Malcolm Gladwell’s non-fiction book, ‘Outliers: The Story of Success’, examines the factors that contribute to success, advocating that the complex equation of success consists of external confluences rather than hidden talent. This position appears well-received because of its overused rule that ‘practice makes perfect’ and there is no propensity that gives one individual a greater advantage than the other, However, it should be noted that Gladwell’s research may not be as dependable as we might want to believe., Outliers continually stresses fallacious facts and selective evidence in place of solid research to build on the argument that social class, environment, and timing are the major components of success.
Gladwell ascribes a major …show more content…
Class is a subjectively defined concept based on annual income, but this a determination of environment, not intelligence. However, Gladwell follows the caste system through with his promotion of the ‘Mathew Affect’ (Gladwell 30) which involves one of his gravest contradictions. He suggests that wealthy children are more likely to succeed than children from low social classes. (Kakutani)This appears to indicate that lower class children, born without the gifts of timing and a nurturing environment still have a high level of innate giftedness, or talent. One example of this highlighted by Gladwell was the comparison of Chris Langlan and J. Robert Oppenheimer. Langlan had an extremely high IQ but was unsuccessful, while Oppenheimer was not as naturally talented but more successful, because Langlan was raised in a poor family, whereas Oppenheimer developed in an affluent one. Not only does this contradict Gladwell, Gladwell crafts one of his pivotal argument that the wealth of children's families determines their ability to be successful from two people. (Gladwell 91-115) This is a combination of generalization and misleading statistics, in which one of Gladwell’s central argument for formula of success is crafted from the evidence of two …show more content…
Many protests critics of Gladwell raise, such as the child geniuses Mozart and Picasso will be put down. It is true that Mozart was taught by a father obsessed with seeing his son become a star in music, and Picasso’s family environment allowed him to blossom into a creative artist. I recognize this objection but have answered it. Environmental conditions are what causes talent to show. My background consists of largely mathematical conditions, as both parents are relative geniuses in this field. Under no circumstances will I ever become as mathematically great. Reverting to Gladwell’s analogy of a tree, no matter the ecosystem, an acorn cannot produce a birch sapling. (Gladwell 19-20)Without the seed, the most ideal of ecosystems will be wasted. An environment of mathematics would be completely wasted on me, because I do not possess the talent for
Gladwell ascribes a major …show more content…
Class is a subjectively defined concept based on annual income, but this a determination of environment, not intelligence. However, Gladwell follows the caste system through with his promotion of the ‘Mathew Affect’ (Gladwell 30) which involves one of his gravest contradictions. He suggests that wealthy children are more likely to succeed than children from low social classes. (Kakutani)This appears to indicate that lower class children, born without the gifts of timing and a nurturing environment still have a high level of innate giftedness, or talent. One example of this highlighted by Gladwell was the comparison of Chris Langlan and J. Robert Oppenheimer. Langlan had an extremely high IQ but was unsuccessful, while Oppenheimer was not as naturally talented but more successful, because Langlan was raised in a poor family, whereas Oppenheimer developed in an affluent one. Not only does this contradict Gladwell, Gladwell crafts one of his pivotal argument that the wealth of children's families determines their ability to be successful from two people. (Gladwell 91-115) This is a combination of generalization and misleading statistics, in which one of Gladwell’s central argument for formula of success is crafted from the evidence of two …show more content…
Many protests critics of Gladwell raise, such as the child geniuses Mozart and Picasso will be put down. It is true that Mozart was taught by a father obsessed with seeing his son become a star in music, and Picasso’s family environment allowed him to blossom into a creative artist. I recognize this objection but have answered it. Environmental conditions are what causes talent to show. My background consists of largely mathematical conditions, as both parents are relative geniuses in this field. Under no circumstances will I ever become as mathematically great. Reverting to Gladwell’s analogy of a tree, no matter the ecosystem, an acorn cannot produce a birch sapling. (Gladwell 19-20)Without the seed, the most ideal of ecosystems will be wasted. An environment of mathematics would be completely wasted on me, because I do not possess the talent for