Fireside Reading Trails: Outliers by Malcolm Gladwell

[Connie Weber]

Outliers opens up with a discussion of meritocracy: see how Canadian hockey works, how soccer goes in Europe and South America. Think of the worlds of classical music, ballet, Olympic athletes. Those are all systems that have as their base individual merit, right?

"Players are judged on their own performance, not on anyone else's, and on the basis of their ability, not on some other arbitrary fact.
Or are they?" (page 17)

Gladwell says "...there is something profoundly wrong about the way we make sense of success. "

"What is the question we always ask about the successful? We want to know what they're like--what kind of personalities they have, or how intelligent they are, or what kind of lifestyles they have, or what special talents they might have been born with. And we assume that it is those personal qualities that explain how that individual reached the top."

(page 19) "In Outliers, I want to convince you that these kinds of personal explanations of success don't work. People don't rise from nothing. We do owe something to parentage and patronage. the pepole who stand before kings may look like they did it all by themselves. But in fact they are invariably the beneficiaries of hidden advantages and extraordinary opportunities and cultural legacies that allow them to learn and work hard and make sense of the world in ways others cannot. It makes a difference where and when we grew up. The culture we belong to and the legacies passed down by our forebears shape the patterns of our achievement in ways we cannot begin to imagine. It's not enough to ask what successful people are like, in other words. It is only by asking where they are from that we can unravel the logic behind who succeeds and who doesn't.
Biologists often talk about the "ecology" of an organism: the tallest oak in the forest is the tallest not just because it grew from the hardiest acorn; it is the tallest also because no other trees blocked its sunlight, the soil around it was deep and rich, no rabbit chewed through its bark as a sapling, and no lumberjack cut it down before it matured. We all know that successful people come from hardy seeds, But do we know enough about the sunlight that warmed them, the soil in which they put down the roots, and the rabbits and lumberjacks they were lucky enough to avoid? This is not a book about tall trees. It's a book about forests--and hockey is a good place to start because the explanation for who gets to the top of the hockey world is a lot more interesting and complicated that it looks. In fact, it's downright peculiar."

-----------so that's where this conversation might start. Curious about what he points out about hockey? It's quite fascinating. Not at all the typical view of how one rises up inside of a competitive structure.

If you haven't read the book, I'll leave you guessing, and add in Gladwell's insights from the rest of chapter one shortly.

Meanwhile, questions that might arise: what are your observations about how people get to be "the best"? Even if Gladwell is pointing us away from what successful people are like, do you want to add in some notes about what you see--qualities/practices/ways of being? We don't have to stay strictly inside of Gladwell's framework.

Funny how I got onto this book: I thought it would be like The Black Swan. No! It's not at all like that that. Here we're going to study the aspects of success for people within the curve, the ones three standard deviations from the mean, just way out there in some defined bell curve. Black Swan is about far, far outside the curve, so far out it's not even in our conceptual scheme. But ok, let's look at this now. Any maybe keep the Black Swan in mind, too? Later....

[Nancy Bosch]

Thanks Connie, I'm almost finished with the book. I do have to say it's an easy read. I think some of his observations are interesting, though not original. I do think it is important for all of us to remember that things are not always what they seem. We make assumptions with kids or groups of kids that may not hold true. Let me re-glance at the first chapter--I'll be back.

You ask how people get to be 'the best'--the book points out that there are lots of reasons, many obvious like genes, upbringing, social class, etc. and some are not so obvious like birthdate.

[Nancy Bosch]

Finished the book, really want to discuss Rice Paddies and Math but will stick to the topic at hand--grouping by age. The Barnsleys, first notices that many of the elite Canadian hockey players were born in the first three months of the year. Since the eligibility cut off for establishing the elite teams was January 1, the biggest, strongest players born in January, February and March were almost a year older than those born at the end of the year (duh). After being chosen for the prep teams those 'older' players get better coaching, more ice time, and play 50-60 games to the 20 games the next tier down teams play. It's a self fullfilling prophecy--just by being born when they were they get all the advantages it takes to get better and better. The same effect happens in European soccer but not for sports like American basketball--there are a lot more basketall courts than there are ice rinks! The cut off for most little league baseall teams is July 31. There are more major league players born in August than any other month.

