Who is Malcom Gladwell: And Why do I want to Disagree?
Gladwell puts forth two arguments in The Trouble with Geniuses Parts 1 & 2, first is that without advantages, notably financial (he uses Lareau’s study to emphasize this in Chapter 4 (pgs.101-104)); the second is regardless of measured IQ after a point there is little to no difference in accomplishment based on intelligence in what he terms a “threshold effect”. Admittedly my immediate reaction was, that is just silly. From there I went on to read both chapters with a bias and wondering the extent of his research. Gladwell seems to be speaking to an everyman audience, yet seems to show a certain bias. On the surface he argues success comes with advantage, aided by intelligence, hard
…show more content…
work and a strong familial type support system. Gladwell didn’t just pique my interest in the subject, he made me wonder about the author.
The Craft of Research, Booth, Colomb and Williams (Kindle location 291, 2008) tells us we are assessing our readers and they are assessing us. Is Gladwell really talking to everyman of is he having an internal conversation? Gladwell committed to his ideas or committed to starting a dialog. I had the feeling he wasn’t sure himself.
Gladwell was born into what would seem to be an above average income household, his father was a Professor, his mother a psychotherapist FamousAuthors.org (2012). I found it ironic that Gladwell’s grades were not good enough to get him into graduate school and thought that perhaps that was the inkling of bias I thought peeked out in his analogy of Langon and Oppenheimer, Outlier, (pgs. 96-97
…show more content…
2008) “What? One of the main reasons college professors accept a lower paycheck than they could get in private industry is that university life gives them the freedom to do what they want to do and what they feel is right. Langan has Harvard backwards." Does he really believe Institutions like Harvard don’t have a vast political machine resulting from the millions in endowments it receives annually? Gladwell is insightful, obviously intelligent and skillful at teasing out threads in the social network in which to weave an argument. However, I believe his belief in a “threshold effect” is more about a belief that the American education system is set up to afford advantages to those who already have the benefits of a stable financial and familial background. Gladwell equates success with formal education, desirability of employment and monetary stability.
Gladwell details this argument with analogy and rhetoric, albeit effectively if we don’t did deeper. Gladwell doesn’t hold himself up to be an expert, merely an observer, a chronicler, piecing together observations and presenting his point of few. Gladwell took yarns, analogies, true or false, woven with threads, studies, relevant or not, sewn together with rhetoric* and made a blanket that he spread over the entire subject of intelligence. Gladwell encompassed many ideas under one thought…intelligence doesn’t really matter. He may be right, but not for the reasons he
presented. I do not feel the measure of success is a static or even tangible element. Certainly we all want food and shelter, do we all want love or money? In what manner can we define success? One of the obvious ways presented education, specifically, University ranking. I researched a little on University rankings and found the “Carnegie Classification” is the measure used by most compilers of the ubiquitous “Top” ranking sites. “Carnegie Classification” relies almost entirely on day to day university business, The Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education (2015). Is a person likely to be “successful” with a Harvard education, a UConn education, Charter Oak State College Education? Now success as level of education, is a doctor more successful than a lawyer, a lawyer than a police officer, a police officer than a homemaker? Gladwell uses the Nobel Peace as an example of “achievement”: “Between 1901 and 2014, the Nobel Prizes and the Prize in Economic Sciences were awarded 567 times to 889 people and organizations. With some receiving the Nobel Prize more than once, this makes a total of 860 individuals and 22 organizations.” "All Nobel Prizes" (2014) A pretty short list of “successful” people, Oppenheimer isn’t on the list. Shall we measure wealth as success? “Money is the root of all evil” may be an overstatement, but I don’t think it’s a longshot to say wealth has no guarantee of happiness. As to the “threshold” one study does not make for a compelling argument. Show me more Mr. Gladwell.
“People don't rise from nothing....It is only by asking where they are from that we can unravel the logic behind who succeeds and who doesn't”(Gladwell 18).
