![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ceebeegeeI'm reading a couple of interesting books right now. One is Outliers--I borrowed it from the husband of one of my Sweet Briar friends. It's about the context of success--how success is NOT just a matter of hard work and wanting to succeed, but also involves a lot of unexamined circumstantial assistance. Not just things like a good family (wealth, good schools), but even something like the month in which you were born. One case that was quoted in a review I read (this may have been what caused me to want to read the book, as I always want to know more about context, it's like an obsession with me) is how all Canadian hockey players turn out to have been born in the first four months of the year. Something prompted Gladwell to notice this coincidence, and then go back and retrace why all these players might have done so well. The Canadian youth leagues have an annual cutoff date of January 1st. So of the players who are entering the system for the first time, obviously the bigger players--those who have had the advantage of being a few months older, with a few months more muscular development--are more likely to get slotted into the select tracks. They then receive more practice time on better equipment, they progress faster as a result and so the ball starts rolling.
He also looks at cultural legacies, both ethnic and socioeconomic, and how these affect our tendencies toward success. Comparing genius-level IQs from different background, he looks at why one guy with an IQ of nearly 200 is a farmer compared to, say, Robert Oppenheimer who came from a much more elite background but tried to poison his tutor in college. Why did the latter succeed spectacularly while the former is living quietly--not teaching, not researching, not published? Because Oppenheimer was able to talk his way out of being expelled, because he had the necessary skills to negotiate with authority. According to Gladwell, middle- and upper-middle class kids are generally raised to ask questions, to assert their place, whereas children of a lower socioeconomic class are taught to keep their distance from authority--not to question or argue. (I myself noticed this when living in the ghetto building--I remember waiting endlessly for an elevator when several were broken and saying something. One of my co-residents said "there's no use in complaining, nothing'll happen." I said in exasperation "if no one says anything, you're guaranteeing that nothing will ever change.")
Another section talks about why so many feuds (and crimes involving the concept of honor) are concentrated in certain sections of the country (the South, Brooklyn). Apparently cultures of honor tend to originate in specific geographies--typically hill country containing rocky soil, such as Scotland, Sicily, the Middle East. Of course it's difficult to cultivate this kind of land, so instead of growing crops, these inhabitants tend herds. A crop farmer has a different relationship with his neighbors than a herdsman--crop farmers tend to cooperate more, because they need each other more, and also because it's impossible to steal a whole crop. However herders are more vulnerable, and therefore more defensive. And of course most of the South is populated by people of English/Scottish descent--Gladwell argues that even though almost of all of them are many generations removed from that environment, the cultural patterns are still in evidence.
The whole book is fascinating and very readable.
He also looks at cultural legacies, both ethnic and socioeconomic, and how these affect our tendencies toward success. Comparing genius-level IQs from different background, he looks at why one guy with an IQ of nearly 200 is a farmer compared to, say, Robert Oppenheimer who came from a much more elite background but tried to poison his tutor in college. Why did the latter succeed spectacularly while the former is living quietly--not teaching, not researching, not published? Because Oppenheimer was able to talk his way out of being expelled, because he had the necessary skills to negotiate with authority. According to Gladwell, middle- and upper-middle class kids are generally raised to ask questions, to assert their place, whereas children of a lower socioeconomic class are taught to keep their distance from authority--not to question or argue. (I myself noticed this when living in the ghetto building--I remember waiting endlessly for an elevator when several were broken and saying something. One of my co-residents said "there's no use in complaining, nothing'll happen." I said in exasperation "if no one says anything, you're guaranteeing that nothing will ever change.")
Another section talks about why so many feuds (and crimes involving the concept of honor) are concentrated in certain sections of the country (the South, Brooklyn). Apparently cultures of honor tend to originate in specific geographies--typically hill country containing rocky soil, such as Scotland, Sicily, the Middle East. Of course it's difficult to cultivate this kind of land, so instead of growing crops, these inhabitants tend herds. A crop farmer has a different relationship with his neighbors than a herdsman--crop farmers tend to cooperate more, because they need each other more, and also because it's impossible to steal a whole crop. However herders are more vulnerable, and therefore more defensive. And of course most of the South is populated by people of English/Scottish descent--Gladwell argues that even though almost of all of them are many generations removed from that environment, the cultural patterns are still in evidence.
The whole book is fascinating and very readable.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-02-02 07:59 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-02-03 01:33 am (UTC)A lot of cool stuff like this, and a shocking centerpiece of an argument...
no subject
Date: 2009-02-03 07:44 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-02-03 07:45 am (UTC)