Gladwell goes on to relate this effect to school. He says schools might consider dividing kids into 4 sections by age so the youngest 4th graders would be in one class, the next youngest in one class and so on. He also says that the oldest kids in the grade will always have an advantage and the youngest ones will never catch up. I teach gifted kids and I don't see this happening---we have some students who are the oldest in their grade (usually boys with summer b-days, parents waited to start kindergarten) and some who are youngest in their grade. Yes, there is difference in maturity but maturity is not always based on age. It has to do with parenting, birth order, personality.

Gladwell does say something that makes sense--he said the more mature kids in the class are sometimes percieved as being smarter and may get into the 'high' reading and math groups, etc. Placement based on maturity not ability, same as the hockey players being chosen for size and not skill initially.

These are examples of what psychologists call 'accumulative advantage'. The advantages start out small but better coaches, more ice time, more games, higher reading group, etc all add to the advantage. So by birth date alone some people have more advantages than others. Lets talk about the Beatles and Bill Gates.

[Connie Weber]

Thanks for the posts, Nancy, very good talking with you. I agree that Gladwell comes off as an easy read, and afterwards I wonder what was so original about the book even though I was interested all the way through. He's a good writer, a talkative storyteller, quite engaging.

BTW, Nancy, put up a forum on Rice Paddies and Math, Ok? :-)


Where do you think we should go with talking about the book? I hope some others join in. I don't think this is one that needs a chapter by chapter post; maybe 3 discussions will cover it.

What is the theme of this book, anyhow? Is it that "who one becomes" has a lot of unexpected explanations behind it? That we are all as individuals simply smaller units inside a whole, reflecting aspects of the whole? I do like Gladwell's very lively stories...

Anyone want to share a few of Gladwell's stories?

Thanks, Nancy, for getting us started. I'll go back over my underlines to try and find some discussion topics for the Fireside group, and you, too, ok? (Meanwhile, Rice Paddies and Math--don't forget!)

[Nancy Bosch]

I agree Connie, I'm glad I read it It's given me some things to think about in my own teaching but I don';t think a line by line analysis is necessary. I can probably sum up my puny opinions in a few sentences. I'll do that here and if you think of any thing to add do so or we can be finished. I took the book to school to copy the Rice Paddies chapter for my 6th graders to read. I'm also going to have them read the KIPP school chapter---will either discuss or have a written reflection.

1. It was interesting to hear Bill Gates' history---went to a certain private school where school parents supported the computer club and ought a $4000.00 computer. Through the computer club and parents had access to some mainframe computers. The company with the mainframes let Bill and his cronies work on the computers after hours. This was at the exact time that computers started to time-share. There was a time share facility within walking distance of the Gates' home. Bill had the drive, the intelligence and parental support to allow him to take advantage of this 'alignment of the stars'. He is one of the examples of the 10,000 hours rule--it takes that long to become a 'star' of whatever game you play. (Connie, I'm not repeating this for your benefit--only hoping others might jump in)

The Beatles benefited from this same 'alignment of the stars'---they played the strip clubs in Hamburg which were open all night. The Beatles would play for eight or ten hours straight---they couldn't rely on a few songs they had to play their whole playlist--through this period they got more experience playing than any other band would play in their whole careers.

Along with these two example there were other stories of people who made it or didn't based on a series of circumstances--this alignment of stars.

Tied in some where was a discussion of IQ and how it connects to success and notoriety. Since I teach gifted kids and determination is determined in part by IQ I was interested in what Gladwell had to say about IQ. Of course, I know it isn't a determinator for success. Gladwell reference the famous Terman study---one of the outcomes which surprised Terman was how few Nobel and Pulitzer winners he had in his group of gifted Termites. A third of the participants were 'failures' working in menial jobs making little money---most of the people in the lower third of Terman's study were also from lower class and poor families.

So, what does all this mean to me? It makes me wonder if schools that offer services for gifted kids should be ever vigilant in look for kids who are from lower socio-economic areas and other at risk groups rather than those kids who are generally qualifying for services. Many of those kids will be OK without additional resources.

