HOME / the book club: New books dissected over e-mail.

Outliers

A Squandered Opportunity?

Posted Thursday, Nov. 13, 2008, at 1:48 PM ET

Click here for participant bios.

Dear Ed,

My reaction to The Tipping Point eight years ago was not quite as mild as you recall. That book, which sought to transform the truism that little causes can have big effects into an all-empowering revelation, irked me. I called Gladwell a "clever idea packager" whose "engaging case histories … cannot conceal the fatuousness of his core conclusions." In fact, my review was so nasty, even for me, that I was determined to give Gladwell's new book every benefit of the doubt.

As you note, Ed, Outliers features the same "combination of storytelling and academic social science" that animated The Tipping Point and Gladwell's second book, Blink, which is a tribute to snap judgment. Like you, I found Outliers entertaining and even fascinating at times. It also advances a much more consequential theme than Gladwell's previous books. Nurture, Gladwell argues, contributes at least as much as nature to our success or lack thereof. Delve into the history of "men and women who do things out of the ordinary," and you will find that their success stems from "hidden advantages and extraordinary opportunities and cultural legacies."

With this insistence on the importance of environmental factors as shapers of our lives, Gladwell is bucking a deplorable recent trend in science. Over the past few decades, fields such as evolutionary psychology and behavioral genetics have tipped the scales toward the nature side of the nature-nurture debate, implying that innate factors largely determine our personalities and talents, and hence our destiny. I call this line of reasoning "gene-whiz science."

One notorious example of gene-whiz science is the 1994 best-seller The Bell Curve, in which Harvard scholars Charles Murray and Richard Herrnstein asserted that blacks are innately less intelligent than whites. James Watson, the Nobel laureate and co-discoverer of the double helix, reiterated this persistent claim a year ago, as did Slate's own William Saletan.

Gladwell has a personal stake in this debate. He concludes his book by telling the tale of his mother, Joyce, a Jamaican descended from African slaves. While attending University College in London, Joyce fell in love with a young mathematician, Graham Gladwell. They soon moved to Canada, where Graham became a math professor and Joyce a writer and therapist. They had three children, including Malcolm.

While acknowledging the ambition and intelligence of his mother and other ancestors, Gladwell repeatedly emphasizes the role that serendipity played in their upward journey. The first lucky break took place in the late 1700s, when a white plantation owner in Jamaica, William Ford, took a fancy to a pretty female slave, "an Igbo tribeswoman from West Africa." Ford bought the woman and made her his mistress, saving her—and, more importantly, her offspring—from a life of brutal servitude. She gave birth to Ford's son, John, who was defined as "colored" rather than black and hence under Jamaican law was free.

John, who became a preacher, was the great-great–great-grandfather of Joyce, Gladwell's mother. She was lucky, too. She received a scholarship to a private school in Jamaica only after another girl who had received two scholarships relinquished one. Without the scholarship, Joyce would probably never have gained admittance to University College, where she met Gladwell's father.

Gladwell's family history engaged and even moved me. But the lessons that he gleans from this and other case histories in his book are oddly anticlimactic, even dispiriting. He concludes that success "is not exceptional or mysterious. It is grounded in a web of advantages and inheritances, some deserved, some not, some earned, some just plain lucky." To be fair, Gladwell offers more substantive analysis of the link between race and achievement elsewhere in his book when he analyzes the mathematical performance of Asian-American children and of inner-city New York kids enrolled in a special school called KIPP. Last December, he provided a sharp refutation of the Bell Curve reasoning in the pages of The New Yorker—why didn't he incorporate that material into the book, too?

Perhaps now that a man of African descent has been elected president, we have truly transcended race. But I still can't help but feel that Outliers represents a squandered opportunity for Gladwell—himself an outlier, an enormously talented and influential writer and the descendant of an African slave—to make a major contribution to our ongoing discourse about nature, nurture, and race.

Ed, maybe my problem with Gladwell is that I just expect too much of him.

A Squandered Opportunity?

Posted Thursday, Nov. 13, 2008, at 1:48 PM ET
Print This ArticlePRINTEmail to a FriendE-MAILShare This ArticleRECOMMEND...Get Slate RSS FeedsRSS
John Horgan is director of the Center for Science Writings at the Stevens Institute of Technology and a correspondent for Bloggingheads.tv. Edward Tenner, a visiting scholar at Princeton and the University of Pennsylvania, is the author of Why Things Bite Back: Technology and the Revenge of Unintended Consequences and Our Own Devices: How Technology Remakes Humanity.
Photograph of marbles on the Slate home page by Getty Creative.
COMMENTS

I've not read Mr. Gladwell's book but, from the reviewer's comments, it sounds like he goes to great lengths to show that diligence and hard work explain success far more than innate ability (if there is such a thing). The fact that he has to explain this shows that we Americans are biased toward attributing success to some vague X-factor that Bill Gates and Larry Ellison have that most of us do not have, which seems defeatist to me. Interestingly, the idea of universal perfectibility--that all have an equal capacity to enhance their moral and intellectual powers--is a very ancient one, having been stated by Confucius in his Analects 2,500 years ago: "All men are basically alike; it is learning and practice that set them apart." It seems like a truism, but it's not even clear that we
Americans even take this to heart.

--justincase

(Find this post here)

Gladwell is a journalist and therefore must always start from the individual case and expand outwards to larger arguments. He doesn't start with the theory and find the matching anecdotes, but rather upon learning from individual examples he starts to see the larger picture.

The argument that others don't match Gladwell's theory for other individuals' success doesn't really hold unless you've looked at the cases for those "exceptions." If Gladwell discovered one situation for a group of computer revolutionaries, were there not possible other fortuitous situations that allowed for the others? Your exceptions might not be exceptions at all but might further prove his argument. Listing them without explaining how they in fact succeeded in the face of opposition doesn't really prove anything.

Complaining that Gladwell should have been more ambitious and tackled the race/intelligence question is again ignoring the way he approaches his pieces. He tells stories that suggest theories, but he doesn't try to prove a theory the way a sociologist would. He doesn't present data, he presents examples that don't prove his argument but force you to consider it. The downside is that you can always try and find counter examples, but again this isn't academia, this is journalism.

--agentcooper

(Find this post here)

(11/18)

What did you think of this article?
Join The Fray: Our Reader Discussion Forum
POST A MESSAGE | READ MESSAGES
TODAY'S PICTURES
TODAY'S CARTOONS
TODAY'S DOONESBURY
TODAY'S VIDEO
The Berlin Wall.4/091109_TP.jpg
Cartoonists' take on guns and shootings.2/091109_TC.jpg
Ins and outs.73/091109_TD.jpg