65 of 71 people found the following review helpful
4.0 out of 5 stars Entertaining Read
I'm a fan of Malcolm Gladwell having read his previous Blink and The Tipping Point. All his books are about interesting topics and are told in a way that keeps the reader engaged. Similarly to the other books the criticism can always be made that he makes about 4-5 valid points and stretches them out to a full book but when the writing is engaging and takes you on a...
Published on 28 Dec. 2008 by NeilC
50 of 55 people found the following review helpful
3.0 out of 5 stars Very pretty. But, can it fight?
Perhaps the main problem with the book is its use of the word 'outliers' to refer to exceptional people, individuals who achieve so much more than others. It should instead refer to the exceptional circumstances that allowed them their meteoric rise to success. These factors - such as year and era of birth, family background, race and place of education - contain the...
Published on 7 Jan. 2011 by Allen Baird
Most Helpful First | Newest First
65 of 71 people found the following review helpful
4.0 out of 5 stars Entertaining Read,
I'm a fan of Malcolm Gladwell having read his previous Blink and The Tipping Point. All his books are about interesting topics and are told in a way that keeps the reader engaged. Similarly to the other books the criticism can always be made that he makes about 4-5 valid points and stretches them out to a full book but when the writing is engaging and takes you on a journey it doesn't really matter.
The book itself takes you through what drives success. Arguing that it's a combination of intelligence (both IQ and emotional intelligence), luck (opportunties and timing), cultural context and hard work (the much-reported 10,000 hours). All this could be argued to be fairly obvious but through the examples and anecdotes Gladwell dispelled many myths at the same time as entertaining.
All-in-all a good read.
50 of 55 people found the following review helpful
3.0 out of 5 stars Very pretty. But, can it fight?,
Perhaps the main problem with the book is its use of the word 'outliers' to refer to exceptional people, individuals who achieve so much more than others. It should instead refer to the exceptional circumstances that allowed them their meteoric rise to success. These factors - such as year and era of birth, family background, race and place of education - contain the quirks of fate that allow the merely talented to achieve the successes that lie so far outside the norm. This is Gladwell's major thesis.
Gladwell's target is the traditional American story of success: rugged individuals, by dint of hard work and raw talent - perspiration and inspiration - achieve those magnificent success levels that elude others. Instead, Gladwell wants to show the place of circumstances and situation in this story. He wants to give success a context beyond that of one man and his willpower. Fair enough.
In order to do this, Gladwell tells some stories of his own. Lots of them, in fact. The book is one, big collection of counter-cultural stories about the nature of specifically American success. By 'counter-cultural' I mean contrary to the 'rugged individual' myth described above. This story-method is Gladwell's greatest strength or weakness, depending of what you're looking for. Me, I wanted to read something fascinating, provocative, and launch-pad like. That's exactly what I got.
Most of Gladwell's detractors find his method of extreme induction - "Here's one case so that means there's a pattern" - infuriating. I find in fun. When I read a Gladwell book, I'm not on the lookout for rigorous sampling methods or objective self-criticism. Let's leave that to university textbooks, can't we? Gladwell does pop journalism with ideas and trends. He's a beginning, a warm-up guy, a threshold-guardian of atypical info. You don't need to take him more seriously than that.
That said, my lingering sense after finishing the book was one of anticlimax. OK, so now we know that as well as talent and effort, success also requires of us a massive amount of good fortune and opportunity. So what exactly can I do about it? Beyond vague pleas for someone - Big government? The education system? - to take this wider context into account, there's not much we as individuals can do about it.
Or maybe there there is. Throughout the book Gladwell does flag up a couple of possibilities. He just doesn't do too much with them, that's all. That's what frustrated me the most with the book.
For instance, Gladwell spends some time taking the IQ industry to task. He points out some examples of people with incredibly high IQ levels who haven't made been successful. So far, so trite. Gladwell sexes up this observation by juicy piece of compare and contrast (chapter 4). In one corner, entre Chris Langan, in IQ terms a genius, but in success terms a flop. In the other corner, there's J Robert Oppenheimer, theoretical physicist and director of the Manhattan Project. The difference? Oppenheimer had charm, excellent communication skills, and 'social knowledge'. And where did this come from? His comfortable, suburban, upper-middle class background.
It's here that I want to scream. My mind is shouting, "Write about emotional intelligence! Tell them that social skills and communication can be learned! Mention Howard Gardner, or at least Daniel Goleman!" But no. Instead, we get one footnote, two sentences, about the work of Robert Sternberg (p. 290). Way to go, Malcolm. Not. Here's a prime chance to sow the seeds of personal development, but instead you pour on the cement of social conditioning and class consciousness. Again, nothing for us to do.
