On Outliers

           I watched Al Gore's renowned documentary "An Inconvenient Truth" in the later part of my 6th grade of elementary school. In fact, I recall that just prior to my entering middle school, my father had called me to his room one weekend afternoon. I remember it clearly. He sat me down on his now discarded chair, a cheap, old product with a seat with flakes that I loved to tear off. He put his headphones on my head, and explaining to me that as I was now going to be a secondary school student, I should acquire knowledge of the substantial problems of the world, turned on the documentary. I remember many aspects of this incident. I vaguely the awe that I felt at the information contained in those 94 minutes. But I recall with the utmost clarity my sunken mood at learning that with the realization of an inconvenient comes the draining of hope.

           Yes, I learned that some uncomfortable knowledge lead to despair. With "An Inconvenient Truth" I felt disheartened by the fact that the world was at an environmental crisis, which seemed so disastrous and difficult to resolve. This was equal to the sensation I felt reading "Outliers, the Story of Success" by Malcolm Gladwell, in which he accounts for the causes of success in an unconventional way, focusing not on individual values but on external factors beyond the powers of individuals. I have read up to only the second chapter of his book, but already I feel discouraged.

           Actually, I wasn't so depressed with the book until I got to the first chapter - that is, I felt perfectly at ease with the introduction, "The Roseto Mystery." The introduction presented the idea that a person's success has a significant correlation with the environment and situation in which one is placed - definitely not a ground-breaking, mind-shattering revelation. Of course the environment matters. Had a same person been born into two drastically contrasting surroundings - say, one in an affluent and acclaimed family in the suburbs just outside New York, and the other in a family in Somalia with twelve siblings, the outcome of their lives would be just as drastically different.

           But my discomfort started from the first chapter, "The Matthew Effect," which introduces the idea that arbitrary cuts of distinction influences one's success. That is, if people, at an early age, are divided into groups, for instance, by date of birth with arbitrary cutoff dates, then there appear differences within that group, not by talent, but by age. The older children who have lived almost a year more than the younger ones are physically and psychologically considerably advanced, as growth is a steep function of time during that age, and this maturity is confused with talent, thus leading them to be classified as gifted. This, in turn, provides them with better education or training, which gives them an additional advantage, and this goes on until the "accumulative advantage" has widened the gap beyond the capacity of recovery by personal efforts. As of the validity of the theory, I was quite convinced. My problem was that the solution was feeble. With every accusation of a problem should come the suggestion of a solution that will help overcome the challenge. Although Gladwell does state multiple cutoff dates, it seems far from realistic, in that this, unlike what he claims, will require much more work and money than now, and that the classification of people into smaller groups is not necessarily a positive thing.

           My negative emotions deepened with "The 10,000-Hour Rule." Reading the title and the first few pages I was able to grasp what the chapter was trying to say, and I was glad that the importance of persistence was being explored. I relate to this very personally, as I am well known among my peers to be the madman whose hobby is staying up all night doing his homework and studying for his quiz, the madman who exploit himself so much that every week he loses a few kilograms of weight. But the story did not go as I expected. For one, the book disregarded talent, and also, it emphasized too much the importance of luck. Unlike what the book says, it is because of talent and the interest that the talent provokes that people get the motivation to practice and work 10,000 hours at something. And the reliance and emphasis on the importance of luck is most disconcerting. It is a tendency to leave things up to fate, and to leave one's success to things beyond one's control is too passive a stance. So reading the chapter, I was displeased, and perhaps a little angered. 

           Find the reasons for success in many places and in many factors. But don't give up, and don't make others give up. That's the problem I found with "Outliers."