I found Gladwell’s first chapter of Outliers entitled “The Matthew Effect” to be both interesting, confusing, and perhaps somewhat lopsided. Based on Matthew 25:2, Gladwell simply explains, “It is those who are successful, in other words, who are most likely to be given to the kinds of special opportunities that lead to further success.” (Gladwell 2008, pg. 30) The Matthew Effect seems to extend special advantages and opportunities to some simply based on their date of birth.
While inherent/innate skills may be beneficial, it is the other stuff that really leads to success. Basically, Gladwell has taken a stereotype, which is defined by Merrimack-Webster as, “a widely held but fixed or oversimplified image or idea of a particular type of person or thing,” and helped perpetuate it, in my opinion. The common stereotype that Asians are good at math is a widespread belief in America. And Gladwell's oversimplification and, in my opinion, brilliant way of correlating factors has just strengthened the stereotype that already exists, whether he meant to or not. So, as much as I admire his ability to tidily wrap up an argument in a way that makes me tend to think, “Wow, that makes complete sense,” Gladwell has unmistakably joined the “I perpetuate stereotypes club” by writing this chapter. The thing is that stereotyping doesn’t always have to hold a negative connotation. I think that people sometimes mix-up what a stereotype is and what an ethnic slurs (ethnophaulisms)
Gladwell and Graff, both agrees that education defines intellectualism. Both authors believe there are two types of educated people: street
In the book, groups of successful people are broken down and Gladwell compares their individual characteristics to see if there are any abnormal trends. He starts with talking about how the chance birthdates of a large number of professiona...
...est high school students in America” (Gladwell 82). It was shocking to learn that all the Nobel Prize in Medicine winners did not all come from the most prestigious schools. Also, in the third chapter I notices some aspects that were highly relatable to me. My life relates to subjects included in chapter three because I am a student. It is interesting and helpful to learn that one does not need the highest IQ to succeed in today’s world. This is how I relate to chapter three. The third chapter in Outlier by Malcolm Gladwell had striking information that stated that IQs do not always determine who will be successful, and I can relate to the information in the chapter because I am student who has thought about my IQ before.
Einstein was not always an extremely successful man and he had difficulties that would have prevented anyone else from succeeding, but eventually, several of his theories led to scientific advancements. One theory earned him a Nobel Prize, in physics one a PhD and another helped in the development of nuclear fission. If a person were only to take a quick glance at his life without a deeper investigation, they would find it difficult to discover the catalyst that led to his success. However, with the tools Gladwell provides his readers it does become obvious what led to Einstein’s life of success. Gladwell argues that a person needs to devote time to practice their craft; he calls this the “10,000-hour rule” (Gladwell 35). They must also have opportunity to succeed, as well as intelligence; they must at least be, smart enough to do so. He also claims that they must have been born at just the right time for success, too early or too late is a failure; he calls this the “Matthew Effect” (Gladwell 15). Gladwell even goes so far as to say that where they are born has a significant impact on their success; this he calls “demographic luck” (Gladwell 129). These tools provided by Gladwell to identify an outlier can explain if Albert Einstein is truly an outlier.
Throughout life people are always seeking something, whether it is finding out ideals, desires, lovers, and perhaps themselves. However, recognizing, fulfilling, and rising above one’s true self are the hardest things in the world because one always seems certain of him or herself and is strongly influenced by his or her surroundings. Hence, taking the time to practice experiences is a way for an individual to precisely know him or herself and actively participate in society. In the essay, “The Power of Context,” Malcolm Gladwell states that the features of one’s current social and physical environment will strongly influence his or her behaviors. Those actions that an individual conduct in response to the situation
In the essay Mike Rose challenges the view that the amount of schooling one has achieved is the degree of intelligence by one should be measured. He describes the generalizations thought about people when it comes to how education relates to intelligence. He details his experiences growing up observing his mother as a waitress in restaurants and how she found fulfillment in the work she did. The way she was able to not only memorize customer orders but to anticipate their emotional needs shows a unique intelligence. He also details his Uncle Joe’s work in an auto manufacturer and how his intelligence saw him through to promotions. From his examples growing up with blue-collar workers, it shaped his opinion of how much grit and intelligence is required of them.
