As you read Ch. 4 of Outliers in class today, follow the directions below -
First, choose three of the topics/questions below to respond to in the comments section below. Be sure to make each response a different comment.
Second, respond to the comments of three of your classmates, offering your own take or reaction to their comments.
I have left three examples for you. You may choose to respond to them if you wish.
How is Langan an “outlier”?
How is Langan an “outlier”?
What do you think is the real reason he wasn’t able to succeed? Or has he succeeded after all?
Why does Gladwell compare him to Oppenheimer?
Why does Gladwell compare him to Oppenheimer?
What is the difference between the two men?
On page 99, Gladwell notes about Oppenheimer: “He got the rest of the world to see things his way” – why is this so important to success?
What would have Oppenheimer done if he were in Langan’s shoes?
Define “practical intelligence” in your own words.
Where does practical intelligence come from?
Why would wealthier parents raise their kids differently than poor parents?
Contrast “concerted cultivation” vs. “accomplishment of natural growth.”
How can “entitlement” is a dirty word today, especially when it comes to your generations. But how can it actually be a good thing to have?
Contrast “concerted cultivation” vs. “accomplishment of natural growth.”
How can “entitlement” is a dirty word today, especially when it comes to your generations. But how can it actually be a good thing to have?
What do you think is the key difference between “Concerted cultivation” and “accomplishment of natural growth”? Why would this play such a role in their “practical intelligence” and, ultimately, their success?
What would make “concerted cultivation” so effective?
How did the parenting styles impact the lives of Langan and Oppenheimer?
Jeff, Christopher Langan’s brother, notes on page 110: “’It’s the culture you find yourself in that determines that [your success].”
· Is this true?
· To what extent?
· How does the culture you are in right now both help and limit you?
Why did the A’s of the Termites come from the middle and upper classes?
What do you make of this finding from Terman and his group of researchers listed on page 112: “The As were judged to be much more alert, poised, attractive, and well dressed. In fact, the scores on those four dimensions are so different as to make you think you are looking at two different species of humans”?
What lucky break did the Cs lack?
Why does Gladwell claim at the end of the chapters (page 115) that no one – not even geniuses – ever makes it alone?
What do you think is the real reason he wasn’t able to succeed? Or has he succeeded after all?
ReplyDeleteI think the real reason Langan wasn't able to "succeed" is that he had a built in hidden disadvantage in the form of his upbringing. The fact that his mother was not a college graduate and had a parade of father figures in his life didn't do him any favors.
Had Langan been born to wealthy, college educated parents who would haven to only recognized his talents but also made sure he got into the right college to maximize his talents, we might know him as well as we know Albert Einstein, Hawking, or Neil deGrasse Tyson.
He was also at a disadvantage as he didn't have a growth mindset. Langan has a fixed mindset. Everyone else is to blame for his misfortunes. Where does he take ownership for his own failings?
I really like the last paragraph. I agree that even though some of his misfortune may be due to someone else, there is at least some part of it that is his own fault. I also think that because he had so many father figures that were bad role models he never learned how to stand up to anyone, because in his household it would result in a beating.
DeleteHow can “entitlement” is a dirty word today, especially when it comes to your generations. But how can it actually be a good thing to have?
ReplyDeleteEntitlement is a word that definitely has negative conniptions for spoiled or arrogant children, namely millennials.
But when you are raised to have 'expectations' for yourself and your education, well then "entitlement" isn't bad. In other words, you start becoming an advocate for yourself and your education.
This is imperative, for if you don't speak up for yourself and your education, who else is going to do it?
When you go to college, if you hold yourself responsible for getting a great education (for working hard and maximizing your opportunities) and you hold your professors responsible (no cutting classes short and letting you take the easy way out of assignments), then you're going to get the most out of your education . . . regardless of where you attend.
Don't choose a school simply because "it's easy" and "I don't have to do anything."
I agree with the paragraph about college. In high school, we are constantly told, "remember that [assignment] is due" and we are walked through everything at least once, maybe more. But in college, were are given the textbook and/or syllabus, and expected to remember things on our own and to get things done without having to be told to do it. We have to be more responsible for ourselves instead of relying on people to tell us to do it.
