Call number
302 GLA
Collection
Genres
Publication
Little, Brown and Company (2008), Edition: 1, 309 pages
Description
The best-selling author of Blink identifies the qualities of successful people, posing theories about the cultural, family, and idiosyncratic factors that shape high achievers, in a resource that covers such topics as the secrets of software billionaires, why certain cultures are associated with better academic performance, and why the Beatles earned their fame.
Subjects
Media reviews
“Outliers” has much in common with Gladwell’s earlier work. It is a pleasure to read and leaves you mulling over its inventive theories for days afterward. It also, unfortunately, avoids grappling in a few instances with research that casts doubt on those theories. This is a particular shame,
Show More
because it would be a delight to watch someone of his intellect and clarity make sense of seemingly conflicting claims. Show Less
The world for Gladwell is a text that he reads as closely as he can in seeking to decode and interpret it. He is adept at identifying underlying trends from which he extrapolates to form hypotheses, presenting them as if they were general laws of social behaviour. But his work has little
Show More
philosophical rigour. He's not an epistemologist; his interest is in what we think, rather than in the how and why of knowledge itself. Show Less
The book, which purports to explain the real reason some people — like Bill Gates and the Beatles — are successful, is peppy, brightly written and provocative in a buzzy sort of way. It is also glib, poorly reasoned and thoroughly unconvincing.
User reviews
LibraryThing member JollyContrarian
A criticism common to both Malcolm Gladwell's previous books, Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking and The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference, was that while they were packed with interesting, well told, anecdotes there was no consistent underlying theme to the
Clearly Malcolm Gladwell has taken those reservations to heart: in Outliers he has been scrupulous to sketch out an integrated underlying thesis and then (for the most part) array his anecdotes - which, as usual, are interesting enough - in support of it.
Unfortunately for him, the theory is a lemon. Nonetheless, the flyleaf is hubristic (and unimaginative) enough to claim "This book really will change the way you think about your life". It's not done that for me, but it has changed the way I think about Malcolm Gladwell's writing. And not for the better.
Gladwell has looked at some psychological research into success and genius and has concluded that, contrary to conventional wisdom, success isn't to be explained by raw talent. The evidence suggests that genuinely exceptional performers, in whatever field - these are the titular "outliers" - can be identified by a combination of unique and unusual *opportunity* and *commitment* to achieve. It isn't talent, but graft and the odd lucky break. Hmm.
A common thread, Gladwell claims, is that most "world class experts", be they "composers, basketball players, fiction writers, ice skaters, concert pianists, chess players, master criminals, what have you ..." have put in 10,000 hours of practice before really achieving success. So, as the paradigm case goes, the Beatles weren't just in the right place at the right time (though clearly they were), but were instead preternaturally prepared for it by their grueling stint playing hundreds of eight-hour shows in Hamburg, an experience which afforded them both the necessary period of time and unusual opportunity to gain musical proficiency.
The first quibble here is to note that (even allowing for the patent fantasy that the Beatles played eight-hours non stop each night), on Gladwell's own figures, the Hamburg experience - which didn't involve Ringo Starr - still left the band roughly 8,000 hours short of their necessary 10,000. In any case attributing the Beatles' success to their (undisputed) musical proficiency indicates the degree to which Gladwell misses the point, both about rock 'n' roll (wherein neither concerted effort nor musical acumen has often had much to do with initial commercial success - just ask Elvis or the Rolling Stones) and the quality of the data itself. Gladwell's theory suffers from survivor bias: it starts with an undisputed result (the Beatles - clearly an outlier) and works back looking for evidence to support its hypothesis and takes whatever is there: easy enough to do since the "evidence" is definable only in terms of the subsequently occuring success. In less polite circles this is called revisionism.
There will, after all, be no record of the poor loser who spent 10,000 hours at his fretboard and who squandered a wealth of opportunity through ineptitude or bad luck, because, by definition, he never caught the light. Even if you grant Gladwell his theory - and I'm not inclined to - the most that can be said is that he's found a *correlation* between graft and success. But to confuse correlation with causation is a cardinal sin of interpretation (see Stephen Jay Gould's splendid The Mismeasure of Man for a compelling explanation of this fallacy) unless you have independent supporting grounds to justify the causal chain. Gladwell offers none: The Fab Four (well, Fab Three plus Pete Best) may have become a tighter band in Germany, but as Gladwell acknowledges there were many Liverpool bands in Hamburg at the time, all presumably clocking up eight hours non-stop (yeah, right) per night, and none of the others made the cover of Rolling Stone then, or has done since.
Much of the rest of Gladwell's patter is similarly glib: look at any "success story" long enough and you're bound to find something in its past you can designate as the crucial 10,000 hours. But to imply - as Gladwell seems to - that it isn't special talent but nothing more than sheer grit and unique opportunity that creates Outliers seems fatuous, and liable to needlessly encourage a class of plodders who will end up very disappointed (and resentful of M. Gladwell, Esq.) in 10 years' time. It struck me when I listened to him speak in London last month that the 10,000 hours might just as easily be confirmation, rather than falsification, of the presence of raw talent. If you take two violinists, one tone deaf and the other unusually gifted, all else being equal, who is more likely to stick at it for the ten years it takes to achieve concert level proficiency?
To be sure there are some fascinating lessons to be drawn here, but precisely at the point where Gladwell allows himself to drift off the moorings of his underlying theory: ethnic theory of plane crashes, which seemed to establish very little about outliers even on his argument, is cogent (and in these melting markets, timely) caution as to the risks of autocratic behaviour. Towards the end of the book Gladwell reaches some uneasy conclusions that, based on the extraordinary results of Asian schoolchildren in mathematics, that US schools should effectively abandon summer holidays and have children attend school all year round, like they might if they were working in a rice paddy. I'm not convinced that more school (as opposed to better parenting) is the answer.
It was my fortune to be reading Steve Gould's classic tome on scientific sceptism at the same time I read (and listened to) Malcolm Gladwell. Gladwell's prescriptions are analogous with the flawed IQ testing programmes Gould so elegantly takes to task: the hypothesis comes first, and the intellectual process behind it is the search for evidence in support of it rather than a dispassionate attempt to falsify. It is hard to imagine how one would go about falsifying (or proving, other than anecdotally) Gladwell's theory and even harder to conceive what prospective use Gladwell's learning, if true, could be. Seeing as the "golden opportunities" can only be identified with hindsight - once your outlier is already lying out there, this feels like the sort of junk science with all the trappings - and utility - of 20:20 rear vision.
Show More
stories; no particular lesson to be drawn. For example, of the many anecdotes recounted about "thin slicing" some (such as an art expert's ability to instantly assess the bona fides of a statue) suggested it was a special and important skill while others (an impulsive police decision to pursue and shoot dead a innocent bystander) suggested quite the opposite. You were left with the impression that, well, there are these things called snap judgements, and sometimes they work out, and sometimes they don't. Clearly Malcolm Gladwell has taken those reservations to heart: in Outliers he has been scrupulous to sketch out an integrated underlying thesis and then (for the most part) array his anecdotes - which, as usual, are interesting enough - in support of it.
Unfortunately for him, the theory is a lemon. Nonetheless, the flyleaf is hubristic (and unimaginative) enough to claim "This book really will change the way you think about your life". It's not done that for me, but it has changed the way I think about Malcolm Gladwell's writing. And not for the better.
Gladwell has looked at some psychological research into success and genius and has concluded that, contrary to conventional wisdom, success isn't to be explained by raw talent. The evidence suggests that genuinely exceptional performers, in whatever field - these are the titular "outliers" - can be identified by a combination of unique and unusual *opportunity* and *commitment* to achieve. It isn't talent, but graft and the odd lucky break. Hmm.
A common thread, Gladwell claims, is that most "world class experts", be they "composers, basketball players, fiction writers, ice skaters, concert pianists, chess players, master criminals, what have you ..." have put in 10,000 hours of practice before really achieving success. So, as the paradigm case goes, the Beatles weren't just in the right place at the right time (though clearly they were), but were instead preternaturally prepared for it by their grueling stint playing hundreds of eight-hour shows in Hamburg, an experience which afforded them both the necessary period of time and unusual opportunity to gain musical proficiency.
The first quibble here is to note that (even allowing for the patent fantasy that the Beatles played eight-hours non stop each night), on Gladwell's own figures, the Hamburg experience - which didn't involve Ringo Starr - still left the band roughly 8,000 hours short of their necessary 10,000. In any case attributing the Beatles' success to their (undisputed) musical proficiency indicates the degree to which Gladwell misses the point, both about rock 'n' roll (wherein neither concerted effort nor musical acumen has often had much to do with initial commercial success - just ask Elvis or the Rolling Stones) and the quality of the data itself. Gladwell's theory suffers from survivor bias: it starts with an undisputed result (the Beatles - clearly an outlier) and works back looking for evidence to support its hypothesis and takes whatever is there: easy enough to do since the "evidence" is definable only in terms of the subsequently occuring success. In less polite circles this is called revisionism.
There will, after all, be no record of the poor loser who spent 10,000 hours at his fretboard and who squandered a wealth of opportunity through ineptitude or bad luck, because, by definition, he never caught the light. Even if you grant Gladwell his theory - and I'm not inclined to - the most that can be said is that he's found a *correlation* between graft and success. But to confuse correlation with causation is a cardinal sin of interpretation (see Stephen Jay Gould's splendid The Mismeasure of Man for a compelling explanation of this fallacy) unless you have independent supporting grounds to justify the causal chain. Gladwell offers none: The Fab Four (well, Fab Three plus Pete Best) may have become a tighter band in Germany, but as Gladwell acknowledges there were many Liverpool bands in Hamburg at the time, all presumably clocking up eight hours non-stop (yeah, right) per night, and none of the others made the cover of Rolling Stone then, or has done since.
