Outliers: The Story of Success Essay Example

that point in life through opportunities by “concerted cultivation. ” Gladwell introduces the term “concerted cultivation”, meaning you teach your kid how to be assertive and ask questions to authority at a young age because it will then shape them into being a genius with motivation. He compares and contrasts two characters Chris Langan and Robert Oppenheimer.

Chris Langan had a poor childhood and his family did not support him with his education nor did he have any sources that would shape him to be successful. His mother forgot to sign his financial aid form, which led him to have no scholarship. He says, “‘If Christopher had been born into a wealthy family, if he was a son of a doctor who was well connected . .

. It’s the culture you find yourself in that determines that” (Gladwell, 110). However, on the other hand, Robert Oppenheimer was born into a rich family and went to Harvard and Cambridge University to get a doctorate in physics.He says, “This is the advantage that Oppenheimer had and that Chris Langan lacked. Oppenheimer was raised in one of the wealthiest neighborhoods” (Gladwell, 108).

Gladwell’s idea of “concerted cultivation” pertains to his main claim that success is misinterpreted because some people are born into having opportunities, while others are not because of the cultural advantages they are given. Even though Langan had limited opportunities and a non-supportive family, he is an “outlier” because he was just as smart and intelligent as Oppenheimer.Oppenheimer was born into a family with concerted cultivation which can accredit to his success in life. The author seems to establish an effective claim because he compares and

contrasts the different lifestyles between Langan and Oppenheimer which can easily relate to the audience and appeal emotion because he compares a poor working class vs. middle upper class. Gladwell has an effective claim because he compares and contrasts a famous character who was well-off opposed to someone non-famous and did not have much support from his family.

This allows the audience to show sympathy for Langan because his family was given different opportunities than Oppenheimer because of the culture he grew up in. This relates back to his main claim that success is misunderstood because although Langan has similar analytical intelligence as Oppenheimer, he was not able to succeed with the limited opportunities he had because he could not accredit his success through concerted cultivation. Within chapter four, Gladwell introduces two different types of intelligence; practical and analytical, both in which influence our success.He claims that practical intelligence is something one is not born with, but instead, a reflection of one’s cultural advantages. For example, Oppenheimer attained the skill of practical intelligence because he always knew what to say, when it was appropriate to say it, and knew how to get what he wanted through people. Oppenheimer was taught to be a social savvy through concerted cultivation because his parents had fostered him to be assertive and question authority.

We see in chapter four that being a social savvy and having practical intelligence is “a set of skills that have to be learned.It has to come from somewhere . . . get these kinds of attitudes and skills is from our families” (Gladwell, 102).

Another intelligence Gladwell introduces is analytical intelligence. Langan and Oppenheimer both

acquired this skill. It was intelligence within your genes. Gladwell describes analytical intelligence as a mental process that is expressed through our intelligence. Gladwell states that it’s in “your genes .

. . he was born smart. IQ is a measure, to some degree” (Gladwell, 102).These two types of intelligence affect and influence one’s ability to succeed because intelligence refers back to our culture to what and how we are taught.

Gladwell is able to stick to this idea by providing evidence that support his claim on different types of intelligence. He provides examples of Langan and how he was a self-taught man who guided himself through his education, but did not have chance to become successful because of the support of his family. His parents never put in the time to teach him anything, but to leave Langan to learn on his own.He claims people are born with analytical intelligence and that practical intelligence is based off one’s family and their cultural values. Langan had then taught himself everything he knew and became successful with this self-determination and thinking. Oppenheimer was born into a family who supported him and called him a genius at the age of three.

The advantages Oppenheimer had that Langan’s family lacked affects his intelligence and chances of succeeding because Oppenheimer was taught to question authority and be assertive with what he wanted.Gladwell’s ideas are relevant to his main claim because our intelligence relates to concerted cultivation and how we are taught by our parents, which contribute to our success. This is effective because it relates back to the examples of the concerted cultivation and the compare and contrasting between

Langan and Oppenheimer that Gladwell provides in chapter four which allow the reader to have a better sense of why our intelligence is vital to succeeding. In chapter seven of Gladwell’s work, he claims that intelligence relates to cultural communication, which plays a role into shaping us into successes.

Gladwell provides an example of “Korean Air Flight 801” which allows the reader to realize how the lack of communication, mitigated speech, and indirect speech in communication between individuals affects us. Gladwell introduces Geert Hofstede, a dutch sociologist and author of Culture's Consequences and Cultures and Organizations, Software of the Mind, his dimension of cultural interaction, which explains that countries who have a high Power Distance Index (PDI) focus on the attitudes and respect towards the authority. This dimension does not measure the culture’s purpose, but instead people’s perspective on power differences.Gladwell says those who are more likely to respect the hierarchy, are less likely to speak up for themselves when they need to address a problem.

