I am proud to introduce you to a new category on the Blog’ich and a new visual genre: the Ich’sms.
And who to best introduce the Ich’sms to you than my new personal hero, Malcom Gladwell?
On a very (very, very) long travel day yesterday, I read the first half of Mr Gladwell’s new best-seller, Outliers. I must admit: I was tired. It had only taken me two chapters of the Tipping Point to call it quits last time.
I am not sure that the Book deserves much of a review. It would be giving it too much credit. Suffice to say that, in order to prove that success is predictable, Mr Gladwell accumulates a bunch of coincidence and random facts with enough bad faith or sheer stupidity that it almost becomes funny.
I must agree though with Mr Gladwell: if sales of this book can be used as an example for his rule, success is indeed predictable. Since Outliers bears so much resemblance both in its construction and level of depth, with the profound, heartwarming, instant classic, Chicken Soup for the Soul, it just HAD to be a hit…
Below is my response to his first chapter on Hockey Players of a team who won something, some time and who happened to be born in Winter. Those who read Outliers (and I feel sorry for them) will understand.
Enjoy!
Filed under: Art, Ich'sms, satire | Tagged: Chicken Soup for the Soul, Hockey Player Age, Malcolm Gladwell, Outliers, Power Point Art, Stupid Best Sellers
[...] Original post by Romain [...]
You know, for a guy who likens himself to an “out of box” thinker your narrow and egotisitcal view of the book “Outliers” is very surprising. So, how is it you can review a book without reading the entire book? And by the way, what is your theory of success? Whether you like Gladwell or not the idea that success is generated in large part to hard work has been irrefutably repudiated by numerous social science reports. The most important aspect of success…is Chance! Which is the very point that Gladwell is making. Along with the view that to increase your chances of success you can practice and once you reach 10,000 hrs you will have most likely become an expert. This is all backed up by research. Unfortunately, I think folks of your ilk have a certain belief system that limits your capacity for new ideas that don’t fit your paradigm.
Romain,
Thanks for the reply. I stand corrected in the fact that you indeed read most of “Outliers”. Most of your points are well taken, but I still object to your overall propisition that Gladwell is being disingenuous by using examples from well known phenomena to butress his assertions. The fact is can you name me one popular non-fiction book that does not do the same. From “Freakinomics” to “From Good to Great” all popular non fiction books make an assertion then find research to back themselves up. All leadership books use this method. If authors did not use this method then their books would be found on the pages of academic journals. And we both know how interesting those are. (smile)
What I appreciate about Gladwell is that I think he is really curious about some interesting things and can take complicated ideas and make them interesting for the masses. Whenever you make something digestable for the masses you will no doubt lose some of the academic rigor the subject requires. This is a constant criticism of Gladwell and I think in large part an underserved one.
people like his books because he illustrates arcane science by telling interesting stories. Only he is a great writer which makes his books even more entertaining.
By the way, one of the arcane points he brings up in Outliers is the notion of Capitalization Rates. As a management consultant who focuses on diversity the idea of capitalization rates (the theory that different groups have different rates of “capitalizing” on their group potential) is both interesting and potentialy a new and innovative way of moving the traditional divrsity arguement beyond just race, gender,and ethnic discrimination.
Anyway, I think your blog is interesting and I look forward to seeing more posts.
Take care,
b
Below are a couple of my blogs…
http://www.culturalleadership.wordpress.com
http://www.diversity20.wordpress.com
Bruce,
Thank you for your comment.
Let me clarify a bit. In short, what I dislike about Gladwell’s book is not the message, rather than the messenger who in my opinion uses too many shortcuts and one-off examples to make a ‘demonstration’.
Is success partly due to chance? Sure, ‘duh’.
To your point, there have been papers about this, although a paper is not a guarantee of seriousness for me.
But the way Gladwell tries to ‘prove’ it (Oppenheimer vs the other scientist, or saying that if the Beatles had not played in Germany every summer they would not have gone that far…) is in my mind ludicrous and mostly dishonest. Seriously, I can always pick another guy that will contradict whatever you are trying to prove. One data point is not a demonstration. So using a one-off point and then writing ’see?, toldja!’ is in my mind b.s. Mozart’s stuff when he was a kid (prior to this arbitrary 10k hour rule) was crap? Says who? Was Gladwell there to check then?
See, I actualy read more than one chapter.
It was the tipping point I could not go very far on. But I think I read a good half to 2/3 or outliers.
Thanks for your comment though. I like the passion.
Best,
Romain