Much of the rest of Gladwell's patter is similarly glib: look at any "success story" long enough and you're bound to find something in its past you can designate as the crucial 10,000 hours. But to imply - as Gladwell seems to - that it isn't special talent but nothing more than sheer grit and unique opportunity that creates Outliers seems fatuous, and liable to needlessly encourage a class of plodders who will end up very disappointed (and resentful of M. Gladwell, Esq.) in 10 years' time. It struck me when I listened to him speak in London last month that the 10,000 hours might just as easily be confirmation, rather than falsification, of the presence of raw talent. If you take two violinists, one tone deaf and the other unusually gifted, all else being equal, who is more likely to stick at it for the ten years it takes to achieve concert level proficiency?
To be sure there are some fascinating lessons to be drawn here, but precisely at the point where Gladwell allows himself to drift off the moorings of his underlying theory: ethnic theory of plane crashes, which seemed to establish very little about outliers even on his argument, is cogent (and in these melting markets, timely) caution as to the risks of autocratic behaviour. Towards the end of the book Gladwell reaches some uneasy conclusions that, based on the extraordinary results of Asian schoolchildren in mathematics, that US schools should effectively abandon summer holidays and have children attend school all year round, like they might if they were working in a rice paddy. I'm not convinced that more school (as opposed to better parenting) is the answer.
It was my fortune to be reading Steve Gould's classic tome on scientific sceptism at the same time I read (and listened to) Malcolm Gladwell. Gladwell's prescriptions are analogous with the flawed IQ testing programmes Gould so elegantly takes to task: the hypothesis comes first, and the intellectual process behind it is the search for evidence in support of it rather than a dispassionate attempt to falsify. It is hard to imagine how one would go about falsifying (or proving, other than anecdotally) Gladwell's theory and even harder to conceive what prospective use Gladwell's learning, if true, could be. Seeing as the "golden opportunities" can only be identified with hindsight - once your outlier is already lying out there, this feels like the sort of junk science with all the trappings - and utility - of 20:20 rear vision.
Show Less
LibraryThing member nbmars
In Outliers, Malcolm Gladwell gives us two books in one.
On the one hand, we have an entertaining collection of vignettes about people who were successful, and people who should have been successful but were not.
On the other, we have a book purporting to draw scientific conclusions from a selection
Let’s turn to each of these in turn, starting with the latter.
When Gladwell tries to be a scientist, he resembles Procrustes more than Frances Bacon. (In Greek mythology, Procrustes was a rather cranky host who either cut up or stretched out his guests to fit his iron bed. Therefore a “procrustean bed” refers to a theory for which data is manipulated in order to fit its premises. Frances Bacon, by contrast, known as “the Father of the Scientific Method,” systematized a way of knowing which fits the theory to the data rather than the other way around.)
Gladwell declares “success is not a random act. It arises out of a predictable and powerful set of circumstances and opportunities.” These circumstances include family background, ethnic heritage, who your parents are, who they know, how much money they have, what year you were born, and even when in the year you were born. He insists "The successful are those who have been given opportunities, and who have had the strength and presence of mind to seize them."
The case studies supplied by Gladwell are not only cherry-picked to support his thesis, but the circumstances of each case study are also put through Gladwell’s conceptual sieve. For example, Gladwell compares the success of the famous genius Robert Oppenheimer to the lack of success of the obscure genius Chris Langan. Both were highly intelligent, but, Gladwell writes, Oppenheimer came from an upper class family with its accompanying advantages; he had more poise; he had more self-confidence; he knew how to interact with people in a positive way in order to get what he wanted. Gladwell gives an example to support his conclusions. The trouble is, Gladwell omits the fact that Oppenheimer’s imperious (and gratuitous) treatment of Lewis Strauss (Chairman of the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission) in the 1950’s is what led to his downfall: specifically, a hearing before the Security Board on charges of espionage, revocation of his security clearance, the loss of his job, and basically his removal from the American political process for the remainder of his life.
In another example, Gladwell turns to the children of hard-working New York Jewish immigrant garment workers. He claims that these children (born in a certain set of years to fathers born in a certain set of years) were most likely to be successful lawyers. What about all the similarly-situated children of children who did not become successful lawyers, or even successful? There were hundreds in New York at the beginning of the Twentieth Century. We never hear about counterfactual cases that could refute the theory. Moreover, when Gladwell runs out of demographic or ethnographic or socioeconomic reasons why a particular person made it and others did not, he drops down a level of analysis to the personal. In the end, Bill Gates was Bill Gates. Bill Joy (co-founder of Sun Microsystems) was Bill Joy. The Beatles were The Beatles, after all.
Gladwell’s leaps between levels of analysis are a part of his effort to conform the data to the theory. Another method he uses is a form of circular reasoning in which the premises are assumed to be true because the conclusion is true. (The background of Bill Gates led to his success because Bill Gates was successful. In fact, contrary to his initial expatiation on the peculiarities of Bill Gates' circumstances, he opines that if only "a million teenagers" had the same early computer access Bill Gates had, we might have many more Microsofts today.)
In a related logical fallacy, he also tends to confuse correlation with causation. (Descendants of rice-paddy farmers in Asia excel at math.) But the fact that A precedes B does not necessarily mean that A causes B; B could have other causes. Gladwell also omits data on other A’s. By illustration, descendents of rice paddy farmers in other countries do not always excel at math. A in other cultures does not lead to B.
Sometimes, he will change the meaning of his terms to enable his theories to be true. An example is his conviction that one element of success is to do “meaningful” work. He defines “meaningful” as work that offers “autonomy, complexity [i.e., it occupies your mind], and a connection between effort and reward.” Garment workers (sewing twelve hours a day or more), he claims, had meaningful work. Rice paddy workers (more long pain-staking days), he argues, had meaningful work. Meaningful work, in other words, is work that ends up producing successful people that can support Gladwell’s theoretical framework.
Last but not least, Gladwell’s theories are applied mainly to white men, but promulgated as universal. When Gladwell discusses the long periods of time in pre-modern Europe with no work to do (as the fields lay fallow or frozen), he certainly wasn’t thinking about women. When he lists all the preconditions for success, he never once mentions racism or gender discrimination. He finally alludes to racism and prejudice in the Epilogue, but only when telling the story of his Jamaican forbears.
Happily, Gladwell’s “Outliers” is also another book: a raconteur's diverting set of anecdotes about some hard-working success stories: Bill Gates, Bill Joy, the Beatles, Canadian hockey players, Asian mathematicians, and the founding lawyers of the firms Skadden, Arps and Wachtell, Lipton. (There aren’t any women or blacks in his litany of successful outliers, but presumably such examples would open a whole can of worms that could eat into his central theory.) Gladwell also talks about outlying events, such as plane crashes – always an interesting subject - and gives background and details of the circumstances surrounding these occurrences.
It is this second aspect of the book that makes it, in the end, engaging. If one approaches the book not as a scientist but as someone who likes to hear stories about “outlying” people and events, this book is a pleasant way to pass the time.
On the one hand, we have an entertaining collection of vignettes about people who were successful, and people who should have been successful but were not.
On the other, we have a book purporting to draw scientific conclusions from a selection
Show More
of sociological data.Let’s turn to each of these in turn, starting with the latter.
When Gladwell tries to be a scientist, he resembles Procrustes more than Frances Bacon. (In Greek mythology, Procrustes was a rather cranky host who either cut up or stretched out his guests to fit his iron bed. Therefore a “procrustean bed” refers to a theory for which data is manipulated in order to fit its premises. Frances Bacon, by contrast, known as “the Father of the Scientific Method,” systematized a way of knowing which fits the theory to the data rather than the other way around.)
Gladwell declares “success is not a random act. It arises out of a predictable and powerful set of circumstances and opportunities.” These circumstances include family background, ethnic heritage, who your parents are, who they know, how much money they have, what year you were born, and even when in the year you were born. He insists "The successful are those who have been given opportunities, and who have had the strength and presence of mind to seize them."
The case studies supplied by Gladwell are not only cherry-picked to support his thesis, but the circumstances of each case study are also put through Gladwell’s conceptual sieve. For example, Gladwell compares the success of the famous genius Robert Oppenheimer to the lack of success of the obscure genius Chris Langan. Both were highly intelligent, but, Gladwell writes, Oppenheimer came from an upper class family with its accompanying advantages; he had more poise; he had more self-confidence; he knew how to interact with people in a positive way in order to get what he wanted. Gladwell gives an example to support his conclusions. The trouble is, Gladwell omits the fact that Oppenheimer’s imperious (and gratuitous) treatment of Lewis Strauss (Chairman of the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission) in the 1950’s is what led to his downfall: specifically, a hearing before the Security Board on charges of espionage, revocation of his security clearance, the loss of his job, and basically his removal from the American political process for the remainder of his life.
In another example, Gladwell turns to the children of hard-working New York Jewish immigrant garment workers. He claims that these children (born in a certain set of years to fathers born in a certain set of years) were most likely to be successful lawyers. What about all the similarly-situated children of children who did not become successful lawyers, or even successful? There were hundreds in New York at the beginning of the Twentieth Century. We never hear about counterfactual cases that could refute the theory. Moreover, when Gladwell runs out of demographic or ethnographic or socioeconomic reasons why a particular person made it and others did not, he drops down a level of analysis to the personal. In the end, Bill Gates was Bill Gates. Bill Joy (co-founder of Sun Microsystems) was Bill Joy. The Beatles were The Beatles, after all.
Gladwell’s leaps between levels of analysis are a part of his effort to conform the data to the theory. Another method he uses is a form of circular reasoning in which the premises are assumed to be true because the conclusion is true. (The background of Bill Gates led to his success because Bill Gates was successful. In fact, contrary to his initial expatiation on the peculiarities of Bill Gates' circumstances, he opines that if only "a million teenagers" had the same early computer access Bill Gates had, we might have many more Microsofts today.)