DeleteI agree with the second sentence and following paragraph. As I think that people are too quick to judge on how someone with a fortunate background is like. They are to quick to judge and really they don't get an sympathy, thus I think they have to have this entitled mentality to survive as not many will want to listen to their problems.
DeleteWhy does Gladwell claim at the end of the chapters (page 115) that no one – not even geniuses – ever makes it alone?
ReplyDeleteFormer president Obama angered business leaders when he once remarked that none of them made it on their own.
This flies in the face of our American virtue of rugged individualism, but it's true. We all getting a helping hand one way or another.
Here is an example
1. We live in America where you can start a business tomorrow and work hard had have success.
2. We live in a society that puts an emphasis (sometimes too much) on education and the virtues of study.
3. We live in a society that (for the most part) has a social safety network.
4. You attend a school (for the most part) where your teachers care and are not willing to let you fail.
5. You attend a school where you can earn significant college credits - for free - while still in high school to give you an advantage over students who come to college with zero experience in college level classes.
And this is to just name a few of the hidden advantages we are all given or we all grew up with.
Define “practical intelligence” in your own words.
ReplyDeleteI think practical intelligence is when you have people skills, and you use your people skills in a way that you are able to get out of things, or talk others into doing what you want them to do.
This is what I think practical intelligence is and I agree with how you worded your definition.
DeleteI agree with your definition of practical intelligence. I believe, just as you have stated, it is a way to get others into doing or believing what you want them to.
DeleteI totally agree with this. I personally feel like practical intelligence is more important than IQ in many situations.
DeleteI totally agree with your definition, and to take it further i would say that it is even more important than book smarts
DeleteWhat do you think is the real reason he wasn’t able to succeed? Or has he succeeded after all?
ReplyDeleteI think the reason that Langan was unable to succeed in school is because of his past. Because he moved around so much he probably decided to keep to himself and not make any friends, because he knew he would eventually have to leave. Because of this, Langan was not able to develop any people skills, so once he got to college he wasn't able to persuade anyone to do things for him and he had a hard time communicating and connecting with people.
I think he has succeeded because he was able to teach himself and was able to pursue his passion in academics himself. I don't think that he has really succeeded because he does't have any of the academic requirements to get his knowledge out into the world and actually be used by other intellectuals.
Madison W- I agree, Langan was not able succeed because of his past. I personally feel like if Langan did not move around as much or at least had good father figure in his life, his story might have turned out differently.
DeleteI agree with you that Langan wasn't able to succeed in school because of his past. Not being in a place long enough to develop the required social skills dampened his chances at being successful in college.
DeleteI agree that him not being able to make friends changed his college experience.
DeleteI agree because Langan didn't have a stable father figure and the sort of father that he did have, they moved around a lot. If they hadn't moved around so much his people skills would've improved because he would then be forced to make friends, therefore helping him talk to his teachers in the future.
DeleteContrast “concerted cultivation” vs. “accomplishment of natural growth.”
ReplyDeleteConcerted Cultivation: this is the strategy that the rich parents use and it is where the parents are taking an active role in their child's life and is trying to raise them and get them to turn out how they want them to. They are trying to be there for the child and to teach them about the world and society.
Accomplishment of Natural Growth: This is the strategy that the poor parents use. They believe that they should not be taking an active role in their child's life and instead they should make their own life and figure it out for themselves. They see activities as fun, but not something that should be taken very seriously.
Aly
DeleteWith the accomplishment of natural growth, I think it's more that the parents lack the practical intelligence themselves, so they don't understand what they're child needs to be taught in order to succeed. It's not necessarily what they believe, but what they don't understand.
Madison Wolter
ReplyDeleteWhy does Gladwell compare him to Oppenheimer?
Gladwell compares Langan to Oppenheimer because both men are equally smart. However Oppenheimer had more advantages than Langan had disadvantages growing up as kids. Gladwell wants to show that entitlement and the way you’re raised can determined success in an individual.
I agree with this because he is just trying to prove how different geniuses can be from one another.
DeleteAly
DeleteYes! That's exactly what Gladwell is trying to do. It's just so crazy to think that they're intelligence is the same, but one didn't succeed only people he lacked the people skills to do so. It wasn't even something he could help! He couldn't just work harder: Langan already worked hard. He had no say in his success.