Does IQ ultimately make a difference to life success? Lots of it depends on one's definition of success. I say no, but it helps give a person skills to make decisions that do affect the path we move on. OK tired--will get to Rice Paddies later, N.

[Nancy Bosch]

Excuse any proofing errors---I got stuck in save mode and was just thankful any of it saved.

[Skip Zilla]

How did Naomi Klein become Naomi Klein?

Take a look at what Wikipedia has to say about the family (educational) culture from which she emerged:

Klein was brought up in a Jewish family with a history of left-wing activism, as was her husband, Avi Lewis. Her paternal grandparents were Marxists who began to turn against the Soviet Union after the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and had abandoned Communism entirely by 1956. Her grandfather, an artist, was fired from Disney for labour organizing. Her father Michael, a physician, was a Vietnam War resister (her parents moved from the US to Canada to avoid the draft) and a member of Physicians for Social Responsibility. Her mother, film-maker Bonnie Sherr Klein, directed and scripted the anti-pornography documentary film, Not a Love Story. Her brother Seth is director of the British Columbia office of the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. Her in-laws are Michele Landsberg and Stephen Lewis, son of David Lewis. (1)

What life work/study would you suspect might be impelled by the cultural opportunity made possible to Naomi Klein by her immediate family? Yep, you're right.

Among her writings, two books: The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism and an earlier No Logo: Taking Aim at Brand Bullies. In addition, her activism worldwide which confronts oppressively undemocratic and unsustainably exploitative socioeconomic behavior of a powerfully few.

Here's a link to Naomi Klein's website. Below is a YouTube video of her discussing The Shock Doctrine:

Naomi Klein is no Chris Langan--the no-account "genius" (loser) whom Malcolm Gladwell contrasts with the outlier Robert Oppenheimer in the Outliers. But does Naomi Klein conveniently fit in Gladwell's all-male club of celebrated/celebrity outliers? Let me explain.

Albert Einstein is quoted as saying, "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." Malcolm Gladwell's Outliers is "simpler" by Einstein's measure than it need be. Nancy's use of the phrase "alignment of the stars" seems an appropriate description of Gladwell's explanation of why extreme "success" happens; in my view, Gladwell seems more an astrologer than astronomer, more mythologist than scientist.

Perhaps inadvertently, Gladwell purveys to parents/educators hungering for confirmation that pushing their children/students through a schooling culture of competitive credential accumulation is what's really best for them. Take advantage of (and ace) training opportunities and hold your own self-promotionally when encountering gatekeepers and you'll get to work in somebody's big house and out ot the field working as a lowly hand. The more time and effort you devote to making yourself useful and to gaining the appreciation of your superiors/clients, the greater you'll see your success (narcissistically) in their mirrors. Where's the personally, uniquely creative dimension in this male-dominated scrum for fame and fortune?

In a world where the 44 richest people (all men) have acquired as much wealth as the poorest 2,500,000,000, do you think that Gladwell's "astrological" account is as sufficiently explanatory about the reality of a variety of less conspicuous and less fanfared forms of real success (on-the-ground?), and even outliers' success itself? It seems to me that there is a scientific account based on testable, simply stated principles, akin to an evo-devo explanation of "natural selection," which broadly explains social success of human groups and the individuals who are identifiable within them.

[Connie Weber]

Thanks, Skip, you're adding great questions and perspective.

I studied Outliers again this weekend and kept coming up with the same question: is this "cultural legacy" theory true, meaningful? It seems like good storytelling to me. Something in me is trained to doubt this sort of reasoning.

I like your post, especially this question. "Where's the personally, uniquely creative dimension in this male-dominated scrum for fame and fortune?"

And your summary rings true to me: "Malcolm Gladwell's Outliers is 'simpler' by Einstein's measure than it need be. Nancy's use of the phrase 'alignment of the stars' seems an appropriate description of Gladwell's explanation of why extreme 'success' happens; in my view, Gladwell seems more an astrologer than astronomer, more mythologist than scientist."