In a related logical fallacy, he also tends to confuse correlation with causation. (Descendants of rice-paddy farmers in Asia excel at math.) But the fact that A precedes B does not necessarily mean that A causes B; B could have other causes. Gladwell also omits data on other A’s. By illustration, descendents of rice paddy farmers in other countries do not always excel at math. A in other cultures does not lead to B.
Sometimes, he will change the meaning of his terms to enable his theories to be true. An example is his conviction that one element of success is to do “meaningful” work. He defines “meaningful” as work that offers “autonomy, complexity [i.e., it occupies your mind], and a connection between effort and reward.” Garment workers (sewing twelve hours a day or more), he claims, had meaningful work. Rice paddy workers (more long pain-staking days), he argues, had meaningful work. Meaningful work, in other words, is work that ends up producing successful people that can support Gladwell’s theoretical framework.
Last but not least, Gladwell’s theories are applied mainly to white men, but promulgated as universal. When Gladwell discusses the long periods of time in pre-modern Europe with no work to do (as the fields lay fallow or frozen), he certainly wasn’t thinking about women. When he lists all the preconditions for success, he never once mentions racism or gender discrimination. He finally alludes to racism and prejudice in the Epilogue, but only when telling the story of his Jamaican forbears.
Happily, Gladwell’s “Outliers” is also another book: a raconteur's diverting set of anecdotes about some hard-working success stories: Bill Gates, Bill Joy, the Beatles, Canadian hockey players, Asian mathematicians, and the founding lawyers of the firms Skadden, Arps and Wachtell, Lipton. (There aren’t any women or blacks in his litany of successful outliers, but presumably such examples would open a whole can of worms that could eat into his central theory.) Gladwell also talks about outlying events, such as plane crashes – always an interesting subject - and gives background and details of the circumstances surrounding these occurrences.
It is this second aspect of the book that makes it, in the end, engaging. If one approaches the book not as a scientist but as someone who likes to hear stories about “outlying” people and events, this book is a pleasant way to pass the time.
Show Less
LibraryThing member dmcolon
I've always been wary of Malcolm Gladwell. I guess I found his instant pop-success with The Tipping Point and Blink a bit off-putting -- he was too trendy for me. But I saw him at the NAIS conference last winter and really liked his presentation. So I was actually looking forward to reading
The premise of the book is that successful people are far from the self-made people we often suppose them to be. In fact, successful people are the product of very specific and favorable circumstances. Bill Gates, for instance, went to a middle school in the 1960s that had a computer. Sure, he had talent, persistence and all that, but without the computer, where would he be?
In some ways, this is all common sense (like The Tipping Point). But the forcefulness of his argument and the importance of his message take this book further than it might otherwise go. What's important about all this is that Gladwell argues that success is not just the American self-made myth that we've all come to swallow, but success is, in fact, more complex. How many people, he wonders, have been denied success because while they were talented, they did not have the opportunities people like Bill Gates had. In that sense, he goes a long way towards making a rather social-democratic argument in favor of true equality of opportunity (at least as I see it).
Show More
Outliers. The premise of the book is that successful people are far from the self-made people we often suppose them to be. In fact, successful people are the product of very specific and favorable circumstances. Bill Gates, for instance, went to a middle school in the 1960s that had a computer. Sure, he had talent, persistence and all that, but without the computer, where would he be?
In some ways, this is all common sense (like The Tipping Point). But the forcefulness of his argument and the importance of his message take this book further than it might otherwise go. What's important about all this is that Gladwell argues that success is not just the American self-made myth that we've all come to swallow, but success is, in fact, more complex. How many people, he wonders, have been denied success because while they were talented, they did not have the opportunities people like Bill Gates had. In that sense, he goes a long way towards making a rather social-democratic argument in favor of true equality of opportunity (at least as I see it).
Show Less
LibraryThing member ashergabbay
In Outliers, Malcolm Gladwell purports to explore the root causes for success: what is it that makes people successful. Not just ordinary people, but outliers, those who are so accomplished that they lie outside normal experience. His basic claim is that the characteristics and personality of the
Here are a couple of examples:
Forty percent of successful Canadian hockey players were born in January, February or March. Reason: the cut-off date for selecting players to the children teams is January 1st, so the older the child the more likely he is to be fitter and stronger than his classmates and be selected to the hockey team.
Successful corporate lawyers in New York will have a similar profile: born in the mid-1930s to Jewish immigrant garment workers. Reason: they went to underpopulated public schools, received inexpensive college education and were barred from mainstream law firms, leading them to specialise in takeover disputes which later became all the rage in corporate America.
By far the most interesting story in the book is the chapter about the relationship between national culture and plane crashes. Gladwell analyses the example of Korean Air, who had a terrible crash record in the 1990s. Reason: the deferential, hierarchical culture of Koreans prevented first officers from challenging the captain's decisions in the cockpit even when these decisions were tragically wrong. (No chance of that happening in an EL AL cockpit, I guess). The same is true, apparently, also in Colombian culture.
Outliers is a very entertaining book, and Gladwell is a gifted writer. But as with his previous books - The Tipping Point and Blink - I was left with a feeling that this is more of a collection of anecdotes rather than a rigorously researched study. It is almost impossible not to be captivated by Gladwell's narrative, but after the initial "wow" effect, one finds several holes in his "theory of success". If Korean Air planes crashed because of Korean culture, why does Asiana (the 2nd airline in Korea) have a good safety record? And if working in the rice paddies shaped the champions of mathematics and science among Asian immigrants, why did the same not happen to West African immigrants, who also grow rice for a living?
It seems at times that Gladwell shot the arrow then painted the target. He had a theory and then looked for examples that support this theory. Not to mention the fact that if you believe Gladwell, then it really doesn't matter how smart you are and how hard you work. If you were born in the wrong generation or to the wrong parents, your chances of becoming exceptionally successful are very small. That is a very discouraging thought, especially in the prevalent American culture, so my guess is not many will like this book.
Show More
individual are not the main explanation for their success. Rather, it is their environment which is the determining factor: when they were born, what culture and values they grew up with and how their family and community shaped them.Here are a couple of examples:
Forty percent of successful Canadian hockey players were born in January, February or March. Reason: the cut-off date for selecting players to the children teams is January 1st, so the older the child the more likely he is to be fitter and stronger than his classmates and be selected to the hockey team.
Successful corporate lawyers in New York will have a similar profile: born in the mid-1930s to Jewish immigrant garment workers. Reason: they went to underpopulated public schools, received inexpensive college education and were barred from mainstream law firms, leading them to specialise in takeover disputes which later became all the rage in corporate America.
By far the most interesting story in the book is the chapter about the relationship between national culture and plane crashes. Gladwell analyses the example of Korean Air, who had a terrible crash record in the 1990s. Reason: the deferential, hierarchical culture of Koreans prevented first officers from challenging the captain's decisions in the cockpit even when these decisions were tragically wrong. (No chance of that happening in an EL AL cockpit, I guess). The same is true, apparently, also in Colombian culture.
Outliers is a very entertaining book, and Gladwell is a gifted writer. But as with his previous books - The Tipping Point and Blink - I was left with a feeling that this is more of a collection of anecdotes rather than a rigorously researched study. It is almost impossible not to be captivated by Gladwell's narrative, but after the initial "wow" effect, one finds several holes in his "theory of success". If Korean Air planes crashed because of Korean culture, why does Asiana (the 2nd airline in Korea) have a good safety record? And if working in the rice paddies shaped the champions of mathematics and science among Asian immigrants, why did the same not happen to West African immigrants, who also grow rice for a living?
It seems at times that Gladwell shot the arrow then painted the target. He had a theory and then looked for examples that support this theory. Not to mention the fact that if you believe Gladwell, then it really doesn't matter how smart you are and how hard you work. If you were born in the wrong generation or to the wrong parents, your chances of becoming exceptionally successful are very small. That is a very discouraging thought, especially in the prevalent American culture, so my guess is not many will like this book.
Show Less
LibraryThing member KevinJoseph
Everyone is interested in the recipe for success. So it's no wonder that the public is so enthralled by a book claiming that anyone with an IQ of 120 can become a nobel prize winner or industry titan as long as he is born at the right time and place and is willing to devote 10,000 hours of practice
Gladwell selects some interesting anecdotes to support his thesis, including the Bill Gates story and the similar background of many founding partners in New York law firms, but some of his anecdotal evidence (like the relationship between ancestors working in rice paddies and success in mathematics) seems stretched beyond the plausible, falling prey to the very confirmation bias that he cautions against. Still, this book's ringing endorsement of the value of hard work and persistence is a much-needed clarion call for a country like ours, whose citizens often have an unrealistic sense of entitlement without the requisite sacrifice and hard work.
Show More
to refine his skills. Genius, it seems, is vastly overated, as evidenced by the inability of the world's smartest man to succeed in a material sense. Gladwell selects some interesting anecdotes to support his thesis, including the Bill Gates story and the similar background of many founding partners in New York law firms, but some of his anecdotal evidence (like the relationship between ancestors working in rice paddies and success in mathematics) seems stretched beyond the plausible, falling prey to the very confirmation bias that he cautions against. Still, this book's ringing endorsement of the value of hard work and persistence is a much-needed clarion call for a country like ours, whose citizens often have an unrealistic sense of entitlement without the requisite sacrifice and hard work.
Show Less
LibraryThing member subbobmail
Malcolm Gladwell is a good reporter who fills his books with interesting facts. Alas, he has often connected those facts with grand theories that seem either obvious or specious (or both). The Tipping Point tried to elevate marketing to a form of chemistry, while Blink could be accused of
Outliers examines the characteristics common to people who achieve great success. He's out to temper, if not discard entirely, the American notion that success is purely the result of innate ability. Bill Gates is 100,000x richer than you because he was born 100,000x smarter that you, et cetera. Gladwell does not discount BillG's brains, but he also notes how lucky Gates was to grow up 1) rich, 2) well-educated, and 3) in a place where he was one of very few young people on earth with easy access to a programmable computer. Gladwell is big on the idea that a person must put in 10,000 hours at a task before mastering it. Gates had a chance hit that plateau early; no wonder he got rich.
