7 ms·

Gladwell is successful because he tells so many people what they want to hear: your lack of talent doesn't matter. I always lol when I hear the Bill Gates exam

Gladwell is successful because he tells so many people what they want to hear: your lack of talent doesn't matter. I always lol when I hear the Bill Gates example. The guy is a freaking genius. He had to go through Math 50 at Harvard to figure out there were people smarter than he was. Somebody else sneaking into the computer lab to learn programming (I'm sure there were many) wouldn't have been as good.

tptacek 17y ago
This has nothing to do with the article. Whatever you think of his books, Gladwell is demonstrably a talented public speaker, and this article explains his basic method.
- mnemonicsloth 17y ago
  No, Gladwell is a demonstrably successful public speaker. Gladwell's point -- and the OP author's -- is that you should taboo the word "talent." Talent is the idea you wind up with when you commit the Fundamental Attribution Error while observing success or skill: In social psychology, the fundamental attribution error ... describes the tendency to over-value dispositional or personality-based explanations ["he is very talented at X"] for the observed behaviors [extreme skill at X] of others while under-valuing situational explanations for those behaviors. ["he spent his entire childhood practicing X"] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error
  - tptacek 17y ago
    Have you ever watched him give a talk? Have you, yourself, ever given a talk to a large audience? I have, and it's a bitch. He's a demonstrably talented public speaker. It is extremely interesting to me, and, I assume, to most people who do public speaking, that Gladwell is actually writing out the entire content of his speeches. The rest of your comment, whatever. I don't care about his books. Neither does the author of this article, if you care to read it.
    - mnemonicsloth 17y ago
      Yes, and yes. Good for you, and I agree. The fact remains, Gladwell's most recent book, Outliers, argues that there is no such thing as talent. If you call someone talented, you're implicitly conceding they were somehow predisposed to have the skill they've got. Gladwell says there are no such predispositions, only histories, habits, and hard work. UPDATE: the definition of TALENT I'm using is here: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/talent http://www.thefreedictionary.com/talent tal·ent (tlnt) n. 1. A marked innate ability, as for artistic accomplishment. See Synonyms at ability.
      - yungchin 17y ago
        > The fact remains, Gladwell's most recent book, Outliers, argues that there is no such thing as talent. That's not what I read in it. If you look up the passage about the conservatory students, you'll find that he says that you need a sufficient amount of talent to get into it, and beyond that level, effort expended is a more important factor.
      - mbrubeck 17y ago
        "Gladwell's most recent book, Outliers, argues that there is no such thing as talent." Did you read Outliers? Because it doesn't actually say that. Let's see what it really says: "Yes, the hockey players who make it to the professional level are more talented than you or me. But they also got a big head start..." (p 30) "Joy and Gates and the Beatles are all undeniably talented. Lennon and McCartney had a musical gift of the sort that comes along once in a generation, and Bill Joy, let us not forget, had a mind so quick that he was able to make up a complicated algorithm on the fly that left his professors in awe. That much is obvious. But what truly distinguishes their histories is not their extraordinary talent but their extraordinary opportunities..." (p 55) Gladwell argues against what his book calls "the primacy of talent." He says talent is one ingredient in success - even a necessary one - but not the most distinguishing one. He describes all the successful people he profiles as very talented, but adds that many equally talented people are unsuccessful because of different historical, cultural, and personal backgrounds.
        17y ago
- mrduncan 17y ago
  Here is his TED talk from a few years ago: http://www.ted.com/talks/malcolm_gladwell_on_spaghetti_sauce.html http://www.ted.com/talks/malcolm_gladwell_on_spaghetti_sauce...
- dabent 17y ago
  I was stuck by the line: "It occurred to me afterwards that Gladwell’s success as a speaker illustrates one of his homespun themes - hard work pays off." Indeed, Gadwell has a talent for writing and speaking. While tastes for what he offers differ, he's taken that talent and worked hard to develop it. We all might not have the brain of Bill Gates, but I've seen many go surprisingly far on hard work with moderate talent. I've also sadly seen some very bright people just drag along through life from lack of effort. It's really sad to witness.
yungchin 17y ago
> Gladwell is successful because he tells so many people what they want to hear: your lack of talent doesn't matter. Actually, I thought he told people something they really don't want to hear: your superb talents don't mean a thing unless you straighten up and put in your 10k hours. It's a matter of perspective ;)
- wakeupthedawn 17y ago
  Right, because that's clearly what's driving sales of Outliers. Telling a small group of people what they might not want to hear as opposed to telling a large group of people what they want to hear.
- Sukotto 17y ago
  I find it really interesting that so many people hear what they want to hear in his talks. People on both sides of the talent vs hard-work debate are posting here using his books and lectures as support. Personally, I'm in the "work matters more than talent" camp. so of course, that's what I remember from his work :-) [edit: clarification]
  - mos1 17y ago
    I read it as an argument that to reach truly obscene, globally recognizable levels of achievement, you need talent, determination, discipline, and luck. It kind of makes sense if you think about it, since achievement typically has a log-normal distribution with a long right-hand tail, which implies that it's based on multiple normally distributed underlying factors. Take away any one of the factors, and you rapidly approach more "normal" levels of achievement.
sabat 17y ago
I wish I had learned a long time ago that what matters is not about what talent you're born with as much as what you do with it.
- jamesbritt 17y ago
  Well, your future "a long time ago"s start right now.
  - nollidge 17y ago
    Cannot upvote this enough. What the hell are you waiting for? What the hell am I waiting for?
  - Sukotto 17y ago
    http://23moments.com/dont-you-dare-waste-your-fucking-time http://23moments.com/dont-you-dare-waste-your-fucking-time
dgordon 17y ago
It seemed to me he actually told people "Bill Gates may be a freaking genius, but he also worked harder than you've ever considered working, and took advantage of incredible, nearly unique, opportunities. That's what being a true outlier takes." How many high school kids were taking the bus to the conveniently located university computer lab in the middle of the night and programming all night in the early 1970s?