Gladwell uses Hofstede’s opinion to support his claim that cultures can be easily distinguished by how much dependency they have on others. This creates the idea that ethnicity is an obstacle, but not necessarily a barrier. The author’s idea of mitigated speech, which according to Gladwell, “refers to any attempt to downplay or sugarcoat the meaning of what is being said” (Gladwell, 194) allows the reader to realize how important communication is to succeed professionally.By providing examples of mitigated speech with the “Korean Air Flight 801” and Hofstede’s framework for assessing culture he is able to make the reader realize how important communication is to success. This relates back to

Gladwell’s main claim that success is misunderstood and how to achieve it.

Gladwell provides the reader with another example of “Ratwatte’s Flight. ” He says, “what was required of Ratwatte is that he communicates, and communicate not just in the sense of issuing commands . . . haring information in the clearest and most transparent manner possible” (Gladwell, 192).

Gladwell appeals to authority with this example because it shows that Ratwatte was successful with his job by communicating with other people. The author’s strategies allow the reader to think that cultural legacies can contribute to success through one’s communication. The examples of “Korean Air Flight 801”, Hofstede’s Power Distance Index, and “Ratwatte’s Flight” gives the reader a better understanding that communication is essential to success.This creates an effective claim because Gladwell provides adequacy and strong evidence for his readers to make them see that intelligence reflects our cultural communication that can contribute to our success. One source that clarifies Gladwell’s claim is Allen’s article. This relates to chapter seven of Gladwell’s claim when he introduces Hofstede’s five dimensions of culture.

He compares Hofstede’s framework of assessing culture to a specific example of Western managers Poland. Allen introduces the term cultural friction which, “hampers the success of such international ventures, is comprised of three problematic areas based on the research ata: trust, resistance and communication” (Allen 2003).He lists the three main areas of friction as “trust - not possessing a clear understanding of what motivates the other” “resistance – not wanting to ‘give in’ to the other” and lastly, “communication – misunderstanding the message behind the work” (Allen 2003). In the data, it shows that these

Poland managers point out certain factors of the cultural friction within the relationship and work environment. The author claims that these three factors of friction are vital and important with running a company because having knowledge and intelligence on another cultures help avoid conflict.

This pertains to Gladwell’s claim on how our intelligence relates to our cultural communication which contributes to our success and how culture affects our ability to communicate. This is effective because it relates back to the examples of the “Korean Air Flight 801” and “Ratwatte’s Flight” that Gladwell provides in chapter seven which allow the reader to have a better understanding of why communication is critical to succeeding, especially in a professional environment. In an interview of Dave Chapelle by Charlie Rose, Gladwell’s claim of how practical and analytical intelligence defines success is complicated.Chapelle gives reference to an article he was reading in the New York Times Magazine about Bill Cosby for a book report.

While researching for his report he had “realized being funny is a remarkable skill” (CharlieRose, 2007). Just as Gladwell elaborates in chapter four, he defines practical knowledge as a reflection of an individual’s cultural advantages. However, Chapelle challenges Gladwell’s claim by stating, “that this guy came from nowhere and he was like a billionaire” as he made reference to his research on Bill Cosby (CharlieRose, 2007).By claiming that he had come “from nowhere” he challenges Gladwell’s claim that cultural advantages play a significant role in one’s success. Gladwell’s claims don’t support how an individual can achieve success without the factors of cultural advantages, special opportunities, nor intelligence.

As the interview continues Charlie Rose asks Chapelle whether he

had the natural instinct of being funny? He responds stating, “I have a natural ability for this, that not every guy necessarily has… some guys…who are funny work tremendously hard to be that funny. Some guys can literally just talk funny” (CharlieRose, 2007).Here we can see that practical intelligence is being refuted. By stating that he has “a natural ability for this” he directly contradicts how practical knowledge is something you are not born with. Based on the interview, Chapelle had given no reference to any cultural advantages or opportunities, rather he had made his claims solely on his preference of natural ability to define success. Gladwell’s ideas claim that many factors besides intelligence, such as opportunities, being accredited into concerted cultivation, and communication, reflect our success.

Though Gladwell provides convincing evidence in his text to support his ideas, his claims are then both complicated and supported by the sources I have provided. It is agreeable that a huge amount of success depends on what one decides to take and what opportunities one receives, whether it is support from their family or being born into a wealthy family. However, there are many more leading factors that can contribute to different levels of success than those discussed by Gladwell.