It matters, Gladwell says, where you grow up and under what circumstances, and how hard you work. He's got data and plenty of stories to make this assertion stick. Why are the Chinese so good at math? Why were Korean pilots so liable to crash? Why are professional hockey players so often born in the first four months of the year? Gladwell finds out, and explains.
Maybe Gladwell's theory is just as specious and obvious this time out, but I find it agreeable. To believe that only talent matters is to live in a Calvinist world where nothing you do can matter. Who wants to believe that...besides the people who have already succeeded?
Show More
suggesting that gut-instinct is superior to careful reasoning...just the lesson we should draw from the last seven years of American history, don't you think? But I'm happy to report that with Outliers, Gladwell has delivered a book that is both compelling from chapter to chapter AND thematically pleasant to swallow.Outliers examines the characteristics common to people who achieve great success. He's out to temper, if not discard entirely, the American notion that success is purely the result of innate ability. Bill Gates is 100,000x richer than you because he was born 100,000x smarter that you, et cetera. Gladwell does not discount BillG's brains, but he also notes how lucky Gates was to grow up 1) rich, 2) well-educated, and 3) in a place where he was one of very few young people on earth with easy access to a programmable computer. Gladwell is big on the idea that a person must put in 10,000 hours at a task before mastering it. Gates had a chance hit that plateau early; no wonder he got rich.
It matters, Gladwell says, where you grow up and under what circumstances, and how hard you work. He's got data and plenty of stories to make this assertion stick. Why are the Chinese so good at math? Why were Korean pilots so liable to crash? Why are professional hockey players so often born in the first four months of the year? Gladwell finds out, and explains.
Maybe Gladwell's theory is just as specious and obvious this time out, but I find it agreeable. To believe that only talent matters is to live in a Calvinist world where nothing you do can matter. Who wants to believe that...besides the people who have already succeeded?
Show Less
LibraryThing member tgraettinger
Though I've been a fan of Gladwell's work, I can't give this book a high rating. It's premise is that success is not the product of genius and hard work, but rather more (or at least as much) a product of history, circumstance, culture, and demographics. Much as I wanted to like the book, I often
As another example, Gladwell makes a case for the importance of the year you were born to become a railroad tycoon or a software mogul. To me, this was obvious, and underlies the importance of the zeitgeist. Of course, all or most of the key people in railroads, or steel, or computers are going to be contemporaries - they were the right age when the "revolution" came along. And the examples of the law firm and Sun Microsystems were especially poor, I thought, for making his point. Yes, they were all born at the same time, but the reason they joined together to form a law firm or computer company was because they were friends who had all gone to the same school at the same time.
I won't go on to cite all of the issues I had with the book. But let me summarize what I feel to be my main point: Being an outlier depends on a combination of numerous factors (opportunity, history, hard work, legacy, etc.). The presence of "success" outliers is almost a mathematical certainty. That is, we know that they are likely to exist, and we know generally where to look for them (demographically, geographically, etc.). We just don't know who exactly they will be. Seems to me, the way to give oneself the best chance to be in that group is to work hard, work smart, look for opportunities, and try to make the best of them. And that's certainly nothing new.
Show More
found myself saying "duh" or "of course" or "that's a nice anecdote, but...". To be more specific, for instance, the author claims there is a "10,000 hour Rule" which he claims sets the bar for greatness. I would argue that 10,000 hours is 8 hours a day for 250 days per year for 5 years - what a typical worker puts in for a five year period, or approximately what it takes to get an undergraduate degree or a PhD in a specialized field. I do think this amount of "practice" or experience is estimable, but many people achieve it - and not all of them become Steve Jobs, Bill Joy, or the Beatles. Further, a few famous examples like this cannot prove the 10,000 hour rule, but a handful of examples could disprove it. I wager there are many more than a handful of exceptions.As another example, Gladwell makes a case for the importance of the year you were born to become a railroad tycoon or a software mogul. To me, this was obvious, and underlies the importance of the zeitgeist. Of course, all or most of the key people in railroads, or steel, or computers are going to be contemporaries - they were the right age when the "revolution" came along. And the examples of the law firm and Sun Microsystems were especially poor, I thought, for making his point. Yes, they were all born at the same time, but the reason they joined together to form a law firm or computer company was because they were friends who had all gone to the same school at the same time.
I won't go on to cite all of the issues I had with the book. But let me summarize what I feel to be my main point: Being an outlier depends on a combination of numerous factors (opportunity, history, hard work, legacy, etc.). The presence of "success" outliers is almost a mathematical certainty. That is, we know that they are likely to exist, and we know generally where to look for them (demographically, geographically, etc.). We just don't know who exactly they will be. Seems to me, the way to give oneself the best chance to be in that group is to work hard, work smart, look for opportunities, and try to make the best of them. And that's certainly nothing new.
Show Less
LibraryThing member motjebben
As usual, Malcolm Gladwell gets the reader to think in a new way. In this case his hypothesis is that very successful people are not self-made, but instead present in fortuitous circumstances that contribute significantly to their success.
This does not mean that these people are not brilliant or
Gladwell's additional conjecture is that we might be able to help more (perhaps all) of us become successful by cultivating the same sort of nurturing circumstances that give rise to these very successful people. This is the optimistic message underlying the book. He does not, however, explore how this might be done.
Gladwell's books are always an enjoyable read and I eagerly await each new book!
This does not mean that these people are not brilliant or
Show More
astute; Gladwell points out that these characteristics allow one to take advantage of the circumstances. Hence, Gladwell does address, albeit briefly, Daniel Goleman's note that "Gladwell says nothing about individual differences within those groups or cohorts – why only some in that fortunate group go on to great success." (See Daniel Goleman's review of Outlier's on his website under the title "Success: The Rest of the Story". Goleman gives a positive review of Outliers, but adds additional comments.)Gladwell's additional conjecture is that we might be able to help more (perhaps all) of us become successful by cultivating the same sort of nurturing circumstances that give rise to these very successful people. This is the optimistic message underlying the book. He does not, however, explore how this might be done.
Gladwell's books are always an enjoyable read and I eagerly await each new book!
Show Less
LibraryThing member The_Hibernator
I admit: I only made it halfway through this book. To the point where Gladwell says something like "as we've learned from the first half of this book, outliers always have external resources which get them where they are today."
Ok. This is not a very insightful point. Obviously most outliers had
He eschews statistics, only provides examples which support his point, and twists evidence to make it sound more convincing.
As a scientist, this book made me groan and gag. Yuck!!!!
Ok. This is not a very insightful point. Obviously most outliers had
Show More
resources to get them where they are today. However, he's trying to say that ALL outliers had external resources which got them where they are. In other words, NOBODY can succeed with a "rags to riches" story. That's much too strong of a statement.He eschews statistics, only provides examples which support his point, and twists evidence to make it sound more convincing.
As a scientist, this book made me groan and gag. Yuck!!!!
Show Less
LibraryThing member Tatoosh
Full disclosure: I am a retired research psychologist and my views are influenced by my professional training and decades of experience.
Malcolm Gladwell generally does a skillful job of reviewing the psychological and sociological research literature addressing important contemporary issues and
Gladwell’s writing is generally organized around compelling stories that illustrate significant psychological findings. In that respect, this and other Gladwell volumes are like a contemporary political speech. His generalizations from illustrative examples to general principles are designed to convince non-discriminating readers. Overstatement and oversimplification are rampant; balance and critical restraint are absent.
Gladwell’s thesis in “Outliers” is that individual differences that appear to be due to innate qualities are in fact the result of luck and differences in opportunity. He relies primarily on ex-post facto analyses.
The lives of successful individuals such as Robert Oppenheimer, Bill Gates, and other noteworthy individuals are examined and advantages or opportunities they enjoyed are identified. His own family is included as a further example. The relative advantages enjoyed by these individuals and are cited as the reasons for their accomplishments.
A balanced, carefully qualified treatment of the research evidence bearing on Gladwell’s thesis would result in a far less interesting a book but a much more nuanced conclusion. Gladwell made no effort to identify a sample of individuals who enjoyed the same advantages or opportunities and determine the range of outcomes. He ignores the countless, readily available examples, that run counter to his conclusion. Instead, the carefully selected stories seem designed to simplify a complex issue and convince readers of the validity of his thesis.
That is not to dismiss Gladwell’s work out of hand. The issue he raises is important and the evidence he cites should be carefully considered in the context of the more expansive body of evidence available. Although some readers may be inclined to take his conclusions at face value, thoughtful readers will recognize his conclusions and the supporting evidence as a meaningful starting point for a much more detailed, balanced analysis
Malcolm Gladwell generally does a skillful job of reviewing the psychological and sociological research literature addressing important contemporary issues and
Show More
preparing a readable summary for lay audiences. “Outliers” is a good example of his work. My reading preferences tend toward mysteries but after reading the early portions of “Outliers” I set aside the popular mystery I was reading to give priority to this book.Gladwell’s writing is generally organized around compelling stories that illustrate significant psychological findings. In that respect, this and other Gladwell volumes are like a contemporary political speech. His generalizations from illustrative examples to general principles are designed to convince non-discriminating readers. Overstatement and oversimplification are rampant; balance and critical restraint are absent.
Gladwell’s thesis in “Outliers” is that individual differences that appear to be due to innate qualities are in fact the result of luck and differences in opportunity. He relies primarily on ex-post facto analyses.
The lives of successful individuals such as Robert Oppenheimer, Bill Gates, and other noteworthy individuals are examined and advantages or opportunities they enjoyed are identified. His own family is included as a further example. The relative advantages enjoyed by these individuals and are cited as the reasons for their accomplishments.
