Somehow Cheerskep always comes out on top. Everyone is dumber than he is or can't say what they are claiming to say. Skepticism is a noble condition but it easily slips into vanity. And vanity goeth before the fall.
Yet I suspect Cheerskep might be more right than wrong about the Gladwell fellow. After all, what could be more fraught with error or oversight than to guess at what made so and so "great"? What, in fact, is greatness? However it's defined it must include a huge percentage of societal approbation. The psychologist Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi has published a lot on creativity and "greatness" and he insists that such honorific titles are always assigned by others and cannot be defined according to innate attributes or personal "achievement". In other words, no one can be great until society says so and society (in some form, generalized or specialized) sets the terms, not the recipient. High IQ is too hard to define and impossible to use as a guide for practice. (See Gardner's Multiple Intelligences) and "talent" is even more vague. Gladwell's ten thousand hours and the early age head start are measurable, I suppose, but as Cheerskep points out, no rule seems to apply there either. Among the many pieces I've come across in my life regarding genius, greatness, creativity, etc., aside from the convincing argument that it's mostly societal approval, a consensus seems to be that enormous concentration, very clear goals, and perserverance -- even in the face of repeated failure -- are more or less common attributes. Yet there enough exceptions to those attributes in any era to raise serious doubts about their validity. Another less mentioned but common attribute is influence. We tend to say the great people have had great influence in their fields or in some socially approved activities. Nevertheless, all of the efforts to come up with a recipe for greatness or genius or superior creativity are really slightly more than star gazing, a sort of astrology. One thing we might say is that while it's probably impossible to say what makes a person great, it is far more likely to say what makes a person a failure, both personally and in societal terms. But even then we can find many examples of the chap who was a total failure becoming a great success in another era where other standards apply. Even as late as the Renaissance, people tried to figure out what genius was. It was decided that it was a kind of divine quality (neo-Platonism), God given, beyond ordinary human capacity. Thus Michelangelo, for instance was accorded the honor "The Divine Michelangelo" or Dante's Comedia became the "Divine Comedy". (Both societal approbations, of course). Maybe the ancient and medieval kings had the right -- most useful and least questioned -- notion that they ruled by Divine Right (with God's personal approval) or actually were gods. This led to the "Great Chain of Being" where each person had his or her fixed place and role. It became a class thing. Only those of a certain elite class could dare aspire to greatness, let alone genius, or creativity. Becoming an artist, after around 1400, was one way to scoot up the chain and become a member of the right class and thus eligible for greatness. So while some of us may have met all of Gladwell's benchmarks for greatness, none of us can claim the status. It must be given by others, even if from Nature or God. I think Gladwell's notion belongs to the dustbin of phrenology and similar ungreat ideas WC --- On Mon, 12/29/08, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote: > From: [email protected] <[email protected]> > Subject: Malcolm Gladwell > To: [email protected] > Date: Monday, December 29, 2008, 2:46 PM > Malcolm Gladwell writes very winningly, but his thinking is > not nearly as > good as his writing. In "Outliers", Gladwell > purports to tell us what > distinguishes the great accomplishers from all others. His > emphasis is largely on two > factors: good luck, and, beginning at a very early age, > spending "10,000 hours" > of work and study in the field of later achievement. The > necessity to start > very early means that effective parenting is crucial. > > Conjoined with this is his stated position that innate > gifts like talent and > intelligence are insignificant elements in achieving > success. Don't worry, he > is saying, you don't have to be born gifted or very > smart to succeed; and, if > you don't succeed, it's not your fault. You can > blame it on your parents who > did not see to your putting in those 10,000 hours, or you > can blame bad luck. > Gladwell's is a very popular, pandering message. > > Gladwell is already getting a reputation among his critics > for selecting only > the evidence that supports his thesis. It appears that > Gladwell's research > for "Outliers" was this simple: He made a list of > great achievers, and, with > his theory already in mind, he examined their lives. No > surprise -- each > person finally chosen for inclusion in the book reflects > the 10,000-hours and > good-luck thesis, and each had no overwhelming innate gifts > or intelligence. > > He does not name any achievers he researched but left out > of his book. We > have to wonder: did he discover no great achievers who > didn't put in those 10,000 > hours and ten years of apprenticeship, who didn't have > helpful parents, who > didn't enter their fields until their late twenties or > after? > > Moreover, you will look in vain for any evidence that he > made an effort to > uncover people who HAD put in those 10,000 hours but still > never achieved. I > guarantee there are legions of such hard-working > non-achievers. The reason is > that no amount of hours and practice will make a Michael > Jordan or a Pavarotti or > a Steven Spielberg if innate gifts are not also there. > > From the time I was very young, I was struck by how many > would-be artists, > athletes and scholars put in far, far more hours but > couldn't begin to match the > performance of guys who far, far out-performed them. > Granted, intensely > dedicated "failures" live and die in obscurity. > It's hard to find and research > them. But it was Gladwell's duty to hunt for them. > > Discerning what is common to great performers tells us > nothing unless you can > also show that factor is lacking in non-achievers. Gladwell > would need to > reveal "if and only if" factors, or his claims > are merely comforting reading for > the vast audience of average folk who never made it big. > > Gladwell cites some people with high I.Q scores who never > amounted to much. > In doing so he shows no understanding whatever of what a > high IQ score entails. > > > One gets a high IQ score simply by being good at wide range > of cerebral > demands. Be in the 99th percentile in math, logic, verbal > command, spatial > relations, and short term memory, and I guarantee > you'll get a whopping IQ score. But > you can come in above 180 and yet not be of world class or > even national class > in any of those aptitudes. (To be in the 99th percentile in > math means you're > one of 3,000,000 in this country.) From this we can safely > infer that a high > IQ is not SUFFICIENT to cause great accomplishment. > > But Gladwell appears to take the illogical position that > because high > intelligence isn't sufficient, it can't be > necessary -- indeed, it isn't any factor > whatever in greatness. > > The fact is greatness almost always demands not just one > gift but several > gifts. Bill Gates was not solely a brilliant programmer. > Ted Williams was not a > great hitter solely because he had great eyes. Streisand > and Pavarotti did not > have solely world class larynxes; they had supreme musical > insight, the > ability to see "where the music is". > > Most large managerial jobs require high aptitude in a range > of areas, and, > though high IQ alone doesn't guarantee success -- it is > not sufficient -- it is > necessary in such roles. > > Paradoxically, the soothing comfort of Gladwell's > message is diminished by > the hint that if you haven't had the early advantages > of the greats, the game is > up for you by the time you're out of your teens. > > Yes, for most of us it's glum news to hear we may have > been born > under-equipped compared to the greats, but it's > misleading to dismiss both talent and > intelligence as factors in greatness (specifically, he > named 120 as the threshhold > IQ score; anything above that is unnecessary.) Now, either > Gladwell knows > this is misleading, or he doesn't. If he doesn't, > he's too dumb to write about > book about what's needed for greatness. If he DOES know > it, then he's a > charlatan. > > In any case, I am reminded yet again of an old-world saying > I made up: Beware > of the articulate. > > > > **************