He explains that talent is only a small portion of someone's success, it is how they are raised and what opportunities they are given that define how they fare later on in life. This produces a paradox. One such paradox is Chris Langan, a 64-year-old man living in Princeton, Missouri, who has been described as one of the smartest men to ever live, with an IQ ranging from 190 to 210. Gladwell explains that due to his financial situation and his lack of assertiveness, he never finished college. He never went on to change the world, as one would expect from someone so intelligent. From these situations, a paradox in society is revealed; a brilliant person who could easily have a huge impact on the world ends up doing nothing substantial due to the lack of opportunities and social graces given to him. This paradox can be found everywhere, plenty of men and women whose genius is never harnessed due to lack of
Once again, the growth of intellectual abilities was necessary for our ancestors to survive the harsh conditions of that age. As things became easier, intelligence became less imperative. In early times, someone who wasn’t clever enough to provide for their survival likely died, and through this process only the sharpest of people produced offspring (Kim). However, the idea of humans getting more stupid instead of smarter is very controversial. All the technologies of today’s world were invented by some amazing minds, and the incredibleness of those objects cannot be denied (Pappas). Despite the evidence that human minds are still growing in capacity, the fact still stands true that people are “allowed” to be less intellectually capable and still live quite comfortably. Grand intelligence isn’t necessary. This permits many people to “feed off of” the brilliance of others while still being routine
The evolution of humans is one that allows, and even thrives on constant adaptations. By becoming reactors to the environment humans have been able to survive and eventually thrive. However, these powerful abilities would also bring about some not so obvious implications. In Malcolm Gladwell’s “The Power of Context”, as well as Oliver Sacks’ “The Mind’s Eye” both authors explore the impact of this evolutionary trait. When taken together Gladwell, and Sacks’ essays help to teach that our brains are highly adaptive. Also they both show that reactions are largely out of the individuals control and that reaction influenced by the environment is what prevails. To demonstration how adaptive the brain actually is both authors show that the brain adapts
In Malcolm Gladwell's “The Talent Myth,” he draws attention to the issue of star talent in large and well-respected companies. A major point that he addresses is that intelligence and job performance are not necessarily correlated, if at all. I agree that being “smart” does not mean that you are better than someone else who has a lower IQ in terms of completing a task with efficiency and results. It was interesting to learn that IQ does not encompass common sense, which is an essential part of surviving in life and the real world beyond school. Gladwell provides several examples of companies that promoted employees simply because of their credentials instead of their true abilities. I thought that this was extremely unfair because having
On the ‘nature’ side of the debate is the psychometric approach, considered to be the most dominant in the study of intelligence, which “inspired the most research and attracted the most attention” (Neisser et al. 1996, p. 77). It argues that there is one general (‘g’) factor which accounts for intelligence. In the 1880s, Francis Galton conducted many tests (measuring reaction times to cognitive tasks), (Boundless 2013), in order to scientifically measure intelligence. These tests were linked to the eugenic breeding programme, which aimed to eliminate biologically inferior people from society. Galton believed that as intelligence was inherited, social class or position were significant indicators of intelligence. If an individual was of high social standing, they would be more intelligent than those of a lower position. However he failed to show any consistency across the tests for this hypothesis, weakening his theory that social class correlated with intelligence. Nevertheless, his creation of the intelligence test led many to continue to develop...
... is intelligent and who is not. And this change would exist in how, those who are truly intelligent will know how to apply their knowledge rather than just vomiting out ideas, or memorizing that book the night before the test. With the elimination of guessing being an opportunity for intelligence to be displayed, we will see a rise in the productivity of society, and accurate representation of intelligence for institutions such as colleges to rate students and how they will actually succeed in the college, rather than basing it off of an assumption of correlating GPA with “the goods”. All in all GPA does equate to intelligence, and that with new methods of testing applications and extension of knowledge student’s “brains” will accurately be portrayed. Thus creating for a new breakdown of intelligence that would run on real world brains rather than just book brains.