A balanced, carefully qualified treatment of the research evidence bearing on Gladwell’s thesis would result in a far less interesting a book but a much more nuanced conclusion. Gladwell made no effort to identify a sample of individuals who enjoyed the same advantages or opportunities and determine the range of outcomes. He ignores the countless, readily available examples, that run counter to his conclusion. Instead, the carefully selected stories seem designed to simplify a complex issue and convince readers of the validity of his thesis.
That is not to dismiss Gladwell’s work out of hand. The issue he raises is important and the evidence he cites should be carefully considered in the context of the more expansive body of evidence available. Although some readers may be inclined to take his conclusions at face value, thoughtful readers will recognize his conclusions and the supporting evidence as a meaningful starting point for a much more detailed, balanced analysis
Show Less
LibraryThing member TheCrow2
Malcolm Gladwell asks an interesting question in this book. Namely, what 'makes' an outlier, an exceptional person. His answer is that except for their obvious talent all of them are the 'product' of their age, family and cultural background. Which is naturally true but I had a feeling many times
Show More
reading the book, that he is explaining the most obvious and self-evident thing for a whole chapter. Show Less
LibraryThing member kd9
This is small volume with some very big ideas. Like most of Gladwell's writing, he takes an idea and runs with it. Unfortunately some of his ideas are wrong, which means that other of his ideas are suspect.
The one idea in his book that I know from personal experience is wrong has to do with
The most fascinating concept of the book is the idea that it takes 10,000 hours to become proficient in any complex skill. Certainly there are many people who have put in the ten years of constant practice and application to reach this magic milestone, but there are other examples in music, art, and acting where excellence shines in people with much less of a long term commitment. Will they be even better after 10,000 hours? Probably, but they didn't need 10,000 hours to get to excellence. Is a person doing the same simple job an expert merely by doing the job for 10,000 hours? Maybe not. That 10,00 hours is predicated on a conscious and dedicated exploration of a complex task. I doubt that it works with with an unexamined skill.
But given these caveats, Gladwell is thought provoking. His insights about being born at the right time or in the right culture are valid. And his emphasis on being bright enough and advancing through years of hard work has been proven. It remains to be seen if anyone can take these insights and apply it to real world problems.
The one idea in his book that I know from personal experience is wrong has to do with
Show More
success in Silicon Valley/computers. He is absolutely taken with the idea that all of the success in Silicon Valley came from people who were born in 1954 or 1955. Certainly he can name many of them, but the founder of the biggest Silicon Valley software company was born in 1944, Larry Ellison of Oracle Corporation. The most fascinating concept of the book is the idea that it takes 10,000 hours to become proficient in any complex skill. Certainly there are many people who have put in the ten years of constant practice and application to reach this magic milestone, but there are other examples in music, art, and acting where excellence shines in people with much less of a long term commitment. Will they be even better after 10,000 hours? Probably, but they didn't need 10,000 hours to get to excellence. Is a person doing the same simple job an expert merely by doing the job for 10,000 hours? Maybe not. That 10,00 hours is predicated on a conscious and dedicated exploration of a complex task. I doubt that it works with with an unexamined skill.
But given these caveats, Gladwell is thought provoking. His insights about being born at the right time or in the right culture are valid. And his emphasis on being bright enough and advancing through years of hard work has been proven. It remains to be seen if anyone can take these insights and apply it to real world problems.
Show Less
LibraryThing member byroade
I couldn't wait for this book at work once I'd started reading the copy reserved for a patron on my breaks. (Yes, we sample our wares.) I had an errand at Target, so I looked there and there it was--ta-da! I consumed it quickly.
I've read The Tipping Point, Blink, and now this one of course, and
In this book, Gladwell, explores the elements that make up success--and failure, too. One compelling idea he presents is the rule of "10,000 hours" which basically shows that 10,000 hours of cumulative practice doing any activity will bring one to expert or even "genius" level, guaranteed. (I was explaining this to someone today and E, in whom I am trying to cultivate skepticism, chimed in, "But what if they make mistakes for 10,000 hours, Mama?". For which I have no answer, and I wonder if Gladwell does either?) He provides some key examples--Mozart, the Beatles, Bill Gates, and Bill Joy--people who appear as geniuses to us, but shows how each of these people had unique access to the opportunity to practice their craft for 10,000 hours or so and then were positioned to take advantage of that experience. Both Joy and Gates as young men had unprecedented access to teletype computer interfaces just as punch card coding was going the way of the dodo. This left both of them positioned to write revolutionary code at key times in the personal computer revolution. And if you look at other innovators, like Steve Jobs, they also had unusual access to early personal computer technology and resources, at exactly the right age.
It makes sense when you think about the training doctors go through, too. The brutal schedules they rack up in residency force them to acquire skillsets as fast as possible. Think about all those hours fledgling attorneys have to put in as associates. All those flight hours you have to rack up as a pilot. And the same is true for artists, musicians, and actors, too. It also makes sense of the traditional apprentice-journeyman-master training program in the trades. It's not just about maturity, it's also about sheer experience.
I thought about it and realized that I've had well over 10,000 hours of customer service work--starting at the age of 16. This is why I can pretty much do it in my sleep now and I have very little memory of individual incidents anymore. You have to be a uniquely rude or obnoxious library user to get plugged into my memory bank these days. I also had unique access to child care scenarios, between being a significantly older sibling, a neighborhood babysitter, a daycare worker, and substitute parent for two teenagers well before I had my own children. It's not that I'm a perfect parent or that my kids don't surprise me, it's just that I'd built up a lot of experience before I had my kids and there isn't too much that throws me for a loop or stresses me out about being a parent. I knew what I signed up for when I got on that ship. So, my question for you is, "What have you done for 10,000 hours?"
He also looks at true geniuses, people with stratospheric IQs. One in particular and a cohort of others who were tracked over decades. Actual geniuses seem predisposed to success to our eyes, and in many ways they are, but they do need access to resources and that critical practice time. If they're caught early, they get that through enrichment classes and opportunities, and careful nurturing, so that indeed, you have kids graduating from college in their mid-teens. But in addition to those resources and supportive structures, they also need to develop soft skills, the skills that allow them to get what they need. Gladwell outlines the life of one guy, a guy with an IQ of 200, who never finished college despite being profoundly engaged with physics. Why? Because of a deprived and dysfunctional childhood, he couldn't deal with the barriers thrown in his path--the sorts of things that shouldn't have held anyone back, much less a genius. He has the wrong attitude and he doesn't understand how to negotiate systems or how they function, how to finesse. And he's not autistic.
But these are only the most outstanding tidbits from this box of bon-bons. Gladwell has important things to say and to point out to his readers, and thanks to his entertaining style, you're sure to enjoy the ride. In the end, this is Gladwell's most personal book and probably his best to date.
I've read The Tipping Point, Blink, and now this one of course, and
Show More
enjoyed every single one. His writing is intelligent and easy to understand. As I wrote in a brief review on FB, if you have any critical thinking skills, when you read Malcolm Gladwell's books, you know that there's got be much, much more to the story, but he's so fluid and assured that you just get carried away... He presents new ways of looking at the world and new information and challenges to assumptions that his books are boxes full on intellectual bon-bons. Just a treat for the distracted brain.In this book, Gladwell, explores the elements that make up success--and failure, too. One compelling idea he presents is the rule of "10,000 hours" which basically shows that 10,000 hours of cumulative practice doing any activity will bring one to expert or even "genius" level, guaranteed. (I was explaining this to someone today and E, in whom I am trying to cultivate skepticism, chimed in, "But what if they make mistakes for 10,000 hours, Mama?". For which I have no answer, and I wonder if Gladwell does either?) He provides some key examples--Mozart, the Beatles, Bill Gates, and Bill Joy--people who appear as geniuses to us, but shows how each of these people had unique access to the opportunity to practice their craft for 10,000 hours or so and then were positioned to take advantage of that experience. Both Joy and Gates as young men had unprecedented access to teletype computer interfaces just as punch card coding was going the way of the dodo. This left both of them positioned to write revolutionary code at key times in the personal computer revolution. And if you look at other innovators, like Steve Jobs, they also had unusual access to early personal computer technology and resources, at exactly the right age.
It makes sense when you think about the training doctors go through, too. The brutal schedules they rack up in residency force them to acquire skillsets as fast as possible. Think about all those hours fledgling attorneys have to put in as associates. All those flight hours you have to rack up as a pilot. And the same is true for artists, musicians, and actors, too. It also makes sense of the traditional apprentice-journeyman-master training program in the trades. It's not just about maturity, it's also about sheer experience.
I thought about it and realized that I've had well over 10,000 hours of customer service work--starting at the age of 16. This is why I can pretty much do it in my sleep now and I have very little memory of individual incidents anymore. You have to be a uniquely rude or obnoxious library user to get plugged into my memory bank these days. I also had unique access to child care scenarios, between being a significantly older sibling, a neighborhood babysitter, a daycare worker, and substitute parent for two teenagers well before I had my own children. It's not that I'm a perfect parent or that my kids don't surprise me, it's just that I'd built up a lot of experience before I had my kids and there isn't too much that throws me for a loop or stresses me out about being a parent. I knew what I signed up for when I got on that ship. So, my question for you is, "What have you done for 10,000 hours?"
He also looks at true geniuses, people with stratospheric IQs. One in particular and a cohort of others who were tracked over decades. Actual geniuses seem predisposed to success to our eyes, and in many ways they are, but they do need access to resources and that critical practice time. If they're caught early, they get that through enrichment classes and opportunities, and careful nurturing, so that indeed, you have kids graduating from college in their mid-teens. But in addition to those resources and supportive structures, they also need to develop soft skills, the skills that allow them to get what they need. Gladwell outlines the life of one guy, a guy with an IQ of 200, who never finished college despite being profoundly engaged with physics. Why? Because of a deprived and dysfunctional childhood, he couldn't deal with the barriers thrown in his path--the sorts of things that shouldn't have held anyone back, much less a genius. He has the wrong attitude and he doesn't understand how to negotiate systems or how they function, how to finesse. And he's not autistic.