I totally agree that Oppenheimer was entitled and had more advantages than Langan.
DeleteI agree with this because it shows that you can be can be a genius but not have the right advantages to succeed.
DeleteMaddie
DeleteI agree with what you said about them being similar because they were both geniuses and that they differed because of the disadvantages and or advantages that one or the other had.
I agree completely with your response. Oppenheimer definitely did have more advantages over Langan and his upbringing played a key role in his success.
DeleteI agree with this. They are really good examples of showing how whether having advantages or not can affect on success.
DeleteWhat would Oppenheimer have done if he was in Langan's shoes
ReplyDeleteHe probably would have gotten worse depression and tried to poison the people that were mean to him like he did to his tutor
I agree with this statement because he would go crazy and try to poison the people because he would be out of his mind rejection.
DeleteI agree with this. Oppenheimer knew how to work and talk to people but the one disadvantage he had was accepting rejection.
DeleteI didn't think about it this way, but I do agree that he most likely would become even more depressed.
DeleteIt is interesting that you think that Oppenheimer would have had worse luck if he was in Langan's shoes, when others think he would still thrive with his practical intelligence.
DeleteMadison Wolter
ReplyDeleteWhy would wealthier parents raise their kids differently than poor parents?
Wealthier parents want their kids to understand that they have a place in the world, they want to see their kids become successful in life. Wealthy families do not have to worry about survival compared to poor parents. Therefore they can invest more time in their child’s life. Poor parents often have to work harder to have enough to just get by, they don’t have enough time to see the potential their child has.
I agree with you. As a rich parent, they wouldn't have all of the extra worries that a poor parent would, like money and bills, so they have more time to be active in their kids' lives.
DeleteI agree that poor parents may not have the time to pay attention to their child succeeding or not.
DeleteMaddie
DeleteI agree with what you said about poorer families having to work way harder than wealthy families. Therefore, they have way more time to invest in their children and be active in their lives.
I completely agree with what you have said, as most poor families would be overly focused on trying to get out of the state that they are in where a wealthier family would have the luxury of looking to the future for their kids.
DeleteWhy does Gladwell compare him to Oppenheimer?
ReplyDelete- He compares the two because they are both geniuses, but could not be more different. He uses them as examples that people from opposite ends of the world can still be geniuses.
What is the difference between the two men?
- I think the biggest difference between the two men is how they handled the things that didn’t quite go their way. Langan was treated unfair and he handled it well, where Oppenheimer didn’t get his way and then tried poisoning his professor.
What would have Oppenheimer done if he were in Langan’s shoes?
- I think Oppenheimer would have either not been able to handle the rejection, or he would have gone psycho and one way or another made the people give him his way.
I agree with what you said in your third statement. I think that if Oppenheimer would have been in Langan's shoes he would have been able to change the classes to night classes, but he probably wouldn't be there in the first place because he would still be at Reed with a full scholarship.
DeleteMaddie
DeleteI agree Hailey, Oppenhiemer reacted very badly to the situation at hand. However, I would have liked to see Langen stand up for himself more rather than just let the college walk all over him.
I agree with this statement, Oppenheimer reacted very badly to the situation.
Delete-On page 99, Gladwell notes about Oppenheimer: “He got the rest of the world to see things his way” – why is this so important to success?
ReplyDeleteGetting people to see things your way is important to success because if you can’t get anyone to listen to what you have to say and think about it, then how are you supposed to make an impact? In order to be successful, you have to get others to consider what you say because that’s when it starts to make a difference.
Raegan: I totally agree! People seeing your way is so important in trying to succeed
DeleteI agree with what you're saying. Langan doesn't have the talking skills to express his ideas, he instead blames it on other people. While Oppenheimer knows how to talk to people and get what he wants.
DeleteI agree with what you said, having the aility to make people see your side of the story is invaluable skill to have. It is almost the key to working as a team or with someone if you want your ideas to get through.
Delete-Define “practical intelligence” in your own words.