Another example is Gladwell's handling of the 10,000 hour rule (chapter 2), formulated by Dr. K. Anders Ericsson. According to this rule, 10,000 hours is the amount of practise required before a human being can lay claim to mastery or expertise in an activity. Even if you're a genius like Mozart, you still have to pump in those hours. Gladwell illustrates this rule with the Beatles (performing together) and Bill Gates (programming).
Only problem is, he then goes on to describe how a very specific and unique set of circumstances allowed them to notch up those hours, factors that Joe Bloggs public - that's you and me, folks - just couldn't contrive. Still, it made me wonder whether I've chalked up anything near 10,000 hours honing a particular skill. The best I could come up with was reading. Does that count?
Anyway, I give the book three out of five stars for entertainment value, quality of journalism, mental stimulation, and idea-gathering. For my taste, there's a little too much, 'me, me, me' in Outliers; Gladwell needs to untangle his brain from his own hype. But his main problem is that the book is discouraging, leavening us little to do beyond wonder if we were born on the wrong time and place to achieve a level of success that lies outside the mean.
Outliers is a book of pretty analysis, that's for sure. I just don't know what I'm supposed to do with it. And for a book about success, that's a pretty tragic flaw.
29 of 32 people found the following review helpful
4.0 out of 5 stars Enjoy, but don't plan your life on it,
Outlier is a term used in statistics for a data point that stands out from the rest of the sample and this book is about the outliers of success. Near the beginning of the book the author says "... there is something profoundly wrong with the way we make sense of success." There is always more to success than the magical, in-built brilliance of the successful and that is being at the right place, at the right time, having the right background, having the right mix of talents and being prepared to work hard with those talents.
This book is a series of anecdotal articles on success with some interesting insights. It is not a rigorous analysis and it has not found a new Law of Success.
If you are a young little league Canadian hockey player and you are good at the game make sure that your birthday comes just after the cut-off point of the annual selection date. That way you will be one of the oldest in the next year's selection. If you are a talented musician, work very very hard at your craft. If you were a New York lawyer make sure that you graduate when the type of business skills required is changing so that you can get in before the old established firms have time to come to terms with the new world. If you are interested in computer programming be of an age when mainframes make way for time-sharing machines so that you can get direct, un-mediated experience. If you are going to be clever, do not have an IQ off the scale but just a very good one and balance it with a good emotional; and social intelligence.
Halfway through the book the author says: "Can we learn something about why people succeed and how to make people better at what they do by taking cultural legacies seriously?" If you are from the American South shake off the historical shadow of the honour code. If you are a Korean co-pilot abandon your deference to hierarchy and be direct and forthright in your language during a flight emergency. If you are a school kid who is good at maths and science ensure that you come from a culture that values hard work over long school holidays playing sport and just hanging-out.
Enjoy this book as a series of articles on the subject of success. In many ways it is a useful read, giving a broader and more realistic view of the subject but do not use it as a game plan for your life.
Some of the books referenced by the author in this book:
Culture's Consequences Geert Hofstede
Successful Intelligence Robert Sternberg
Unequal Childhoods Annette Lareau
Gates: How Microsoft's Mogul Reinvented an Industry Paul Andrew
Birth and Fortune Richard Easterlin
The Ethnic Myth Stephen Steinberg
The History of Summer Education in American Public Schools Kenneth Gold
Albion's Seed: Four British Folkways in America David Hackett Fischer
468 of 530 people found the following review helpful
2.0 out of 5 stars Outlandish,
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 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.
3 of 3 people found the following review helpful
4.0 out of 5 stars Interesting pop science book - not scientfic, but is interesting,
Verified Purchase(What is this?)
I thought this was a fascinating look into stories of success. What's key to notice is that although Malcolm Gladwell claims, or at least suggests, that he's looking at things scientifically, what he's really doing is telling stories. For instance, he doesn't really pin down what he means by success in the book, which makes the whole thing a bit tricky.
Really interesting though, would recommend it.
22 of 25 people found the following review helpful
1.0 out of 5 stars Series of remarkably unremarkable observations,
Once I've started a book I don't like to stop short of finishing it but this one required real perseverance to get through.
To be fair, the first two chapters contained the vaguely interesting observations that hockey players born just after the January 1 cutoff day fared better, and the '10,000 hour rule'. However, there is nothing of note which isn't contained in the amazon description. He just sort of rams the point home over and over, with painstakingly laborious examples. In fact, I've literally told you everything you need to know about the book. Well, that and the fact the the Beatles spent some time playing all-nighters in Hamburg before they got big.