But these are only the most outstanding tidbits from this box of bon-bons. Gladwell has important things to say and to point out to his readers, and thanks to his entertaining style, you're sure to enjoy the ride. In the end, this is Gladwell's most personal book and probably his best to date.
Show Less
LibraryThing member tintinintibet
Gladwell's books always have one or two key, insightful stories -- that ought to be told in a much more pithy way and left unlinked to a variety of other, tenuously relevant essays. Sadly I Gladwell repetitive in his latest book (again), and unconvincing in his grander themes (also again). There
Show More
are a lot of social science authors out there that try to summarize interesting work being done in the field -- I find Gladwell's attempts in this vein (i.e. to dramatize the work of others) a bit tiresome for a whole book. He can write magazine articles, and there I don't find his expository, faux-lyric writing irritating -- but give me his books and I'm distracted by his prose. In summary, yes, there are a few interesting pieces of information -- but they are the ideas of others. His contribution? The linkages (my verdict: unconvincing) and the prose (my verdict: annoying in big dosages). Show Less
LibraryThing member scottjpearson
Being an outlier means being a non-conformist. One hears this kind of advice all the time. So many people buy into conventions that they forget the reasons behind the conventions.
Gladwell seeks to critique the standard story of an outlier’s success. As normally told, outliers start doing there
“No man [or woman] is an island,” wrote John Donne in the sixteenth century. Such is still true today, Gladwell admonishes us. We are the products of how our environments shape us. In order to succeed, we do not need to be different; instead, we need to grasp to make the most of the opportunities presented to us. He illustrates his point through telling interesting stories about topics as varied as hockey players’ birthdays, computer technology, slavery in Jamaica, and the interaction of ethnicity and plane crashes. These stories show what he means by the fact that we are all dependent on social supports to some degree. Success is not just a choice of the will; it is the product of a society.
Some, particularly in America, might be defensive about their own individualism while reading Malcolm’s writing. We must be clear that Malcolm is not saying that individual choices and personality play no role. What he is saying is that society plays a role, too. We must pay attention to one’s culture and to plain luck as well.
This book is an interesting read for leaders. It is not a sociological study and does not contain a depth of academic rigor. It seeks to inspire mainly by story and anecdote. It’s a good reminder to get our minds off of ourselves and our personalities and onto things that really help out the people next door, in the next cubicle, or in the next suburb or town.
Gladwell seeks to critique the standard story of an outlier’s success. As normally told, outliers start doing there
Show More
own thing; they work really hard and persevere; then in the end, they end up successful while all the world is envious of them; their story is one of individualism. Gladwell seeks to bring to light that while this may be true, there are social structures at work helping the person along.“No man [or woman] is an island,” wrote John Donne in the sixteenth century. Such is still true today, Gladwell admonishes us. We are the products of how our environments shape us. In order to succeed, we do not need to be different; instead, we need to grasp to make the most of the opportunities presented to us. He illustrates his point through telling interesting stories about topics as varied as hockey players’ birthdays, computer technology, slavery in Jamaica, and the interaction of ethnicity and plane crashes. These stories show what he means by the fact that we are all dependent on social supports to some degree. Success is not just a choice of the will; it is the product of a society.
Some, particularly in America, might be defensive about their own individualism while reading Malcolm’s writing. We must be clear that Malcolm is not saying that individual choices and personality play no role. What he is saying is that society plays a role, too. We must pay attention to one’s culture and to plain luck as well.
This book is an interesting read for leaders. It is not a sociological study and does not contain a depth of academic rigor. It seeks to inspire mainly by story and anecdote. It’s a good reminder to get our minds off of ourselves and our personalities and onto things that really help out the people next door, in the next cubicle, or in the next suburb or town.
Show Less
LibraryThing member Sandydog1
I know he compiles the obvious. I know some of his facts are a bit stretched. But Mr. Gladwell writes very entertaining, fun-to-read books. In this his 3rd work, you will "learn" why Asians are good at math, why Hockey players tend to be born around January and why culture/nationality affects the
Show More
safety performance of airline pilots. Show Less
LibraryThing member BHenricksen
If one feature of postmodernism is the suspicion of "grand narratives," [Outliers: The Story of Success] is an interesting example of postmodern research. A grand narrative is one of those stories that a culture tells itself in order to explain itself and perhaps compliment itself. In the West, the
Gladwell argues that success is usually a matter of many external factors falling into place. Only to a lesser extent is it a matter of indiviual intelligence and initiative. Most interesting, to my mind, is the way he demonstrates this by way of statistical analysis.
In statistics, an outlier is a grouping that does not fit the norm. Why, for instance, are a disproportionate number of Canada's best hockey players born in the first three months of the year? This statisitc is an outlier--it deviates from the even distribution of birthdays we'd expect. Gladwell's analysis goes into how children's hockey in Canada is organized according to age in such a way as to make a child born ten months before another appear to be the better player. These children then get promoted to the better teams with the better coaches and the tougher schedules. By the time they are teenagers, they have moved far beyond those who were unfortunate enough to be born in October, November, or December. Their success is enabled as an unintended result of an arbitrary organizational system.
In another chapter, Galdwell demonstrates why people born in periods of low birth rate have greater chances for success than those born before or after the trough.
Gladwell also uses the familiar method of the case study. For insatnce, Bill Gates is certainly a smart, hard working person. But he was also lucky enough to attend the only middle school in the country that had computers in 1965. And then, without planning it, he happened to attend a university with a computer lab that was open 24 hours a day and didn't care if he came in at 3 a.m., when the place was empty, to develop his skills without supervision.
Certainly intelligence matters, but only to a degree. Anyone with an IQ of 100 can succeed in high school, and anyone with a 110 can graduate from college. 120 is enough to get a Ph.D. anywhere, and we have Noble Prize winners with 130 IQs. Will the 150 IQ do better in graduate school than the 120? Not necessarily. If one meets the threshold intelligence requirement, greater success will probably depend on the kind of external factors (such as demographics) Gladwell's study is devoted to.
Gladwell's arguments are important because there is a moral behind them. If we stop telling the story of the self-made person and begin to appreciate the extent to which success is the result of social arrangements and bum luck, we can take steps as a society to eliminate the biases built into children's sports, school systems, and so on. Gladwell gives us tools for creating a more just society.
Show More
story of individual initiative and of the self-made man (and more recenlty woman) is one of those narratives--the boy who rises from the log cabin all on his own to become President, and so on.Gladwell argues that success is usually a matter of many external factors falling into place. Only to a lesser extent is it a matter of indiviual intelligence and initiative. Most interesting, to my mind, is the way he demonstrates this by way of statistical analysis.
In statistics, an outlier is a grouping that does not fit the norm. Why, for instance, are a disproportionate number of Canada's best hockey players born in the first three months of the year? This statisitc is an outlier--it deviates from the even distribution of birthdays we'd expect. Gladwell's analysis goes into how children's hockey in Canada is organized according to age in such a way as to make a child born ten months before another appear to be the better player. These children then get promoted to the better teams with the better coaches and the tougher schedules. By the time they are teenagers, they have moved far beyond those who were unfortunate enough to be born in October, November, or December. Their success is enabled as an unintended result of an arbitrary organizational system.
In another chapter, Galdwell demonstrates why people born in periods of low birth rate have greater chances for success than those born before or after the trough.
Gladwell also uses the familiar method of the case study. For insatnce, Bill Gates is certainly a smart, hard working person. But he was also lucky enough to attend the only middle school in the country that had computers in 1965. And then, without planning it, he happened to attend a university with a computer lab that was open 24 hours a day and didn't care if he came in at 3 a.m., when the place was empty, to develop his skills without supervision.
Certainly intelligence matters, but only to a degree. Anyone with an IQ of 100 can succeed in high school, and anyone with a 110 can graduate from college. 120 is enough to get a Ph.D. anywhere, and we have Noble Prize winners with 130 IQs. Will the 150 IQ do better in graduate school than the 120? Not necessarily. If one meets the threshold intelligence requirement, greater success will probably depend on the kind of external factors (such as demographics) Gladwell's study is devoted to.
Gladwell's arguments are important because there is a moral behind them. If we stop telling the story of the self-made person and begin to appreciate the extent to which success is the result of social arrangements and bum luck, we can take steps as a society to eliminate the biases built into children's sports, school systems, and so on. Gladwell gives us tools for creating a more just society.
Show Less
LibraryThing member danntheemann
Why were the Beetles such a good band? What gave Bill Gates the ability to become such a successful businessman? Is there a trend between plane pilots and plane crashes? All of these questions ask why some people’s skills, accomplishments and level of success go beyond that of most others; why
Something that caught my attention about this book was the fact that I had already, ironically, pondered of many of the points Gladwell raises in the book, obviously without the same examples to prove it. One part of the theme was that date of birth and year of birth affects the ability of players in sports. Gladwell’s example is that 90% of Canada’s professional hockey players are born in the January-February-March-April span, and this gives them a full extra year (cut off for little league teams is December) of practice and games than the other players. I have found this theme applying to me personally. I swim on a summer swim team, and my birthday is just after (literally just a few weeks) the cut off for the age groups. This gives me a very large competitive advantage as last year, for example, I turned 16 half way through the season and therefore was competing as a 15 year old in the 13-14 division. This same advantage gives me the ability to stay longer on the team and compete as a 19 year old in the 15-18 division. Gladwell also offers an example of how this theme relates to business success; that almost ½ of the world’s 100 richest people were born between 1950 and 1965, and this puts them right around 20 or 30 years old and just out of college when the age of computers and technology began to boom.