ReplyDelete“Practical intelligence” is is an ability someone has, whether they do it consciously or not, where they are able to talk their way out of a situation. For example, someone who never gets into too much trouble because they can talk their way out of the consequence. They somehow know what to say, when to say it, how to say it, and who to say it to.
Aly
DeleteI agree, but I also think that there's more to it than that. I think that it has a lot to do with the social skills that you are taught as a child. It's the ability to talk your way out of things, but also be able to negotiate with authoritative figures to your advantage. For instance, how some students are able to ask for an assignment extension and others can't. It's something you learn from your parents and takes great amounts of people skills.
-“Entitlement” is a dirty word today, especially when it comes to your generations. But how can it actually be a good thing to have?
ReplyDeleteEntitlement can be a good thing to have because it gives someone the ability to speak up for themselves, to make their voices heard, and to easily question someone in authority (in a polite way, of course). This entitlement gave them comfort in in settings that would have been intimidating to many others, like an institutional setting.
Madison W- I agree with Kylie, we often think of being entitled is way of saying a person is snobbish and one of those rich kids we see in the movies. But if you are not entitled to something in life, you will struggle with having your voice being heard.
DeleteMadison Wolter
ReplyDeleteWhat is the difference between the two men?
Oppenheimer grew up privileged. He also had more skills compared to Langan. For example Oppenheimer had great people skills unlike Langan who struggled to get his morning classes switched to afternoon classes. Oppenheimer poisoned his teacher only to receive probation and was required to go see a psychiatrist. Oppenheimer knew how to work with other people and had a growth mindset. Langan was the opposite.
I agree with this statement. I think that their social skills was their main difference. I believe if they would have had the same social skills they would have both accomplished amazing things and been compared to each other more often.
DeleteI agree. Oppenheimer really had a way with people and Langan was just missing that trait.
DeleteRaegan: This is such an important thing to think about! everything in Oppenheimer's life was preparing him to be successful unlike Langan.
DeleteI agree with this statement and if they had eqaul traits they both would've been very successful
DeleteAly
ReplyDeleteDefine practical intelligence in your own words.
Practical intelligence is the real life skills that you learn, or observe, from your parents. You see it in people who ask questions when they don’t understand something, request help when they need it, and clarify instructions to make sure they do something right. These are all things that are taught to us, not things that we inherit from our parents.
Aly
ReplyDeleteContrast “concerted cultivation” vs. “accomplishment of natural growth”.
Concerted cultivation is when children work with parents and other authoritative figures to get ahead in, and understand, certain situations. This skill allows those students to succeed in anything that they go on to do. You have to have a certain amount of people skills to do well in your future college, job, and family.
Aly
ReplyDeleteHow did the parenting styles impact the lives of Langan and Oppenheimer?
Langan was raised in a difficult home where he had to do everything on his own. He had to get a job, defend his family, and make it to college all on his own. His mom and dad didn’t teach him the practical intelligence he needed in order to succeed, which is sad. Oppenheimer, being raised in a wealthy family with concerted cultivation, was able to acquire the communication and people skills he needed to do the things he did. It required a large amount of charm, only acquired through learning, to get people to see things the way he saw them. Langan living in a poor house and having to everything on his own led to him being “unsuccessful.” Oppenheimer’s wealthy childhood was the cause of his incredible success in the nuclear bomb.
Raegan: This is so true! Langan wasn't coddled and he wasn't able to learn those skills that Oppenheimer had.
DeleteDefine “practical intelligence” in your own words.
ReplyDeleteI think practical intelligence is being able to talk to people and know when to talk. It's being able to know whats appropriate or not.
I agree with this. Oppenheimer definitely had practical intelligence and he used this to his advantage to talk his way out of situations.
Delete
DeleteI 100% agree Emelia. Oppenheimer had practical intelligence and used it to his advantage
The difference between the two men,
ReplyDeletePeople actually cared about Oppenheimer growing up and in adulthood. Nobody cared about Langan or his intelligence. They had different successes in their brilliances.
This is very true and it is sad to know that Langan slipped away just because he didn't graduate college
Delete^Myles
DeleteWhat would have Oppenheimer done if he were in Langan’s shoes?
