Comments on: Inside the Outliers

By: Scott Tarca

Scott Tarca — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 11:37:26 +0000

karma – the universal law of cause and effect

for every event that occurs there will follow another event who existence was caused by the first, and this second event will be pleasant or unpleasant depending on whether its cause was skillfull or unskillfull. the effect of karma is primarily determined by intention. intention alone is enough to produce a karmatic effect.

success could by describe as a form of good karma but in truth success is a state of mind.

yours sincerely the smile maker =)

By: Mark Petrofsky

Mark Petrofsky — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 17:11:21 +0000

Once again you refer to Sulloway and you do in one of your books. As a skeptic I suggest you read the book “No Two Alike” on the ‘quality’ of his research and scientific integrity.

I also suggest you read this book for what it offers in a positive sense.

I agree with the comment above that disagrees with you that the Beatles would have gotten their 10,000 hours elsewhere. Please take a little more care in your writing.

Gladwell is at least obvious in that he is making a point, stimulating thought, not writing a scientific treatise of the degree to which luck plays a role in success. His book is a bit sloppy and overblown but it does get one thinking.

As a teacher I was especially taken with the material about the achievement gap and will look into it more deeply.

By: JO

JO — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 08:11:56 +0000

The late Michael Jackson was th embodiement of ‘bodies’. His music legacy & appeal seemed universal from the PI Corrections System to ‘homies’ everywhere. Capitalism and technology have created a force yet to be reckoned. Hence, the state of global affairs. At the individual level the 3 main ingredients seem to be 1) access to knowledge 2) application or trial/error 3) ‘patience’
In a more perfect world, every human being should realize their full potential if so inclined. Many choose to just shadow these ‘outliers’… How sad.

By: Chris Howard

Chris Howard — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 01:13:30 +0000

Hey Vikas, I’m sorry but could you bring that down the abstraction ladder a bit? I think I understand what you’re saying but I’m not sure. Thanks in advance.

Chris

By: Vikas

Vikas — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 17:33:18 +0000

After the fact analysis can invariably establish a reason for the event in an entirely convincing way. We generally try to answer our questions based on the established facts and repeatable empirical evidences. It seems its always a random walk into the future with one of us turning an outlier within the realm of current reality and frame of understanding. We never live in a fairly static time and fixed set of constraints as its ever evolving nature can never explain a new outlier in the making.

By: Chris Howard

Chris Howard — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 16:32:36 +0000

I think the data is pretty clear (at least from the sociological/social psychological perspective(s) ) that has been pointed out in prior posts.
While certain genetic factors are important, they are certainly not destiny.
Education, Socio Economic Status, access to resources, health and the like are all important variables, which political philosophies like to either ignore or prop up, depending on their particular bias.
After all, the “boot strapping” myth is what we’re really discussing here.
The problem (also pointed out earlier) is that it is selective reading of data. More businesses fail than succeed, does that make capitalism a failure? The media, at least in the U.S. would have us believe that “free markets” (what ever that construct means) are “natural” and a cure all.
How many geniuses fail (in the “epic” sense)? How many geniuses never get recognition at all?
The underlying question is better answered via a Social Stratification text than by either Mr. Gladwell or Mr. Sulloway.

By: emma

emma — Sat, 23 May 2009 14:28:25 +0000

If you want genius, consider someone like Einstein, who made his contributions /despite/ the seemingly unhelpful circumstances.

Einstein is an interesting case in point, being outside the mainstream and in a deadend job may actually have helped him think differently – but he still had access to a group of likeminded friends (who totally ignored his clever wife although he “discussed” everything with her before publication)
what i found most interesting about Gladwell’s book is that different networks can be vital but it’s not clear cut- being working class may be a hindrance to politics but a huge advantage for standup comedy for example – I’d never really thought of that before. But Gladwell did miss the obvious thing, which to me is good health, I’ve never met or heard from an entrepreneur who lacked energy, which is largely a case of lucky health.

By: emma

emma — Sat, 23 May 2009 14:12:12 +0000

Shermer’s nicely balanced article reminded me of Virginia Woolfe’s famous essay /lecture Shakespeare’s Sister which is now gloriously free and available online below

http://egophelia.free.fr/2femme/woolfroomsister.htm

As a little girl i always wondered where all the clever women were, and did this mean that boys were just better at everything? What was the point in putting in loads of effort if we’re just… you know.. not as good naturally?
As a budding guitarist its still something i notice, so many successful men looking naturally gifted, noticing that websites assuming i am a guy and put tarty girl pictures next to the chords. Had The Beatles been female how well would they have fared in a strip joint? Would their families beg them not to go? Wish i had found this lecture a few years earlier. Says it all to me.

By: Jeff

Jeff — Mon, 04 May 2009 00:30:30 +0000

Call me politically incorrect, but there is no Bill Gates born in the third world, because they don’t have nutrition and education like we do. People always forget how influential those factors are, (in addition to things like heredity and practice).

Does it really matter why famous people are famous? We all know what we ought to do in order to do our personal best and we all know that the lists of famous people include at least one lucky SOB and exclude at least unknown benefactor.

By: epicurus

epicurus — Sun, 03 May 2009 03:30:44 +0000

Gladwell’s study of success is unscientific without an empirical definition of success as Jurek pointed out. It is not science, it is a philosophical debate. Who is more successful? Bill Gates or Mother Teresa? Alexander the Great or Jesus Christ? Michael Jackson or Michael Jordan? The answers to these are a matter of opinion. If we want to do science, we should define what success is and then compare people who are “playing the same game.” Examples: Bill Gates vs. Steve Jobs, who is more creative? Why is he creative? What made him creative? Einstein vs. Newton, who is more intelligent? Jesus vs. Buddha, who is more spiritual? The answers to these may not be appealing to all people because it is not the “secret to success.” But that is the point, there’s no “secret to success.” There’s only secrets to whatever it is you’re trying to do.