As I read about Gladwell’s “10,000 hour rule,” I thought to myself, “This is very clever!” Honestly, it makes 100% sense. The rule says that in order to achieve expert level knowledge in any particular field, one must first complete at least 10,000 hours of practice. For example, Gladwell researched a study involving violin students in a school who had been grouped into 3 groups of players, A, B, and C. The C group was for those students who put forth minimal effort and who were likely to drop the instrument after a few years. The B group was full of the students who worked hard and practiced much, often an hour a day, but who were still only likely to become low level symphony players or instructors. And then there was the A group. These were truly extraordinary player, or outliers, who practiced for almost 10,000 hours over the course of their high-school years, and who all went on to become high-level, successful professional soloist or symphony musicians.
One major reason I can relate to this book is because of the connection that I made between my personal career choice, professional race car driving, and the reasons described by author Malcolm Gladwell as to why most airplane crashes occur. Mr. Gladwell’s first explanation for why airplane crashes occur was not because of the popular citizen belief of pilot drug or alcohol abuse during flight, or pilots falling asleep behind the wheel, or joystick. Instead, it was because of over-exhaustion, lack of concentration due to distractions, or even just miscommunications between the pilots of the aircraft. This is greatly applicable to the career choice I am strongly considering, because in professional race car driving, concentration and communication are two of the most critical skills needed in order to become successful. Communication between the crew and driver means that plans can be made about strategy, and more seriously, that the crew can warn the driver if something on the car is broken or in dangerous condition through the use of telemetry.
Gladwell’s style of writing reflects an intelligence and curiosity towards how human beings function, what makes us individuals and why we have varying degrees of success. He uses plenty of examples to support ideas and themes presented in the book which makes the book realistic and believable. The strong connection I felt between Gladwell’s description of the pilots and plane crashes and my career goals in auto racing kept me intrigued and wanting to read on. I haven’t encountered many books in which the theme can relate so strongly to sports car racing. This book would be given 8.5 out of 10 on my grading scale, and I highly recommend it.
Show More
some people are Outliers. These are all questions posed by Malcolm Gladwell, author of Outliers. These questions are answered in Gladwell’s explanation that revolves around a few select reasons, such as a person’s date and year of birth, the region where the “Outlier” lived and grew up, the “10,000 hour rule”, and the parental raising tactics. I could strongly relate to the theme of this book as it addressed why some people are more successful than others. This idea has always intrigued me.Something that caught my attention about this book was the fact that I had already, ironically, pondered of many of the points Gladwell raises in the book, obviously without the same examples to prove it. One part of the theme was that date of birth and year of birth affects the ability of players in sports. Gladwell’s example is that 90% of Canada’s professional hockey players are born in the January-February-March-April span, and this gives them a full extra year (cut off for little league teams is December) of practice and games than the other players. I have found this theme applying to me personally. I swim on a summer swim team, and my birthday is just after (literally just a few weeks) the cut off for the age groups. This gives me a very large competitive advantage as last year, for example, I turned 16 half way through the season and therefore was competing as a 15 year old in the 13-14 division. This same advantage gives me the ability to stay longer on the team and compete as a 19 year old in the 15-18 division. Gladwell also offers an example of how this theme relates to business success; that almost ½ of the world’s 100 richest people were born between 1950 and 1965, and this puts them right around 20 or 30 years old and just out of college when the age of computers and technology began to boom.
As I read about Gladwell’s “10,000 hour rule,” I thought to myself, “This is very clever!” Honestly, it makes 100% sense. The rule says that in order to achieve expert level knowledge in any particular field, one must first complete at least 10,000 hours of practice. For example, Gladwell researched a study involving violin students in a school who had been grouped into 3 groups of players, A, B, and C. The C group was for those students who put forth minimal effort and who were likely to drop the instrument after a few years. The B group was full of the students who worked hard and practiced much, often an hour a day, but who were still only likely to become low level symphony players or instructors. And then there was the A group. These were truly extraordinary player, or outliers, who practiced for almost 10,000 hours over the course of their high-school years, and who all went on to become high-level, successful professional soloist or symphony musicians.
One major reason I can relate to this book is because of the connection that I made between my personal career choice, professional race car driving, and the reasons described by author Malcolm Gladwell as to why most airplane crashes occur. Mr. Gladwell’s first explanation for why airplane crashes occur was not because of the popular citizen belief of pilot drug or alcohol abuse during flight, or pilots falling asleep behind the wheel, or joystick. Instead, it was because of over-exhaustion, lack of concentration due to distractions, or even just miscommunications between the pilots of the aircraft. This is greatly applicable to the career choice I am strongly considering, because in professional race car driving, concentration and communication are two of the most critical skills needed in order to become successful. Communication between the crew and driver means that plans can be made about strategy, and more seriously, that the crew can warn the driver if something on the car is broken or in dangerous condition through the use of telemetry.
Gladwell’s style of writing reflects an intelligence and curiosity towards how human beings function, what makes us individuals and why we have varying degrees of success. He uses plenty of examples to support ideas and themes presented in the book which makes the book realistic and believable. The strong connection I felt between Gladwell’s description of the pilots and plane crashes and my career goals in auto racing kept me intrigued and wanting to read on. I haven’t encountered many books in which the theme can relate so strongly to sports car racing. This book would be given 8.5 out of 10 on my grading scale, and I highly recommend it.
Show Less
LibraryThing member beetle_b
This book contains tidbits on why some people are outliers in their respective disciplines and why others aren't. The major point being that "self-made (wo)men" don't exist. Essentially, the concept of innate talent may exist, but it is by no means sufficient. One needs to hone that talent
I like the point of the book, and agree with it. However, his logic is often specious, and his presentation can be irritating. Below are just some reflections:
Chapter 2
===========
He really, really, really overstates the point. Bill Joy is a genius, I won't dispute that. However, he makes him out to be more than he is. And no, his contribution to Java was not particularly significant. And getting a perfect score in the mathematics section of the SAT is an achievement, but not that special. Lots of people do it every year, and few of them become outliers. Reading that whole section really made me wonder if he's exaggerated the other characters and events in the book.
Also, I think he puts too much emphasis on the number 10,000 - making it almost magical. The main point is that it takes a lot of hours (several thousand).
Finally, he ends the chapter by looking at the birth year of the tech industry geniuses. It made sense in Chapter 1, but he reversed the ordering! In Chapter 1, he took the players in the hockey league and looked at their dates of birth. In Chapter 2, he should have compiled a list of all the tech industry giants and looked at their birth dates. Instead, he selected a few and said "Look, all born around the same time!" The former approach is conclusive: His isn't.
Chapter 3
=========
He tries to imply that Chris Langan is a genius, but from a first reading, he really didn't make much of a case for that claim - beyond a really high IQ and a perfect SAT score. However, later in the chapter he more or less dismisses the value of really high IQs and SAT scores - pointing out that beyond a threshold, there is little correlation in performance. So remind me again: Why is Chris Langan a genius (or why imply he would be one if he had a different upbringing)? His continual references to Chris throughout the chapter just became irritating.
He points out that beyond a certain IQ, there is little correlation between IQ and success. He implies the same with SAT scores. He then goes on to criticize Harvard's admission policy to the point of calling it dishonest, but never really seemed to make the case that Harvard relies heavily on SAT scores. I don't know the inner workings of Harvard's admission policy, but I suspect they care about much more than simply SAT scores.
And on the side, he makes a big fuss about Microsoft asking questions like "Why are manholes round?" It's one of the worst questions, and betrays more about the interviewer asking it - for the simple reason that many manholes are not round - they are rectangular. I'm guessing that in the US they are mostly round, but elsewhere a rectangular one is not rare. Someone saw the dearth of nonround manholes and decided that there was a special reason - the reason being that round manhole covers (with some thickness) cannot fall into the hole.
Let me assure you: It's trivial to design manholes and manhole covers such that square manhole covers cannot fall into the manhole. Take a few minutes and think about it - I'd be surprised if you fail to design one.
Putting in stuff like that suggests some sort of worship that Gladwell has for these kinds of tests. It's irritating that on the one hand he is (rightly) devaluing perfect SAT scores and ridiculously high IQ's, but then on the other he is giving too much value to similarly silly things.
Another case of potentially faulty logic is the brick/blanket test he describes. Students are asked to write down as many uses as they can think of for bricks and blankets. He shows what one student who doesn't have a brilliant IQ writes, and compares it to one who does (both IQ's, though, are above the threshold). The former's writing is far more creative.
Umm...OK. What's the point? Is Gladwell really going to take just two sample points and pretend there's a general trend? Here's a quote:
"Now which of these two students do you think is better suited to do the kind of brilliant, imaginative work that wins Nobel Prizes?"
Let me answer: "I don't know!" How can I take a tiny sample and draw a conclusion?! Does Gladwell know about Paul Dirac? Brilliant physicist/mathematician. Won the Nobel Prize. And about as unimaginative as you get. I can think of countless reasons why the one with the higher IQ wrote a bland answer - few have to do with abilities!
Finally, not that I necessarily believe this, but a reader is justified in remarking: "There is no correlation with performance beyond a certain threshold in IQ. Could it not be possible that other factors in this world begin to interfere, and if one could control them, then that threshold value would be higher?"
Something Gladwell simply did not address.
Rest of book
============
Chapter 7 was, OTOH, really well written. Somewhat of a misfit in the book. It's not really about outliers, but I suppose the point is that the culture matters in your performance.
Chapters 8 and 9 reminded me of a friend's quote regarding the book along the lines "Some of the material in the book is blindingly obvious!" Yes, if you put in more effort, you'll get brighter students. Is anyone supposed to be surprised by this?
I guess his point that may interest people is that the difference between good performers in school and poor ones is what happens in the summer vacations. People from a richer background manage to keep their kids stimulated in ways that benefit their school performance, whereas those that don't or can't actively keep their kids engaged will result in poorer performing kids. Again, not spectacularly insightful.