ReplyDeleteI think Oppenheimer would have been able to convince the professors to see things from his point of view and would have succeeded in getting the later class if he had been in Langan’s shoes. Langen just didn’t have the ability that Oppenheimer did to convince people so he ended up getting treated poorly.
I agree with you, Oppenheimer would've have been able to get the classes changed because he was set on succeeding whereas Langan didn't.
DeleteDefine “practical intelligence” in your own words.
ReplyDelete“Practical intelligence” in my words is the ability to talk yourself out of a situation. If you have practical intelligence you have the ability to get what you want just by using the right words with the right people.
How did the parenting styles impact the lives of Langan and Oppenheimer?
ReplyDeleteOppenheimer was taught growing up to speak his mind and he had the sense of concerted cultivation. This led him to be more personable as an adult while still being well respected. Langan, on the other hand, was raised under poor circumstances. He didn’t have the sense of entitlement that Oppenheimer did which ended up hurting him as he grew up and didn’t know how to act around others with more authority.
It is so stupid that just because he was unable to act around others with more authority, he wasn't as successful as he could've been and will never get out his ideas because he didn't graduate college
Delete^myles
DeleteDefine “practical intelligence” in your own words.
ReplyDeleteI think that practical intelligence is knowing how to communicate with people. Knowing when or when not to say something to a person, or knowing how to talk a person into doing something.
What lucky break did the Cs lack?
ReplyDeleteThey lacked that community around them that would've prepared them for the world the right way. The A's grew up in a wealthy community and had better advantages whereas the C's lacked that advantage.
Myles
DeleteI agree with this and it is sad knowing that, that is why they failed. It is almost as if your life is predetermined and those impoverished will never change their history
Why does Gladwell claim at the end of the chapters (page 115) that no one – not even geniuses – ever makes it alone?
ReplyDeleteEverybody has different opportunities, different advantages, different family backgrounds. One way or another one of those things had an impact on that persons life. It might not have been noticed along the way but every choice that you make has to do with the advantages that you did or did not have, where you grew up, or the people that have influenced you. Nobody can ever make it on their own.
Myles Johnson
ReplyDeleteWhy did the A’s of the Termites come from the middle and upper classes?
Because their family raised them to be entitled and were actively involved in their lives. They also were able to have better advantages and resources.
Myles Johnson
ReplyDeleteWhat is the difference between the two men?
Langen comes from a household that was impoverished and never really had a father figure and was very independent, where as Oppenheimer come from a wealthy family and supported him
Myles Johnson
ReplyDeleteWhy does Gladwell compare him to Oppenheimer?
Gladwell compares Langen to Oppenheimer because both are dubbed as geniuses. One had a life full of advantages (Oppenheimer), while the other had disadvantages (Langen). Gladwell compared the two because Oppenheimer was able to become a “success” due to his advantage of being entitled, practical intelligence, and from how his family raised him.
Maddie Oistad
ReplyDeleteGladwell compares Langen to Oppenhimer because they are both incredibly smart. Langen was considered to be a genius but because of his upbringing never became as successful as Oppenhimer.
It was their difference in opportunities that separated them.
DeleteWhat lucky break did the Cs lack?
ReplyDeleteThe C group were just as smart as the A and B groups. However, they missed out on the the hidden advantages that A and B had. They were lacking in things such as being wealthy, well known, and entitled.
^^ Maddie Oistad
DeleteMaddie
ReplyDeleteWhat would have Oppenheimer done if he were in Langan’s shoes?
I would assume, because of his upbringing, Oppenhiemer would have reacted way differently to the unfortunate circumstances that were thrown Langen's way. I am sure he would have stood up for himself and protested the college not giving him a scholarship or would have demanded to have his morning and afternoon class switched.
Question #1: Why does Gladwell compare him to Oppenheimer?
ReplyDelete- Gladwell compare Oppenheimer to Langan because both men are identical. They are both extremely smart men but there is one big difference between the two. Oppenheimer has something called practical intelligence. He know how to get what he wants essentially. Oppenheimer used this to obtain his success. Maybe if Langan had practical intelligence his story would have ended up different too.
Question #2: What would have Oppenheimer done if he were in Langan’s shoes?
