Outliers

Gladwell cautions in a couple of places that his theory of the strength of cultural influences runs close to what we call racial stereotypes. He doesn’t explicitly delineate the differences, and he acknowledges that even positive traits, when seen as stereotypes, can offend the groups in question. One example of this is the idea that Asian people are excellent, hardworking students, particularly strong in math and science. How do you view this issue? Are stereotypes bad only if they refer to negative traits? How should we incorporate the views of those being stereotyped (in this case, Asian people)? Is there a place for both Gladwell’s theory and not perpetuating generalizations about people without seeing their individuality—or are they mutually exclusive?

If Gladwell’s theory about success is correct, why do you think the commonly-held idea of a genius with innate ability has been so strong over time? What does it say about our culture? Does this idea hold across all cultures? Is there any difference, for instance, between cultures that prioritize the individual and those who prioritize the community? If so, explain why you think this is.

If you’re still skeptical about the idea of success promoted in this book, find a figure from any field throughout history who you believe embodies the opposite idea—that is, a prodigy who was simply born with immense talent and didn’t need everything Gladwell describes (such as 10,000 hours of practice) to succeed. Research and analyze his or her life to discover any aspects related to Gladwell’s ideas. Which theory best explains this person’s success in the end? Make your case for either one you choose.

Gladwell claims in Chapter 1 (at the end of Section 5) that schools could be reorganized to better serve all students. By using an arbitrary cutoff date, we advantage those children who are a bit more advanced developmentally due to their early birthdays, which builds over time because of “accumulative advantage” (see Index of Terms). Gladwell argues that roughly half of talent is lost this way and argues that simply rearranging class groupings could make a difference. Find a teacher or administrator at your school or university to interview about this idea. Show them this passage in the book and ask them their thoughts. Why do we stick to the old way rather than adopt Gladwell’s suggestion? Do they see any problems with his logic? Do they have any alternative ideas they believe would work better? Explain their reaction to it and stance on the issue.

Gladwell implies that all success requires the proper opportunities, such as being in the right place at the right time. This is true for the computer field, in which the technology must exist. (Bill Gates, for example, could not have been a computer mogul in the days before computers.) What about less restricted fields like art and music? Do you think one can be a success simply by virtue of rising to the top based on talent, regardless of other circumstances? In other words, could Picasso have been Picasso at any period in time throughout history? Explain your position with specific examples.

The post-World War II years were a time of great opportunity in the United States. Analyze the present time in terms of opportunities for success. Do you think the level of opportunity is the same, greater, or less? Explain why. Incorporate Gladwell’s ideas in your answer as well as factors like education, ethnic and race relations, and economics. 

One of the remarkable aspects of Joe Flom’s life story is how factors that started out as disadvantages later became advantages. Because he was Jewish, he couldn’t get a job at the top law firms. Instead, he opened his own firm and worked on an aspect of law the elite firms didn’t want to handle. Later, that very aspect was in high demand and so was Flom. What’s another example from history of circumstances turning on their head like this? Describe the situation in detail, who benefited, who lost, and why you think it happened.

One of the significant aspects of success Gladwell writes about is practical intelligence (see Index of Terms). He argues that it largely comes from one’s family, most often those who are middle- and upper-class. Because it’s so important, how can we teach practical intelligence to children from less advantaged backgrounds? Should it be taught in school? If so, how and by whom? If not, how else might children acquire it?