I believe that Gladwell wrote the problem with Geniuses Part 1 and 2, to give us an understanding of the different types of geniuses, their environments that they were raised in and how they turn out. A child can have a high IQ, go to an average school, live in a poor to middle class community and not get the nurturing that is needed to become successful. However, a child comes from a wealthy environment they may have the advantages of a good school, and parents who know where they need to go for them to become a doctor, an engineer etc. Children unless they highly motivated may not research or take classes or go to college so they can gain more education to succeed.
Gladwell’s audience is anybody who is interested in why some students fail …show more content…
The desire to succeed is needed, you also need a good support system, whether it is family, teachers and friends. This argument is contextualized by giving a good amount of examples that shows the difference of outcomes that exist between families that come from different backgrounds. Chris Langan a genius, who couldn’t get out of his own way to persevere in school. When he lost his scholarship because his mother didn’t know how to fill the papers out to continue his funding, and when he couldn’t quite put his needs into words for why he wanted to get his classes changed so he ended up dropping out of school. On the other hand, Robert Oppenheimer who is also a genius tried to kill his tutor in grad school received probation instead of getting expelled. He had the support that was needed from his family and he was able to talk his way out of situations and progress in life, and getting positions that he wouldn’t have normally gotten because of his erratic background.
The contextual perspective that Gladwell used in both chapters were how each genius developed and excelled or failed due to their background of being poor, middle-class, or wealthy. Gladwell express that those geniuses that came from poor backgrounds lacked the skills, the support and the nurturing that is needed to cultivate and to help them grow. While children from wealthy backgrounds were able to find the success because they had the tools necessary for them to achieve their
Gladwell’s audience is anybody who is interested in why some students fail …show more content…
The desire to succeed is needed, you also need a good support system, whether it is family, teachers and friends. This argument is contextualized by giving a good amount of examples that shows the difference of outcomes that exist between families that come from different backgrounds. Chris Langan a genius, who couldn’t get out of his own way to persevere in school. When he lost his scholarship because his mother didn’t know how to fill the papers out to continue his funding, and when he couldn’t quite put his needs into words for why he wanted to get his classes changed so he ended up dropping out of school. On the other hand, Robert Oppenheimer who is also a genius tried to kill his tutor in grad school received probation instead of getting expelled. He had the support that was needed from his family and he was able to talk his way out of situations and progress in life, and getting positions that he wouldn’t have normally gotten because of his erratic background.
The contextual perspective that Gladwell used in both chapters were how each genius developed and excelled or failed due to their background of being poor, middle-class, or wealthy. Gladwell express that those geniuses that came from poor backgrounds lacked the skills, the support and the nurturing that is needed to cultivate and to help them grow. While children from wealthy backgrounds were able to find the success because they had the tools necessary for them to achieve their