ReplyDelete- Oppenheimer, without a doubt, would have talked himself out of this mess. Oppenheimer can make people see the world the way he sees it, so he would have inevitably been able to let the colleges know that he is a genius and that he needs to attend their college.
People skills are almost as important if not more important then IQ.
DeleteQuestion #3: How did the parenting styles impact the lives of Langan and Oppenheimer?
ReplyDelete- Langan's parenting style definitely hindered him on his road to success, although he still got there. His parents taught him to resent authority and to be independant, which you cannot do today. Oppenheimer's parenting style was a key to his future success. It helped him stand out, get what he wanted, and stay out of what could be a lot of trouble.
Ale Abeyta
DeleteThis is very well stated. Hearing it from another perspective other than the books really helps me understand how their background really helped influence the two men.
Breanna Wienen
ReplyDelete1. What would have Oppenheimer done if he were in Langan’s shoes?
He probably would’ve struggled and possibling tried to poison someone like he did to his tutor. When they made him go to that class he hated it and poisoned his tutor and maybe if he got super stressed he wouldn’t be able to handle Langan’s situation.
2. Define “practical intelligence” in your own words.
The ability to talk yourself out of things and knowing when to say something about the effect it will have.
3. Why would wealthier parents raise their kids differently than poor parents?
Wealthier parents try and can supply their children with anything they need. The poor parent want the best for their children but can’t supply their kids with the things they need.
Raegan
ReplyDelete1.How is Langan an “outlier”?
He is basically a double outlier. First he is a genius, which sets him apart from all other people. But also all of his opportunities and things in his life were basically not helping him succeed in ways most people do.
2.Define “practical intelligence” in your own words.
Practical intelligence is when you are able to convince people in your life and around you to get what you want. You also don’t even have to be smart all need to be able to do is persuade someone.
3.Why does Gladwell claim at the end of the chapters (page 115) that no one – not even geniuses – ever makes it alone?
Because you could be so smart but that wouldn’t matter if people don’t understand how you think or how you work. If you can’t connect with people then you will never succeed in the way you think.
What do you think is the real reason he wasn’t able to succeed? Or has he succeeded after all?
ReplyDeleteI think that because of his upbringing he was severely disadvantaged. As a child Gladwell says that he had grow to resent authority because of his dad, so he really never got the chance to learn how to deal with some one in a place of authority. All he could do was accept it and try to do everything on his own as he had for the early part of his life. Another reason was the fact that no one in his family had gone to college so they didn't know how to fill out the scholarship and work out financial aid. His brother Mike testified to this as when he wanted to get financial aid he had no idea as no one taught him.
I agree. I think his background put him as a disadvantage. There's no denying that if he had learned the talking skills he needed and didn't distrust authority, his outcome would be different
DeleteWhy does Gladwell compare him to Oppenheimer?
ReplyDeleteI think that Gladwell compares Langan to Oppenheimer, because they are so similar in IQ and how most people would think that they are the same. He really use them to compare how IQ is not enough and that you have to have something else to achieve success. In Oppenheimer's cases it was his people skills that really got him to where he was. It was this skill that Langan lacked that was his down fall, and really hinded him from achieving the success most would think that should just come to someone of that level of IQ.
What would have Oppenheimer done if he were in Langan’s shoes?
ReplyDeleteOppenheimer, as someone with great people skills, would have been able to breeze through the problems that Langan had. When it came to having the problem with his scholarship he most likely been able to talk his way out of this situation as he could have explained with great skill that his mother had just not know what to do and gotten a better outcome. On the case of changing his classes in the morning to an afternoon class this would have been an ease to Oppenheimer as he could have explained and convinced they administrators that he really did need to change his classes and that his F's on his transcript was not his fault. But with the advantages that Oppenheimer had he would never had those problems in the first place as his parents would have been able to fill out the scholarship information, thus nullifying the previous two predicaments.
What do you think is the real reason he wasn’t able to succeed? Or has he succeeded after all?
ReplyDeleteIt’s a shame that all his potential success is put to waste because of stupid reasons he could have avoided. When his mother didn’t fill out the scholarship information, but it’s not his mom’s job to remember things for him. He needs to understand that he can’t blame others because he doesn’t have his PhD, and that’s the reason why he can’t succeed.
