4 ms·

I recently had the pleasure of reading the book Outliers, also by Malcolm Gladwell. In this book, one of his techniques is to present the typical "genius" or "r

I recently had the pleasure of reading the book Outliers, also by Malcolm Gladwell. In this book, one of his techniques is to present the typical "genius" or "rags-to-riches" type story and pick it apart, showing that success comes more frequently from environment and having the opportunity to work hard than from some innate genius. Here he uses the same technique. He presents the popular conception of Ben Fountain's story - a man quits his job and becomes a successful author through talent and motivation. Then, throughout the rest of the article, he adds nuance and exposes some of the overlooked details - that man was supported financially by his wife, had free time throughout the day to work, developed his talent excruciatingly slowly and took almost twenty years to catch his first break. While the focus of this article was more to discuss what it means to be or become a genius, I find it refreshing to think that these kinds of success stories often have hidden details that allow them to feel more realistic and attainable. On a more personal level, I really appreciated this article. I recently made the decision to study music at a conservatory rather than go into programming as I had originally planned. Programming has always been something I've been naturally good at (I used to think of myself as a very technical, STEMmy kind of person - I laugh at that now), whereas performing music is a passion I've only recently rekindled. As a result, I've had a few doubts about my ability to become a good musician or whether I've made the right choice. This article, however, reassures me that being born with innate talent is not the only path to becoming a good musician (although it sure would have been nice).

Retric 8y ago
Just understand these stories are still focused on the winners. You can be a top 1% musician and still need a day job.
- imranq 8y ago
  Agreed, top 1% is probably 100,000 musicians and there are probably only about 10,000 people actually making a good living with music
- maceurt 8y ago
  You can be the most skilled musician in the world, and still not have a job. Luck and politics matters a lot in music, and the margins between the best musician and everyone else is such a small percent that the king makers (record labels, opera houses, etc.) can afford to not have the most skilled musician if they see fit.
  - puranjay 8y ago
    A lot in music depends on the kind of music you want to make. Certain music genres are able to support a much larger section of musicians, regardless of their innate talent. A top 10% violinist doesn't have as many opportunities as a top 10% EDM producer. Music is also strange that you can be a top 1% musician (in terms of sales and popularity) without having the skills of a top 1% musician. As long as you can write pop hits (which doesn't require the strongest technical skills, that is.
    - weliketocode 8y ago
      Agreed on all your points except for that it is strange. I'd say in most fields, expertise is second to sales & politics ability for generating revenues & popularity.
ivanmaeder 8y ago
Thanks for this. It sounds like a good reason to read Outliers. I've seen it recommended a lot but haven't wanted to read it because I really struggled to get anything out of The Tipping Point (I thought it was a cliched version of the non-fiction category: a couple of ideas repeated over and over, full of anecdotes and trying to connect unrelated things… completely unscientific).
- dorchadas 8y ago
  I've read all of Gladwell's books (with the exception of his collection of essays), and found most of them to be similar to that. Just lots of semi-unrelated points that halfway got brought together into a somewhat coherent argument. Outliers was the exception, even though it does follow the same mold in a lot of ways (it is, after all, written for a general audience) Mainly because he does break it down, and shows that the people we usually think of as having "big breaks" and such really had opportunities that most other people won't get to have. For instance, he goes on to deconstruct the whole "Bill Gates dropped out of college" cliché by stressing that Gates had unprecedented access to computers when he was younger, thanks to having a well-connected and well-off family and friends. This led to him being able to acquire the skills he needed without college, etc. etc. It was nice to see that story turned on its head instead of being used to tell people that "Hey, you can be rich too and you don't need college" (granted, not everyone needs to go to college, but too often this was used to justify talking people out of going, from my perspective). He also uses the book to discuss the 10000 hour rule towards mastery, and it is fun in light of that.
empath75 8y ago
>>> a man quits his job and becomes a successful author through talent and motivation. Then, throughout the rest of the article, he adds nuance and exposes some of the overlooked details - that man was supported financially by his wife, had free time throughout the day to work, developed his talent excruciatingly slowly and took almost twenty years to catch his first break. A friend of mine was an "overnight success" as an electronic music producer. I hung out with him at a festival in europe and all these other djs were telling him what a genius he was, and how it's amazing that his "first song" was such a huge success. They didn't know that A) he'd been working producing music for 15 years, since he was in high school. B) He quit his job as a software developer to work on music full time and was supported by his girlfriend who is a doctor and C) had already released 5 or 6 songs over the course of five years in a different genre and under a different alias and fizzled out D) only got his big break because he handed his song to a famous DJ at a gig through a friend. I think he's an absolutely brilliant producer, but it's not because he had any inherent musical ability at all. He just worked his ass off for over a decade and eventually got really good at it, and more importantly got to know the right people who could do something with his music when it was good enough.