One disappointment was that he didn't address how something is taught - he focuses mostly on time spent in school.
Don't get me wrong - the book and its points are good, in my opinion. However, I feel he needed to get more people to review the book before publishing it. Much of my criticism would likely have been caught and addressed at that stage. And while I've lampooned some of his writing as "obvious", the reality is that I often meet people in all classes of society who are under the illusions the book tries to dispel.
Show More
considerably, and frankly, one needs to be lucky - be in the right place at the right time. The author examines several outliers and points to all the external forces that enabled him to become one.I like the point of the book, and agree with it. However, his logic is often specious, and his presentation can be irritating. Below are just some reflections:
Chapter 2
===========
He really, really, really overstates the point. Bill Joy is a genius, I won't dispute that. However, he makes him out to be more than he is. And no, his contribution to Java was not particularly significant. And getting a perfect score in the mathematics section of the SAT is an achievement, but not that special. Lots of people do it every year, and few of them become outliers. Reading that whole section really made me wonder if he's exaggerated the other characters and events in the book.
Also, I think he puts too much emphasis on the number 10,000 - making it almost magical. The main point is that it takes a lot of hours (several thousand).
Finally, he ends the chapter by looking at the birth year of the tech industry geniuses. It made sense in Chapter 1, but he reversed the ordering! In Chapter 1, he took the players in the hockey league and looked at their dates of birth. In Chapter 2, he should have compiled a list of all the tech industry giants and looked at their birth dates. Instead, he selected a few and said "Look, all born around the same time!" The former approach is conclusive: His isn't.
Chapter 3
=========
He tries to imply that Chris Langan is a genius, but from a first reading, he really didn't make much of a case for that claim - beyond a really high IQ and a perfect SAT score. However, later in the chapter he more or less dismisses the value of really high IQs and SAT scores - pointing out that beyond a threshold, there is little correlation in performance. So remind me again: Why is Chris Langan a genius (or why imply he would be one if he had a different upbringing)? His continual references to Chris throughout the chapter just became irritating.
He points out that beyond a certain IQ, there is little correlation between IQ and success. He implies the same with SAT scores. He then goes on to criticize Harvard's admission policy to the point of calling it dishonest, but never really seemed to make the case that Harvard relies heavily on SAT scores. I don't know the inner workings of Harvard's admission policy, but I suspect they care about much more than simply SAT scores.
And on the side, he makes a big fuss about Microsoft asking questions like "Why are manholes round?" It's one of the worst questions, and betrays more about the interviewer asking it - for the simple reason that many manholes are not round - they are rectangular. I'm guessing that in the US they are mostly round, but elsewhere a rectangular one is not rare. Someone saw the dearth of nonround manholes and decided that there was a special reason - the reason being that round manhole covers (with some thickness) cannot fall into the hole.
Let me assure you: It's trivial to design manholes and manhole covers such that square manhole covers cannot fall into the manhole. Take a few minutes and think about it - I'd be surprised if you fail to design one.
Putting in stuff like that suggests some sort of worship that Gladwell has for these kinds of tests. It's irritating that on the one hand he is (rightly) devaluing perfect SAT scores and ridiculously high IQ's, but then on the other he is giving too much value to similarly silly things.
Another case of potentially faulty logic is the brick/blanket test he describes. Students are asked to write down as many uses as they can think of for bricks and blankets. He shows what one student who doesn't have a brilliant IQ writes, and compares it to one who does (both IQ's, though, are above the threshold). The former's writing is far more creative.
Umm...OK. What's the point? Is Gladwell really going to take just two sample points and pretend there's a general trend? Here's a quote:
"Now which of these two students do you think is better suited to do the kind of brilliant, imaginative work that wins Nobel Prizes?"
Let me answer: "I don't know!" How can I take a tiny sample and draw a conclusion?! Does Gladwell know about Paul Dirac? Brilliant physicist/mathematician. Won the Nobel Prize. And about as unimaginative as you get. I can think of countless reasons why the one with the higher IQ wrote a bland answer - few have to do with abilities!
Finally, not that I necessarily believe this, but a reader is justified in remarking: "There is no correlation with performance beyond a certain threshold in IQ. Could it not be possible that other factors in this world begin to interfere, and if one could control them, then that threshold value would be higher?"
Something Gladwell simply did not address.
Rest of book
============
Chapter 7 was, OTOH, really well written. Somewhat of a misfit in the book. It's not really about outliers, but I suppose the point is that the culture matters in your performance.
Chapters 8 and 9 reminded me of a friend's quote regarding the book along the lines "Some of the material in the book is blindingly obvious!" Yes, if you put in more effort, you'll get brighter students. Is anyone supposed to be surprised by this?
I guess his point that may interest people is that the difference between good performers in school and poor ones is what happens in the summer vacations. People from a richer background manage to keep their kids stimulated in ways that benefit their school performance, whereas those that don't or can't actively keep their kids engaged will result in poorer performing kids. Again, not spectacularly insightful.
One disappointment was that he didn't address how something is taught - he focuses mostly on time spent in school.
Don't get me wrong - the book and its points are good, in my opinion. However, I feel he needed to get more people to review the book before publishing it. Much of my criticism would likely have been caught and addressed at that stage. And while I've lampooned some of his writing as "obvious", the reality is that I often meet people in all classes of society who are under the illusions the book tries to dispel.
Show Less
LibraryThing member alspray
Outliers is an exploration of the nature-vs-nurture debate whereby Malcolm Gladwell dares to pull the cover off some widely-held beliefs, revealing a truth as much surprising as it is troubling. He ruminates on his own career path while exploring the factors that do - and do not - determine the
Characteristically, the book is a series of colorful and diverse stories which Gladwell uses to illustrate his point; that is, that success is determined much more by one's context than any individual initiative or innate endowments. His magic is in his ability to weave together such disparate research to create a compelling story that will both shock and delight.
Outliers is a pleasure to read and likely to change the way you look at the world.
Show More
likelihood of any particular individual's "success".Characteristically, the book is a series of colorful and diverse stories which Gladwell uses to illustrate his point; that is, that success is determined much more by one's context than any individual initiative or innate endowments. His magic is in his ability to weave together such disparate research to create a compelling story that will both shock and delight.
Outliers is a pleasure to read and likely to change the way you look at the world.
Show Less
LibraryThing member Sandra305
I thoroughly enjoyed Gladwell's thoughts and hypotheses as to what makes for success. He gives us plenty of food for thought as he delves into the opportunities and circumstances that differentiate the extraordinarily successful from the more average achievers, and I found his case studies to be
Show More
fascinating reading. A very provocative book and an enjoyable read! Show Less
LibraryThing member bnbooklady
Americans love stories about the American dream and the individuals who overcome poverty and disadvantage to defy the odds and make a way for themselves. We love to think that anyone can become successful and that we all have the same opportunities and an equal chance of succeeding if we just work
In Outliers: The Story of Success, Gladwell, author of bestsellers The Tipping Point and Blink, turns his creative analytical eye to the way we think about and explain success. He basically says that everything we think is wrong, and he makes a compelling case.
Outliers is a quick, edifying read that I recommend to anyone who enjoys examining social phenomena and looking at the world through a new lens. It would also make a great gift for someone who enjoyed Gladwell’s other work or who enjoys applying math to real-life situations, as in books like Freakonomics.
Read my full review at The Book Lady's Blog.
Show More
hard enough. It makes for great TV, but that’s not the way things really work, at least, according to Malcolm Gladwell.In Outliers: The Story of Success, Gladwell, author of bestsellers The Tipping Point and Blink, turns his creative analytical eye to the way we think about and explain success. He basically says that everything we think is wrong, and he makes a compelling case.
Outliers is a quick, edifying read that I recommend to anyone who enjoys examining social phenomena and looking at the world through a new lens. It would also make a great gift for someone who enjoyed Gladwell’s other work or who enjoys applying math to real-life situations, as in books like Freakonomics.
Read my full review at The Book Lady's Blog.
Show Less
LibraryThing member TCWriter
Gladwell is brilliant at exposing us to alternate (and unusual) perspectives, and in Outliers he tackles successful people -- and the environment that creates them.
The rub with Gladwell's books is that he draws too many conclusions from too little real data; anecdotes and small data pools give way
Gladwell is a perceptive and thought-provoking writer, and while Outliers isn't exactly fit to appear in an academic journal, it is a very entertaining -- and to a new parent -- a very thought-provoking read.
I don't take this stuff that seriously, but I do think it's a fun, engaging read by one of my favorite nonfiction writers.
The rub with Gladwell's books is that he draws too many conclusions from too little real data; anecdotes and small data pools give way
Show More
to storytelling that is engaging as hell -- and interesting to contemplate -- but ultimately not wholly convincing.Gladwell is a perceptive and thought-provoking writer, and while Outliers isn't exactly fit to appear in an academic journal, it is a very entertaining -- and to a new parent -- a very thought-provoking read.
I don't take this stuff that seriously, but I do think it's a fun, engaging read by one of my favorite nonfiction writers.
Show Less
LibraryThing member Whiskey3pa
Excellent read. Provides a lot of grist for the mental mill. Written in an engaging style and moves briskly.
LibraryThing member dellenbaugh
Professional social scientists will likely bemoan the lack of statistical rigor. But that misses the point entirely. Gladwell may be a story-telling popularizer but he does most of us an invaluable service by combing through the research and presenting the fruits in such a compelling fashion. His
Show More
conclusions & arguments are far from airtight, but the journey through his countless fascinating narratives is always worth taking. Show Less
Awards
Audie Award (Finalist — Non-Fiction — 2010)
Publishers Weekly's Best Books of the Year (Nonfiction — 2008)
San Francisco Chronicle Best Book of the Year (Nonfiction — 2008)
Christian Science Monitor Best Book (Nonfiction — 2008)
Pages
309
ISBN
0316017922 / 9780316017923
UPC
791083538640
Lexile
1080L