Take some data. it could be any data. Add a bit of correlation, stir in a bit of causality, simmer with coincidence and garnish with a leap of faith – package well with a chatty narrative style -and bingo – you have Outliers – Malcolm Gladwell’s new book, which looks at what makes people successful.
Don’t get me wrong, I enjoyed the book immensely. I finished it in two days. I found it entertaining and his take on the world, as always, is engaging. But, there was nothing new. Nothing that made you look up from the book and say “oh, wow – why didn’t i think of that’ . Nor is there the kind of insight that there was in “Tipping Point”
But, as always, with his books – i did like the construction of each hypothesis and the way he draws together various, diverse, distinct and seemingly antithetical strands – and builds cohesive and plausible argument.
As I said earlier, Gladwell looks at what makes successful people. And, the answer is Hard Work (10k + hours before success), when you were born, Historical conditions, ethnicity – the Chinese work harder because of their history as paddy growers; Language – kids who learn in their more precise mother tongue do better ; and social class. Definitely not rocket science. Nor piercing insight. But, well written, nonetheless.
Would I recommend this book – yes. it is a lesson in non linear thinking. So long as you don’t expect any great insights – its a good book.
Nice write up! I read this book a couple of months ago, and found it to be a good read too, as you said : its worth reading without any expectations!
🙂 i love his narrative style. it’s engaging.
Ha, glad to see someone echoing my sentiments. His books are a nice read but not really path-breaking.
But I gotta admit that he is one of the most powerful speakers. I listened to him speak once, it was quite an inspirational experience.
🙂
tipping point was. it actually gave an insight. especially the bit about how crime was controlled in NY. When i see the police in mumbai & delhi send the middle class to jail for drink driving – i can’t but help think about that :).
I have serious doubts on the 10k hours rule.
I know a guy who has been playing the Carnatic flute as his profession for five years now, and has been learning it since 1991 (makes that eighteen years). He’s quit because he’s not really getting anywhere with it – he claims he doesn’t grasp concepts as fast as others, and that he doesn’t understand the music as well as people who’ve been learning for much lesser time than him. He’s joining a call centre now so that he has some steady income.
I told him of this 10k hour rule, and how if he sticks at it, he’ll get there. We made the most conservative calculation of how much time he must have spent playing the flute and we reached a figure of around 10k hours.
Is he a one-off case? Hmmm. He’s definitely a rare case – spending so much time and energy on something he is not naturally good at. But it shows something, no? That natural ability (or the lack of it) counts for something – even after 10k hours of practice…
hi aandthirtyeights & welcome to this blog
i don’t think that the 10 k rule will work without that spark of genius . the point is that the spark by itself is not enough for success without either the hardwork or the background or the network 🙁
Hi Gargi,
I read Outliers a while back and enjoyed it too.
Maybe what he is saying does not provide a dramatic insight but it is an insight nevertheless. Given his reputation, perhaps we tend to approach his books looking for an epiphany. His work seems to suggest that there isn’t any (which of course is disappointing) and to achieve any degree of success, we will have to put in years of hard work and even then depend on factors that are way beyond our control (background, ethnicity and so on).