of his intended readership isn’t a good writer. If it’s a book about maximizing success strategies for men, it should be labeled as such.