Retric 8y ago

Just understand these stories are still focused on the winners. You can be a top 1% musician and still need a day job.

imranq 8y ago
Agreed, top 1% is probably 100,000 musicians and there are probably only about 10,000 people actually making a good living with music
maceurt 8y ago
You can be the most skilled musician in the world, and still not have a job. Luck and politics matters a lot in music, and the margins between the best musician and everyone else is such a small percent that the king makers (record labels, opera houses, etc.) can afford to not have the most skilled musician if they see fit.
- puranjay 8y ago
  A lot in music depends on the kind of music you want to make. Certain music genres are able to support a much larger section of musicians, regardless of their innate talent. A top 10% violinist doesn't have as many opportunities as a top 10% EDM producer. Music is also strange that you can be a top 1% musician (in terms of sales and popularity) without having the skills of a top 1% musician. As long as you can write pop hits (which doesn't require the strongest technical skills, that is.
  - weliketocode 8y ago
    Agreed on all your points except for that it is strange. I'd say in most fields, expertise is second to sales & politics ability for generating revenues & popularity.

ivanmaeder 8y ago

Thanks for this. It sounds like a good reason to read Outliers. I've seen it recommended a lot but haven't wanted to read it because I really struggled to get anything out of The Tipping Point (I thought it was a cliched version of the non-fiction category: a couple of ideas repeated over and over, full of anecdotes and trying to connect unrelated things… completely unscientific).

dorchadas 8y ago
I've read all of Gladwell's books (with the exception of his collection of essays), and found most of them to be similar to that. Just lots of semi-unrelated points that halfway got brought together into a somewhat coherent argument. Outliers was the exception, even though it does follow the same mold in a lot of ways (it is, after all, written for a general audience) Mainly because he does break it down, and shows that the people we usually think of as having "big breaks" and such really had opportunities that most other people won't get to have. For instance, he goes on to deconstruct the whole "Bill Gates dropped out of college" cliché by stressing that Gates had unprecedented access to computers when he was younger, thanks to having a well-connected and well-off family and friends. This led to him being able to acquire the skills he needed without college, etc. etc. It was nice to see that story turned on its head instead of being used to tell people that "Hey, you can be rich too and you don't need college" (granted, not everyone needs to go to college, but too often this was used to justify talking people out of going, from my perspective). He also uses the book to discuss the 10000 hour rule towards mastery, and it is fun in light of that.

empath75 8y ago

>>> a man quits his job and becomes a successful author through talent and motivation. Then, throughout the rest of the article, he adds nuance and exposes some of the overlooked details - that man was supported financially by his wife, had free time throughout the day to work, developed his talent excruciatingly slowly and took almost twenty years to catch his first break. A friend of mine was an "overnight success" as an electronic music producer. I hung out with him at a festival in europe and all these other djs were telling him what a genius he was, and how it's amazing that his "first song" was such a huge success. They didn't know that A) he'd been working producing music for 15 years, since he was in high school. B) He quit his job as a software developer to work on music full time and was supported by his girlfriend who is a doctor and C) had already released 5 or 6 songs over the course of five years in a different genre and under a different alias and fizzled out D) only got his big break because he handed his song to a famous DJ at a gig through a friend. I think he's an absolutely brilliant producer, but it's not because he had any inherent musical ability at all. He just worked his ass off for over a decade and eventually got really good at it, and more importantly got to know the right people who could do something with his music when it was good enough.