What is the difference between the two men?
ReplyDeleteOppenheimer has something that Langan will never have: talking skills. Oppenheimer was able to get away from attempting to poison his teacher. On the other hand, Langan was incapable of telling his calculus teacher that he was good at calculus.
Ale Abeyta
DeleteI don't think you could've answered this any better. You were very straight forward and out out the facts!
Why does Gladwell compare him to Oppenheimer?
ReplyDeleteGladwell compares Langan to Oppenheimer because they’re the best examples of showing how the smallest difference between two geniuses decided who became successful and who didn’t.
To add to this: it's also interesting to see how their different backgrounds affected their success. Langan's distrust of authority played part in him not going as far as Oppenheimer
DeleteWhy does Gladwell compare him to Oppenheimer?
ReplyDeleteBecause both of them as children were extraordinarily intelligent and both had a lot of potential. The difference is that Langan didn't have the same opportunities as Oppenheimer. he grew up poor and rural while oppenheimer grew up rich and suburban.
Define “practical intelligence” in your own words.
ReplyDeletePractical intelligence is basically your people skills. It's how well you communicate with others as well as how convincing you are.
Dayle Dahlen-
ReplyDeleteWhat is the difference between the two men?
Oppenheimer was able to get what he wanted out of the world by manipulating people to see things his way, while Langon wasn’t able to get anything he wanted, even if it was something that others were given Langon didn’t get any help.
This is a really good and simple way of putting this.
DeleteDayle Dahlen-
ReplyDelete“He got the rest of the world to see things his way,” why is this important to success?
This is important because in order to succeed a person needs people to support them, success is not achieved alone, other people need to help.
Ale Abeyta
DeleteI agree with what you said. You're totally right. People don't succeed alone. Like I said in my topics, people influence or impact people in someway shape or form.
Dayle Dahlen-
ReplyDeleteWhat would have Oppenheimer done if he were in Langan’s shoes?
Oppenheimer would have found a way to keep the scholarship, and if he had not been able to do that he would have been able to get his classes changed from morning to evening classes.
Why did the A’s of the Termites come from the middle and upper classes?
ReplyDeleteI was all about how their parent raised them. They did thing to the best of their ability and changed the surrounding to fit them.
I think also that money is an advantage. Money can make your life easier. In this case that the A's became A's because they had a family with money behind them to help get them where they needed to be.
DeleteAle Abeyta
ReplyDelete3 Topics/ Questions:
Why did the A’s of the Termites come from the middle and upper classes?
1. Their homes were willed with books and Half of the fathers of the A group has a college degree or beyond.
What lucky break did the Cs lack?
2. A community around them that prepared them properly for the world. They C’s were squandered talent.
Why does Gladwell claim at the end of the chapters (page 115) that no one – not even geniuses – ever makes it alone?
3. Because it’s true. Everyone in someway or another has had someone either help them, influence them, or impact them on their journey. They really do never make it alone no matter what anyone says or think.
What do you think is the real reason he wasn’t able to succeed? Or has he succeeded after all?
ReplyDeleteFirst, I think that success can depend on how you interpret it. Some may think that Langan failed because he didn’t come to his full potential. Some may also think that he did succeed because he lives the life that makes him happy. I think that Langan wasn’t able to succeed/come to his full potential because of his upbringing. He had a drunken step-father so he resented authority and was distrustful. These factors ultimately came to hurt him because no one recognized his talent.
Why would wealthier parents raise their kids differently than poor parents?
ReplyDeleteWealthy parents raise their children different because they have the funds to create a more interesting life for their kids. Wealthy kids end up being “entitled” because they have all that need and more. Children from poor backgrounds end up different from the wealthy kids because they don’t have the same opportunities. Their parents cannot give them everything they want (not because they wouldn’t but because they don’t have the means to do so). Some talents end up squandered because they have nothing pushing them to do more with it.
How can “entitlement” is a dirty word today, especially when it comes to your generations. But how can it actually be a good thing to have?
ReplyDeleteEntitlement has a negative connotation because it also goes with the idea of being spoiled. It can be a good thing because it can help a person go after their hopes and dreams. It can also help someone speak up for themselves.