How Do You Spell Success?
The third book I read in 2009 was Malcolm Gladwell’s Outliers. I have not read Gladwell’s first book, The Tipping Point, but I was very impressed with Blink. When I saw Outliers on sale and read the information on the dust cover, I snapped it up and brought it home.
Gladwell is a highly engaging writer. His work is well researched and replete with supporting anecdotes as well as a few illustrative charts and graphs. His style is conversational without being casual or breezy. He writes like a lecturer who takes his subject seriously and wants it to be understood.
Here it is important for me not to misrepresent what Gladwell wrote. A cursory skimming of the book might well cause offense, as he purports to explain (among other things of course) why Asians are good at math. His theory makes perfect sense, but without reading it through it might be easy to jump to conclusions about his agenda. In fact, his greater thesis is one that at first glance seems to fly in the face of the myths of genius and ingenuity that we Americans hold so dear.
I found myself wryly thinking as I read that this is exactly the kind of book that Ayn Rand parodied in her writing when lampooning the sorry state of literature. No, almost exactly. The difference is that Gladwell uses logic and research to support his thesis, exactly what Rand claimed her opponents were loathe to do.
Rand espoused conscious and intentional thought, and derided those who rely upon intuition and feeling as «mystics» and «savages». Gladwell by contrast wrote Blink, the book that explained the role of implicit assumption in the mind’s workings and showed that conscious thought is often poorly suited to see the truth without the assistance of the subconscious awareness of the contexts of a question. I doubt that Rand would actually argue against Gladwell; he does not reject reason, but rather supplements intentional reason with passive understanding. On the surface though, it does sound as though they are at odds.
Outliers, similarly, may not really be at odds with those who say hard work and genius are the formula to success, but it might appear to be without reading in depth. Gladwell shows how circumstances outside the individual contribute to success, and how little genius may have to do with it. This is where a reading of this book could lead to the assumption that Gladwell believes that success is possible without hard work and intelligence. Clearly these things are necessary, and Gladwell says so while pointing out the other factors at play.
First his premise (which might truly be offensive to Ms Rand) that beyond a reasonable threshold intelligence does not help to bring a person’s success. A certain level is necessary, but statistically the super-genius is no more likely to be successful than the person who could only be described as «sharp» or «quick-witted». In practical matters, a person must work hard and spend a great deal of time experimenting and developing a deeper understanding of a subject in order to become successful with it.
Second, the environment and accidents of circumstance play great roles in success. Bill Gates was born at the right time and the right place to get where he is today. This is where Rand is rolling over in her grave. Yet it is true — if he had been born a few years earlier or later, he wouldn’t have had access to the time-sharing terminal he logged thousands of hours on starting at eighth grade. It either would not yet have arrived when he reached eighth grade, or he would have already been out of high school and off in college or working.
Not that there wouldn’t be other opportunities for a bright and dedicated young man like Bill Gates in the early seventies, but the same application of time and energy would not have put him so far ahead of the game if he did not have access to the computer system in eighth grade that most colleges wouldn’t see for another five years.
It’s said that brilliance and hard work creates opportunities and I have no doubt that it does. But another thing that brilliance and hard work does is find and expose existing opportunities. If the opportunities aren’t there to begin with, the brilliant thing to do would be to move one’s attention to a field with greater potential rather than simply work harder.
The rugged individualists may not like it, but it’s really common sense. Look at any murder mystery and you’ll see the three things needed: motive, means, and opportunity. We flatter ourselves to say that motive will suffice without means or opportunity. That in itself is humbling for any of us who have achieved some degree of success: yes, we’ve earned it, and yes, we got lucky.