Essay On The Trouble With Geniuses Gladwell

Critical Analysis Essay
After reading “The Trouble with Geniuses” Part 1 and 2 in Outliers, Malcom Gladwell leaves us with some unanswered questions. In both chapters, Gladwell explains how being a genius has more to do with just one’s intellectual value. In Part 1, Gladwell tells a story about Chris Langan and how he ended up on a television quiz show. He also reviews Lewis Terman, who studied those with top IQ test scores by following them into adulthood. In Part 2, Gladwell digs into Chris Langan’s life story along with Robert Openheimer, and ultimately compares the two in terms of success. But, what Gladwell leaves behind are some questions about his purpose for writing “The Trouble with Genesis”, Part 1 and 2, who his audience is and

why, what approaches he takes to address readers, and the argument behind “Geniuses”. All of which will be answered in this paper.
First, I believe Gladwell wrote “The Trouble with Geniuses” to show that one can have talent and not necessarily become successful.

As well as to exemplify that in order to judge one’s success, one has to look at the world around them – their upbringing, culture, community, and personality. Gladwell persuades his readers to believe his by showing the analogy of Chris Langan and Robert Openheimer. Langan had a challenging upbringing and with that didn’t come many chances for opportunity . He also didn’t learn the proper way to win over his audience when he needed to. Openheimer, on the other hand, had a privileged upbringing where his parents gave him ample opportunities and taught him valuable life lessons in order for him to be successful. Fast forward to their later years in life, and one will see that Langan, although he possessed the same intellectual talent as Openheimer, didn’t finish college and ultimately wasn’t successful. Openheimer became famous and “headed the American effort to develop the nuclear bomb during World War II.” (Gladwell

97)
To me, Gladwell’s audience are people college age to adult age.

In order to understand the content and to enjoy his readings I feel one has to either be experiencing what Gladwell is writing about, or be able to reflect back and relate to his readings. Gladwell is able to build empathy into his explanations like someone telling a story about a neighbor or friend. If a person later in life read Outliers they may have too much life experience to buy into his beliefs, and have built their success primarily on talent alone. Just as Gladwell suggests in the first chapter of Outliers, “The Matthew Effect.” Gladwell shows that “success in hockey is based on individual merit – and both of those words are important. Players are judged on their own performance” (17) Furthermore, Gladwell wrote Outliers because he felt his audience was at a point where they weren’t understanding the true meaning of becoming successful. Gladwell answers the question himself, “In the case of Outliers, the book grew out a frustration I found myself having with the way we explain the careers of really successful people.” (Gladwell, Gladwell.com) He also makes his readers feel like they relate personally with his

readings.
Gladwell’s approach to us as readers is to use examples on top of examples, and statistics to drive home his point. I believe that Gladwell like to make his readers feel like they are one of his examples or they could be able to pinpoint someone they know that has experienced success or failure the way Gladwell explains it. Once he has the reader hooked, he then will drive home his points with his own thoughts on as to why these things happen.

The argument behind “geniuses” is that it takes more than talent or intellect to become successful. The New York Times even mentions Gladwell stating,
“It is not the brightest who succeed,” Gladwell writes. “Nor is success simply the sum of the decisions and efforts we make on our own behalf. It is, rather, a gift. Outliers are those who have been given opportunities — and who have had the strength and presence of mind to seize them.” (Leonhardt)
Gladwell uses the view that one’s success is based off of my factors in both Part 1 and Part 2 of Outliers. For instance, Gladwell contextualized Terman by showing in his study all of the participants were at the same IQ level yet they all didn’t success in life and how Terman’s study ultimately fails. In Part 2 specifically, Gladwell pulls his readers in by reviewing the lift story of both Chris Langan and Robert Openheimer. By drawing such stark differences between their life stories, I began to feel empathy and sadness for Langan for his troubled upbringing, and how he had such an amazing talent which was ultimately wasted.

In summary, I concur with Gladwell’s idea. I believe that if a person has opportunities but not talent, the talent only becomes wasted. If a person has talent, but no opportunities present themselves, their talent is wasted. It easy to look at some of the most successful people in the world and to just simply think it was pure talent or luck that got them there. But, when one digs deeper you start to uncover a whole different perspective. Ultimately, Gladwell leaves his readers with a collection of unanswered questions through Part 1 and 2 of the Outliers and one is left to sift through the pieces and to determine if his ideas have stature. I do believe that if Gladwell answered who his audience is and why, what approaches he takes to address readers, and the argument behind “Geniuses” he would have a stronger audience and stronger supporters. In the end, Gladwell says it best himself, “not rock stars, not professional athletes, not software billionaires, and not even geniuses – ever make it alone.” (115)