[Nancy Bosch]

What I do like about books like Gladwell's is it fits into my "snippet" reading style (I like the different story paragraphs). Where somebody like you, Skip, or Connie might do a 'deep dive' into a topic, I probably won't. I also like the fact that Gladwell says some things that are great conversation starters with lay people (and kids)--that's true with anybody that has that anedotal writing style (Freidman comes to mind). If all we had to read were scientific or research-based tomes a lot of people wouldn't read at all. To each his own---I'm rambling here. Have a good day, N.

[Nancy Bosch]

Connie--I'm sorry to drop the ball on the discussion but I've gone in another direction---I'm discussing it with my 5th and 6th kids. They're reading Rice Paddies and Math and the chapter on the KIPP schools. The Rice Paddies chapter has some great lessons for my gifted kids, the main one? The difference between success and 'dud' is effort! Gifted elementary kids in my district learn early that little effort is rewarded with straight 'A's. Many of the student coast through elementary-middle school and never experience the joy of trying something they percieve as difficult and being successful. Laziness is pervasive in many and luckily most refocus by high school.

Anyway, I liked the book but think my discussions with kids are what I was meant to do with it. Later N.

[Connie Weber]

Nancy,

I hope you share some of your work, some of the discussions you have with the students.

That sounds like a fascinating way to go with this book.

Still, I was looking forward to a post by you on Rice Paddies and Math. Maybe you'll squeeze in some time in the near future (no hurry). I know your time is used to the max! That's what makes you such a good teacher: you're so involved and active, on the spot, ready to go. Energizing.

Well, you're off on yet another good adventure!

[Brenda Gillies]

Well, I see there haven't been posts to this for a while, but I just finished the book and thought I would add my comments about things that didn't get discussed.

While seeds were planted in my psych as a young women to expect to make at least 7 career changes in my life, no one mentioned hard work or mastery in a particular area would require 10,000 hours of dedicated work! Don't these two seem to be in conflict with each other? I think it would be valuable to mention to students if further evidence supported the conjecture.

As an educator watching the summer quickly approach, I was struck by the stats showing how much educational progress is lost during summer vacation by middle and lower socio-economic children when those months are unstructured and unsupported. U.S. educators seem to regularly come under fire for not properly supporting that population during the school year and yet the statistics he sighted didn't seem to support that claim.

Also, I'm not sure I completely subscribe to it, but the notion that our educational ideologies are born from a region's agricultural practices is an interesting concept to ponder too. (Reference rice paddies versus western practices of work and idleness) I would be curious to know about agricultural practices and their influence on education in other countries/regions to see if there is a true correlation. If it is true, then as bizarre as it may sound, perhaps educational reform needs to start in the field? I'm very sleepy at this point though, so I'm going to post these thoughts and see if they resonate with anyone else.

It's a little scary making a first post, but, here goes!

[Connie Weber]

Hi Brenda,

SO good to hear from you. Wow--and what a great post. It's a treat to dive into such nice reading early in the morning here at school. It's softly raining, still dark outside, really peaceful.

A lot to think about!

I don't have my book with me, kind of left Gladwell alone for a while. I enjoyed the book and should be giving it more consideration. Anyhow, this morning I'll have to write back to you without the book at hand.

Ok, I never put that together, what you said about the 10,000 hours (to reach a kind of mastery) being in conflict with shifting careers several times in one's life--something that's supposed to be on the rise. I wonder what Gladwell would say about that, or Gardner. They might ask, are the people switching "disciplines of mind"--or just switching the expertise into different forms. I don't know, seems like both might be going on. I wonder, can one achieve "mastery" of something broad, like being human, or being a good learner--and then that carries through, gets expressed in many forms? What is mastery, anyhow? (Sorry, mornings are my philosophical times.) I LOVE the questions you're asking.

You're right to point out the differences between children's experiences with summer--how summertime leads to positive growth for some children and has the opposite affect on others. Wonder what needs to be done?

Your suggestion of exploring the relationship between agricultural practices and educational ideologies, of looking into in several countries' histories... well, that would be fascinating. (Hey, quit career-ing and go into grad school, get a PhD in this investigation! :-)

Thanks for this post. Yea! Keep the thoughts coming.

You've entered into the fascinating world of social networking, such a powerful tool for learning. I'm so glad to have you as a colleague on Fireside!