I have not read any of Gladwell's books, so, to paraphrase Oscar Wilde, I can discuss them without prejudice. :-) But I have read a wide variety of reviews (plus brief extracts), so those will have to do for the purposes of what follows.
First a general point. With books like Gladwell's, especially (though I think always for books presenting general ideas), one can gain much from open-minded examinations of the arguments in the more considered reviews. I know from personal experience how one can get carried away by a book, only to realise one hasn't noticed the weak spots until they are pointed out by a more dispassionate observer. Second, I think Gladwell's own assessment of what he is attempting to do should be noted, as well as what commentators (possibly with some justification) say are the contentions in his books: http://www.gladwell.com/outliers/index.html Question: What do you want people to take away from Outliers? Gladwell: I think this is the way in which Outliers is a lot like Blink and Tipping Point. They are all attempts to make us think about the world a little differently. That's fair enough, though his contentions (if such they be) can still be subjected to critical examination. My sense of Outliers is that, as the Guardian reviewer writes, "the problem with this book, though, is that the end point isn't particularly startling" (for anybody who has thought beyond the surface, that is). http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2008/dec/06/review-outliers-malcolm-gladwel l Here is my take on one item based on Gladwell's own words, in relation to a study of budding violinists at the Berlin Academy of Music: "Their research suggested that once you have enough ability to get into a top music school, the thing that distinguishes one performer from another is how hard he or she works. That's it." http://tinyurl.com/create.php What's lacking here is the obvious point that it is likely that willingness to practise for long hours correlates with natural talent. My point here is not that this is necessarily the case (though I think it highly probable), but that Gladwell doesn't even mention it. (I also think his comments on Mozart in this extract are both misleading and disappointingly superficial, for reasons I'd be happy to give if anyone wants to take me up on this. It seems from his reference that he is uncritically repeating the arguments of someone else here.) Allen Esterson Former lecturer, Science Department Southwark College, London http://www.esterson.org --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([email protected])
