Outliers - Malcolm Gladwell
3-Sentence Summary:
Success in a given area comes down to many factors, and these factors are multiplicative, meaning that those who are already at an advantage (through having talent, for example) are likely to be more exposed to further benefits (e.g. scholarship programs).
Mastery in an area generally comes from spending a lot of time practising it (approximately 10,000 hours, some studies show), and those who accumulate 10,000 hours generally do so as a result of a combination of their own interests, seeking out these opportunities, talent, where they were born, and who they know.
Some of these factors, such as time spent practising, learning social skills, etc. are more in our control than others like our I.Q. and where we were born.
Notes:
'The Matthew Effect', "For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance. But from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath." This has an impact on success, where those who have talent get more opportunities, play with better players, etc, leading to them getting even better than someone with less talent who starts in a lesser position, and as a result, never gets the improvements from these things.
An interesting example of the Matthew effect is that most successful athletes were born in the month after the age-group cut-off that existed at youth level. This meant they were usually the more developed player physically and mentally, which meant they were more likely to have the advantages of being encouraged, being enrolled in elite athlete programs, etc.
It was found that mastery in most areas came as a result of 10,000 hours of practising. Often, however, those 10,000 hours came as a result of the unique circumstances that that person found themselves in. e.g. Bill Gates had a lot of opportunities to work with computers growing up, partially because he showed interest and skill in that area, and partly because of where he grew up, the people he knew etc.
I.Q. is useful as a predictor of success but only up to a threshold. It can be seen more as a predictor of lack of success than success.
Something else (lateral thinking, creativity etc) is required after that threshold.
Another element that contributes to success is social skills, and unlike I.Q. these can be taught. These are generally affected by one's upbringing, and how they were or weren't encouraged to engage socially.
Success can also be majorly affected by what culture and stage of the economy one has been born into. e.g. Adversity from being a Jew, as well as lessons learnt through coming up in Jewish culture may be a contributor to the fact that Jewish people tend to be high earners. e.g. Being born at a time when birth rates are down means more opportunity in the job market etc.
One's place of origin also falls into this category, and more specifically the historical attitudes passed on as a result can have major effects. e.g. A pilot from a place that highly values politeness might not give sufficiently alarming signals to an air traffic controller from a place that doesn't have the same level of politeness, resulting in communication errors. e.g. Rather than thinking Asians are naturally better at maths, maybe it's just because they're from a culture of hard work (Rice paddies), and that maths can be improved by hard work. e.g. Kids from poorer backgrounds experience decreases in educational scores over the summer whereas those from higher-income families do not.
If you enjoyed this summary, you’ll probably enjoy the full book. Get it here: LINK TO BOOK (AMAZON)
Or get it for free on audiobook when you sign up for an Audible account: LINK TO AUDIOBOOK (AMAZON)
(This website uses amazon referral links as part of the Amazon Associates program.)