tptacek 17y ago

This has nothing to do with the article. Whatever you think of his books, Gladwell is demonstrably a talented public speaker, and this article explains his basic method.

mnemonicsloth 17y ago
No, Gladwell is a demonstrably successful public speaker. Gladwell's point -- and the OP author's -- is that you should taboo the word "talent." Talent is the idea you wind up with when you commit the Fundamental Attribution Error while observing success or skill: In social psychology, the fundamental attribution error ... describes the tendency to over-value dispositional or personality-based explanations ["he is very talented at X"] for the observed behaviors [extreme skill at X] of others while under-valuing situational explanations for those behaviors. ["he spent his entire childhood practicing X"] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error
- tptacek 17y ago
  Have you ever watched him give a talk? Have you, yourself, ever given a talk to a large audience? I have, and it's a bitch. He's a demonstrably talented public speaker. It is extremely interesting to me, and, I assume, to most people who do public speaking, that Gladwell is actually writing out the entire content of his speeches. The rest of your comment, whatever. I don't care about his books. Neither does the author of this article, if you care to read it.
  - mnemonicsloth 17y ago
    Yes, and yes. Good for you, and I agree. The fact remains, Gladwell's most recent book, Outliers, argues that there is no such thing as talent. If you call someone talented, you're implicitly conceding they were somehow predisposed to have the skill they've got. Gladwell says there are no such predispositions, only histories, habits, and hard work. UPDATE: the definition of TALENT I'm using is here: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/talent http://www.thefreedictionary.com/talent tal·ent (tlnt) n. 1. A marked innate ability, as for artistic accomplishment. See Synonyms at ability.
    - yungchin 17y ago
      > The fact remains, Gladwell's most recent book, Outliers, argues that there is no such thing as talent. That's not what I read in it. If you look up the passage about the conservatory students, you'll find that he says that you need a sufficient amount of talent to get into it, and beyond that level, effort expended is a more important factor.
    - mbrubeck 17y ago
      "Gladwell's most recent book, Outliers, argues that there is no such thing as talent." Did you read Outliers? Because it doesn't actually say that. Let's see what it really says: "Yes, the hockey players who make it to the professional level are more talented than you or me. But they also got a big head start..." (p 30) "Joy and Gates and the Beatles are all undeniably talented. Lennon and McCartney had a musical gift of the sort that comes along once in a generation, and Bill Joy, let us not forget, had a mind so quick that he was able to make up a complicated algorithm on the fly that left his professors in awe. That much is obvious. But what truly distinguishes their histories is not their extraordinary talent but their extraordinary opportunities..." (p 55) Gladwell argues against what his book calls "the primacy of talent." He says talent is one ingredient in success - even a necessary one - but not the most distinguishing one. He describes all the successful people he profiles as very talented, but adds that many equally talented people are unsuccessful because of different historical, cultural, and personal backgrounds.
      - 17y ago
mrduncan 17y ago
Here is his TED talk from a few years ago: http://www.ted.com/talks/malcolm_gladwell_on_spaghetti_sauce.html http://www.ted.com/talks/malcolm_gladwell_on_spaghetti_sauce...
dabent 17y ago
I was stuck by the line: "It occurred to me afterwards that Gladwell’s success as a speaker illustrates one of his homespun themes - hard work pays off." Indeed, Gadwell has a talent for writing and speaking. While tastes for what he offers differ, he's taken that talent and worked hard to develop it. We all might not have the brain of Bill Gates, but I've seen many go surprisingly far on hard work with moderate talent. I've also sadly seen some very bright people just drag along through life from lack of effort. It's really sad to witness.

yungchin 17y ago

> Gladwell is successful because he tells so many people what they want to hear: your lack of talent doesn't matter. Actually, I thought he told people something they really don't want to hear: your superb talents don't mean a thing unless you straighten up and put in your 10k hours. It's a matter of perspective ;)

wakeupthedawn 17y ago
Right, because that's clearly what's driving sales of Outliers. Telling a small group of people what they might not want to hear as opposed to telling a large group of people what they want to hear.
Sukotto 17y ago
I find it really interesting that so many people hear what they want to hear in his talks. People on both sides of the talent vs hard-work debate are posting here using his books and lectures as support. Personally, I'm in the "work matters more than talent" camp. so of course, that's what I remember from his work :-) [edit: clarification]
- mos1 17y ago
  I read it as an argument that to reach truly obscene, globally recognizable levels of achievement, you need talent, determination, discipline, and luck. It kind of makes sense if you think about it, since achievement typically has a log-normal distribution with a long right-hand tail, which implies that it's based on multiple normally distributed underlying factors. Take away any one of the factors, and you rapidly approach more "normal" levels of achievement.

sabat 17y ago

I wish I had learned a long time ago that what matters is not about what talent you're born with as much as what you do with it.

jamesbritt 17y ago
Well, your future "a long time ago"s start right now.
- nollidge 17y ago
  Cannot upvote this enough. What the hell are you waiting for? What the hell am I waiting for?
- Sukotto 17y ago
  http://23moments.com/dont-you-dare-waste-your-fucking-time http://23moments.com/dont-you-dare-waste-your-fucking-time

dgordon 17y ago

It seemed to me he actually told people "Bill Gates may be a freaking genius, but he also worked harder than you've ever considered working, and took advantage of incredible, nearly unique, opportunities. That's what being a true outlier takes." How many high school kids were taking the bus to the conveniently located university computer lab in the middle of the night and programming all night in the early 1970s?