The rest of the book is filled with massive (though, in fairness, not entirely unjustified) cultural stereotypes (Jews are hard working, East Asians are better at maths etc). He prunes and frames his examples so they tenuously fit his overly neat and simplistic conclusions - ah, so all plane crashes are due to pilots coming from countries with a low 'power distance index' (throughout the book, you will find Gladwell over complicates things by using terms like this for otherwise simple ideas), are they? great. Why don't we just save ourselves the bother and hire Gladwell to run our airline safety programs?
Most of the conclusions which he draws are mind-numbingly boring and obvious from the start of the (unnecessarily long and convoluted) chapters. Right, so you mean that the more you practice, the more likely you are to succeed? I never would have guessed. And poor people living in poverty have to work harder to earn a wage? crazy stuff Malcolm... What's next? Black people have darker skin? Chinese people come from China?
From what I can make out from other reviews, the central theme is that talent alone does not bring success (what, so we actually have to work to achieve things?), but to be honest there is very little coherence between individual chapters.
I just cannot understand this book getting any critical acclaim. Just have a look the synopsis on amazon and spend your time reading something more worthwhile. I'm glad I got this book from the library, because I would be very annoyed if I had actually paid for it. I think Gladwell must have spent 10,000 hours nattering on about some boring old anecdotes, because he's certainly mastered that.
4 of 4 people found the following review helpful
4.0 out of 5 stars Have read the whole book, quite OK.,
The book is composed of short stories, some of them are quite inspring, some are not. But on the whole, I would say this book is worth reading. It does make me think.
56 of 65 people found the following review helpful
2.0 out of 5 stars A collection of interesting essays - but oversold as a book.,
Malcolm Gladwell, I learned from his website, is a writer for the New Yorker. His website has an archive of his New Yorker articles.
I found "Outliers" an interesting read, starting off with the theme that successful people happen to be in the right place, at the right time, with the right talent, the right motivation and the right accumulation of experience already under their belt. From then the book jumps around, each chapter having an interesting theme but without much connection with the other chapters. The last chapter recounts how Malcolm Gladwell's mother, born and raised in Jamaica, eventually came to live in a beautiful house on a hill in the Canadian countryside.
I got the feeling I was reading a succession of "New Yorker" articles, each one interesting but slightly superficial - and with no common theme being built up.
Overall, I was disappointed and felt that the book had been oversold. The back cover says:
"This book will change the way you think about your life. And it will challenge you to make the most of your own potential".
In my view, that is simply overselling the book. It provided a pleasant read, whiling away a couple of evenings, but no more than that.
1 of 1 people found the following review helpful
4.0 out of 5 stars Success for dummies?,
I found this brief - 280 double-spaced pages - and fresh look at what makes success very enjoyable. Perhaps unlike other reviewers, I'm not so widely read in science that I'd know what was left out in coming to some of the unusual conclusions Gladwell does. But... it did make me think about his lateral approaches and not assume that what we are told is true is necessarily all that is true about something. Science assumes that because something passes the "significance test" (i.e. if its 95% likely that two things are in common, then that is REAL and TRUE.) then we disbelieve it at the risk of being dismissed as a dummy, luddite or crank. But conclusions are based on what we (assume we) know at that instant and what we know changes with time and research - remember when the smallest particle was definitely the electron?
Anyway, its a fun read, it looks at some areas of life not often pored over by the non-academic majority, its easy to read and it made me reflect for a while on the nature of what we know, what we dont know and, more importantly, what we dont know we dont know.
1 of 1 people found the following review helpful
3.0 out of 5 stars Stating the Obvious,
Verified Purchase(What is this?)
Had high expectations about this book given its reviews and mention of how it would change one's life and make you feel clever. Unfortunately, none of that happened. "Outliers" should probable be best seen as a collection of anecdotes and observations...some interesting, some bland, many unrelated.
The stated theme of finding out the 'cause of success' doesnt really get fleshed out. What is essentially being paraded is the idea that success is multi-factorial, depends not just on genius/talent but on luck, timing, circumstance, perseverence.Totally radical! This is repeated often and in sometimes monotonous detail.
The bits about the Ice-Hockey Team and Air Safety are the most interesting ones. But again there is no unifying link. The former looks at a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy in sport selection while the latter is simply assessing performance issues among professionals that would find a better place in a book about management or communications. All in all, a bit disjointed.
Most Helpful First | Newest First
Outliers: The Story of Success by Malcolm Gladwell (Hardcover - 18 Nov. 2008)
Used & New from: £15.00