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

Outliers

Nothing Succeeds Like Success

Posted Friday, Nov. 14, 2008, at 2:16 PM ET

Click here for participant bios.

Dear Ed,

Yes, as John McCain often reminded us during the campaign, suffering can be a terrific character builder. Your examples of men who triumphed in spite or because of their disabilities reminded me of Marianne Moore's poem "Nevertheless," which begins: "you've seen a strawberry/ that's had a struggle; yet/ was, where the fragments met, a hedgehog or a star-fish for the multitude of seeds."

It's true that prison, torture, disability, disease, and other misfortunes leave most of us embittered and broken. So we may be inclined to believe that some lucky souls simply have the temperament to overcome trauma and even be inspired by it. Gladwell is quite right to resist this fatalistic conclusion and to look for other, more useful correlates of success than innate traits. But as you remarked in your first post, Ed, some of the lessons that emerge from his case studies end up being just as restrictive as those he's trying to refute.

We learn that in 1968, a "Mothers' Club" at an elite private school in Seattle raised funds for a computer center better than those found in most universities; a student named Bill Gates, whose parents had placed him in the school so he would have these opportunities thus became a master programmer while still in eighth grade. Similarly, high-IQ children tracked for decades by psychologist Lewis Terman were much more likely to succeed if they had affluent, well-educated parents. At the opposite end of the spectrum is poor Christopher Langan. Although blessed with an IQ of 195, he never made much of himself because he grew up in a desperately poor home "dominated by an angry, drunken step-father."

So some people are just born to the right parents in the right place at the right time. Hard work helps, too, Gladwell emphasizes. He notes that achievers as diverse as Gates, lawyer Joe Flom, Mozart, and the Beatles spent at least 10,000 hours honing their skills at an early age. So, um, practice makes perfect? Tell us something we don't know, Malcolm!

Gladwell tries to do just that when he investigates why 70 percent of the Canadians in the National Hockey League were born in the first half of the calendar year. The reason is that youth hockey programs initially accept all boys born in a given year and then select the best players for the best teams. Boys born just after the Jan. 1 cutoff date are older, and hence bigger and stronger, on average, than boys born later in the year. That makes them more likely to be selected for the elite teams, where they get the best coaching and play the most games, compounding their early advantage.

Gladwell calls this phenomenon the "Matthew Effect" after this Biblical passage: "For unto everyone that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance. But from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath." The effect occurs in many other sports around the world—and in schools. Beginning in kindergarten, the oldest children in each grade are more likely to be placed in accelerated-learning programs, again giving them an "accumulative advantage." International studies of fourth graders have shown that the oldest children score as up to 12 percentage points higher than the youngest.

So the smart get smarter, the strong get stronger, and so on. That's life. But we don't have to accept this state of affairs. Gladwell proposes that athletic and academic programs sort children according to time periods shorter than a year. While cumbersome, this system would be much fairer and more efficient at recognizing talent. Schools and sports programs could also delay sorting according to talent until children are older, when age-related effects have decreased.

The "Matthew Effect" identifies a nontrivial and—most important—solvable problem. So does the chapter on the cultural causes for airline accidents. But what Gladwell calls the "Ethnic Theory of Plane Crashes" has little to do with the "Matthew Effect," beyond sharing some vague connection to "success." The case studies in the book seem to have been chosen for their intrinsic interest rather than any coherent, mutually reinforcing perspective.

Outliers is nonetheless destined to become a best-seller in spite of its flaws—and certainly in spite of anything that we or other reviewers say, Ed. Gladwell's track record ensures that the book will be widely publicized by the media, prominently displayed in bookstores, and eagerly embraced by readers. Nothing succeeds like success.

Nothing Succeeds Like Success

Posted Friday, Nov. 14, 2008, at 2:16 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
DOONESBURY FLASHBACK
TODAY'S VIDEO
Window shopping.23/091130_TP.jpg
Cartoonists' take on taxes.41/091130_TC.jpg
Toggle plugs in.13/091130_TD.jpg